Randy Engel's massive book, The Rite of Sodomy, which was published in 2006, is an exhaustive examination of the history of the devil's infiltration into the ranks of the Church's hierarchy and clergy historically. The corruption of true bishops and priests in the decades before the “Second” Vatican Council made possible the triumph of the lavender spirit at the council and, quite especially, made its presence felt on the Consilium that planned the artificial construct of the ever-changing Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that was designed of its nature to eliminate most references to sin, hell and to the reality of God’s Judgment on souls.
Saint Peter Damian was particularly unstinting in his condemnation of the vile crimes against the the Sixth and Ninth Commandments committed by bishops and priests in his own day. His prescriptions for dealing with the problem were very severe, causing a great deal of controversy. Pope Leo IX more or less confirmed the prescriptions, starting the process of weeding out the offenders and exhorting clerics to strive for the heights of personal sanctity. Clerical corruption remained, of course, for some time thereafter. The remnants of the pestilence were not fully eradicated, at least for a time, until the great saint of Assisi, Giovanni di Bernadone, otherwise known as Francis, helped to bring about a reform of the entire Church by his life of austere poverty, Eucharistic piety and deep devotion to the Mother of God, aided in no small measure by his learned contemporary, Father Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order Preachers.
We are living in a time very much different than that of Saint Peter Damian, especially since Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who dared to take the name of the holy Saint Francis, who practice the sort of mortifications at which the Argentine Apostate has long scoffed, has indemnified every variation of sodomy imagine.
How many priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures have called for severe punishments of clergy/pseudo-clergy steeped in the vice of unnatural perversion against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments?
How many “bishops” in the conciliar structures have ever done so?
Indeed, as has been documented on this site as well as on others, the so-called “Francis Revolution” has resulted in a veritable “coming out” of “bishops” who believe that sodomy and its related vices are signs of “love” and that what is thought to be the Catholic Church should “bless” sodomite “marriages” and “civil unions.”
The situation is so bad the conciliar “bishops” of Malta last year denounced a lay group, Maltese Catholics United for the Faith, for placing an advertisement against sodomite “marriage” that they, the “bishops,” termed propaganda rather than a simple statement of Catholic truth:
MALTA, May 24, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Catholic faithful in Malta have published a full page add in a widely read paper defending real marriage against “unnatural” homosexual “marriage” in the lead-up to the country’s June 3 general election.
The country’s bishops, however, have criticized the ad as “propaganda.”
The ad, published in the May 21 edition of MaltaToday by “Maltese Catholics United for the Faith,” states that the sanctity of marriage must be respected.
“We respect everyone, be they teachers, nuns, gays, immigrants, or self-employed…Respect is at the heart of it all. But the sanctity of marriage, between husband and wife, doesn’t grant a right to everyone to marry anyone,” the ad states.
The group's ad criticizes the country’s two political parties vying for leadership for “incrementally beef[ing] up their standing at the ballot box by promising or enacting gay marriage laws for the 1%.”
“Same-sex marriage is unnatural. It runs against natural law as designed by God and handed down to us through every generation in our Maltese history,” states the ad.
“This is why we take a stand for marriage as a union between husband and wife. If we don't take a public stand about what marriage is, our political parties will corrupt its meaning and enforce what it shouldn’t be. The main electoral programs are glorifying sin, and no sin should be placed in the spotlight and glorified,” the group states in the ad.
The Archdiocese of Malta, run by Archbishop Charles Scicluna, took issue with the ad.
“The Archdiocese of Malta categorically states that, while respecting the right of freedom of expression of every person or any other entity, it is not in any way involved with the propaganda by the Maltese Catholics United for the Faith,” the archdiocese stated on its website May 23.
Archbishop Scicluna did not respond to LifeSiteNews' request for comment by press time.
It remains illegal in the predominantly Catholic country of Malta for two people of the same-sex to “marry,” although same-sex civil unions have been recognized since 2014. The Catholic Church, following the Bible, teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and that the homosexual inclination itself is “objectively disordered.”
The group behind the ad is urging Catholics to “defend the sanctity of marriage” by not voting for homosexual “marriage,” “even if it means not voting at all.”
“Instead, take a stand for traditional marriage. Don’t compromise your faith at the altar of a diabolical political system. Call the Devil for what he truly is and embrace God instead,” the ad states.
“Our corrupt politicians think they are free to live as they choose, but they are not free to redefine Marriage for the rest of us,” it adds. (Maltese Catholics Accused of Propaganda by Conciliar "Bishops".)
It should be remembered that “Archbishop” Charles Scicluna once served at the “promoter of justice” in the misnamed conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Scicluna used this position in 2010 to come to the rescue of the then reigning universal public face of apostasy, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, when evidence emerged that the latter had, as the “archbishop” of Munich and Freising, approved the transfer of a clerical abuser, “Father” Peter Peter Huelmann:
Defenders of all things Benedict are trying every which way to exculpate him for the reassignment of a perverted priest from the Diocese of Essen, Germany, to a parish in the then "Archbishop" Joseph Ratzinger's Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, where the priest was supposed to undergo "therapy" but wound up being reassigned to parish work almost immediately after his arrival in Munich in 1980 without any "therapy" whatsoever beforehand:
The pontiff -- then Joseph Ratzinger -- jointly agreed to the priest undergoing therapy at a rectory in the diocese of Munich and Freising, where he was archbishop from 1977 to 1981.
However, rather than sending the priest for therapy as had been agreed, the diocese's then general vicar, Gerhard Gruber, assigned him to a Munich parish without restrictions. Gruber took full responsibility for the decision. (German Church apologizes, vows action on abuse; see also Psychiatrist Says Church Was Warned About Priest.)
Even one of the false "pontiff's" staunchest defenders, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, who supervises the review of recidivist abusers at the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after their cases have been handled at the diocesan or archdiocesan levels, has left the door open just a tiny bit for the possibility, however remote in his mind, that Ratzinger/Benedict may have had some knowledge of the reassignment for which Monsignor Gerhard Gruber is now taking "full responsibility:"
Although last week the auxiliary bishop who approved the priest’s return to pastoral work stepped down, some have raised questions about Benedict’s responsibility in the matter.
“It depends what you mean by responsible,” Monsignor Scicluna said. “If he was involved in the decision, he would be. If he was not involved, it’s a responsibility that comes from his office, a ‘the buck stops here’ sort of thing.’ But I think that the person concerned has already taken responsibility for what he did; the answer to that question has already been given.” (Benedict to Address Abuse in Letter.)
This was not exactly a complete and unequivocal denial of the then "Archbishop" Ratzinger's knowledge of the reassignment of the perverted priest. Just because an "answer" has been given does not mean that is accurate.
The late President Richard Milhous Nixon gave "answers" aplenty to questions about his involvement of the illegal covert activity associated with the name "Watergate."
The very much alive former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton gave lots of "answers" to questions about Whitewater and Chinagate and Monicagate that were at variance with the truth. "It depends what the meaning is is." That was an "answer."
The mere fact that a gratuitous answer to a question has been given by one who has a vested interest in protecting the reputation of another, in this case the putative "pontiff," does not necessarily "answer" all questions about a subject. It is eminently reasonable to assume that the then conciliar Archbishop of Munich and Freising knew about the transfer after the fact, if not before, and had not a single problem in the world with its being made.
Things have only gotten worse in the past eight years, four months as the rot produced by the promotion of sodomy within the counterfeit church of conciliarism reaches from the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River to almost every single diocese and institution under the control of the conciliar revolutionaries, noting a very few exceptions here and there.
The situation is so entirely out-of-control and in the grip of the adversary that a conciliar presbyter in the Federal Republic of Germany actually “blessed” a sodomite “marriage” last year:
Wesel. The Mayor of Emmerich, Peter Hinze (SPD), is marrying his life-partner, Hubertus Pooth, from Wesel-Bislich. Not only that — but this will be celebrated in the Catholic Church in Bislich. Father Sühling wants “to ask God’s blessing for people who are living in a relationship”. By Sebastian Peters
It is an unusual step the Catholic priest is taking there: Stefan Sühling technically holds a reputation for being a conservative clergyman. And yet, in the near future, he will hold a liturgy of the word on the occasion of the wedding of two men. In the past week, the mayor of Emmerich, Peter Hinze [of the Social Democrat Party, SPD], made his wedding plans public. For a while already he had been living in a civil partnership with Hubertus Pooth, a restaurant owner in Bislich.
On September 30, the 57-year old Hinze and his partner wish to pledge their troth at the Falkenstein Estate in Emmerich Hüthum. Both also want to celebrate the event in the Catholic Church that day — taking into consideration the fact that the Church does not confer the sacrament of matrimony on same-sex couples.
“My partner is closely connected with the Church. He was an altar boy and lives next to the [local] church,” Emmerich’s mayor Hinze told our editorial staff yesterday. Consequently, inquiries were made with Fr. Sühling regarding the possibility of being present at church that day. According to Hinze, there will basically be a kind of liturgy of the word, in which the wedding party and guests will participate.
Not the Sacrament of Matrimony
The church of St. John in the small village of Bislich belongs to the parish of St. Nicholas Wesel. Such a religious service would be unusual enough in the city — it is all the more so in a village. Fr. Sühling says: “It is a religious service in which they both take part”. At the same time he emphasizes that he will not be conferring the sacrament of matrimony, that it will not be a church wedding in the proper sense. He will be asking God to bless people who live in relationships, he says. He is not seeking to make a big deal of it, he just doesn’t want to reject a request by people who see themselves connected to God. Any directives by the diocese are being heeded, Suhling says.
In a sermon at the cathedral of Münster, the diocese’s Bishop Felix Genn had made remarks concerning “Marriage for All” [the German “gay marriage” law] two days after the resolution of the Bundestag [German parliament]: “As church we will continue to take an unambiguous stand for marriage being between a man and a woman, without signifying any discrimination towards homosexual persons by [using] the term ‘civil partnership’, by which we simply designate a different reality.” In the Catholic Church, there are no weddings or ceremonies of blessing for same-sex couples.
Peter Hinze hesitates when being asked whether he is a believer. “When I am in church I always light a candle.” Involving the church is “more the wish of my partner”. Hinze does say, however: “If it isn’t possible to change church from the top, then it is still important, though, to show at the base that we live in different times than we did 20 years ago. The least is to receive a blessing in church”.
The wedding on the Falkenstein Estate will take place one day before the legislative change to allow “Marriage for All” goes into effect and same-sex people are officially allowed to marry. After October 1, the “partnership” will be officially rewritten, Hinze says. He had been thinking for a long time about coming out about his partnership with a man. Ultimately, he took this step because he also wanted to encourage others who love those of the same sex not to keep hidden. Hinze had before been married to a woman and has a son. He has known about his homosexuality since 2004. He was afraid to come out.
The coming-out of the chief mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit, has been helpful in these times, Hinze says. Fellow party members gave him strength. He has a very good relationship with his ex-wife and son. Hubertus Pooth and Peter Hinze have known each other for eleven years. They had seen one another on and off before they fell in love three years ago. The two do not make a big deal about their relationship in public. Pooth, being a restaurant owner, is very involved in Bislich, but now and again, he accompanies Hinze at New Year’s receptions.
No one loves another human being authentically if he does or says anything that impedes the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. Sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Attraction to one’s own gender, though not a sin in itself, is unnatural, and the desire for physical “comfort” or physical “closeness” with a person of the same gender is twisted and perverted. To quote the late Father John Joseph “Jackie Boy” Sullivan, whose legendary priestly exploits was chronicled in Jackie Boy Remembered Yet Again (please read this personal remembrance of my late seminary professor and friend if you have not done so in the past):
Look, I don’t want to find any of you gorillas gawking at other gorillas. If I even suspect that you like gorillas and want to have long hugs with them, I am going to boot your butt out of here. There is no place in this man’s priesthood for effeminacy, the effeminate and queers. None. Do I make myself clear?
A priest is to receive his support from the One to whom his immortal soul is conformed at his ordination. Men who act like girls and expect other men to act like girls are unfit for Holy Orders, and any of you who think otherwise better get out of here before I find out. In my day at The Rock [Saint Bernard’s Seminary in Rochester, New York, in the late-1930], two seminarians found in the same room with the door closed were expelled without questioning. Prima facie proof of sodomy. No questions asked. Guess what? I am still in favor of that rule.
This is no longer the case in conciliar seminaries, and it is not at all uncommon for men who are practicing sodomites to be installed as conciliar presbyters despite “official policies” from Rome to the contrary. Those policies are largely to mollify “conservatives” as they are honored, at least for the most part in, in the breach.
Consider, for example, the case of four “ordained” transitional deacons for the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, who were caught in the act of sodomy at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, Emmitsburg, Maryland, in the Fall of 1980. Three of the men were “ordained” to the conciliar presbyterate while one, who was “laicized,” later died of AIDS. Thus, you see, that a history of indisputably documented participation in sodomy and its related vices does not mean one is automatically disqualified from the conciliar presbyterate nor being elevated at a later date to the conciliar hierarchy.
We need look only at a developing story involving Commissar Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez’s auxiliary “bishop” in the Archdiocese of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Juan Jose Pineda, who has had to resign because he was a systematic abuser of seminarians:
Vatican City, Jul 20, 2018 CNA/EWTN News.- Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Juan José Pineda, auxiliary bishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, following a Vatican investigation into accusations of financial mismanagement and sexual misconduct against seminarians.
The bishop, 57, has long been the subject of accusations of financial misdealings, as well as rumors that he offered support to a male companion using archdiocesan funds. He serves under papal advisor and archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, who has also been accused of financial misconduct.
In March, the National Catholic Register reported that two former seminarians had also submitted personal testimonies to the Vatican accusing Pineda of sexual assault and of attempting unwanted sexual relations.
The July 20 announcement of Pineda’s resignation provided no explanation, stating only that it had been accepted by Pope Francis.
At the pope’s request, in May 2017, the Vatican carried out an investigation into the allegations of financial mismanagement within the archdiocese and the sexual misconduct allegations involving Bishop Pineda.
In an email interview with CNA in December 2017, Maradiaga confirmed there was an apostolic visit made to Pineda but defended the bishop, saying Pineda himself “asked the Holy Father for an apostolic visit, in order to clear his name.
Maradiaga, who is head of the pope’s Council of Cardinals and one of Francis’ closest advisors, also denied any financial wrongdoing on his own part, calling a report by Italian weekly L’Espresso published Dec. 21, 2017, “defamatory” and “half-truths, that are in the end the worse lies.”
The L’Espresso article said Maradiaga was accused of receiving $600,000 from the University of Tegucigalpa in 2015, as a sort of “salary” for being the chancellor of the University, and that the cardinal had lost nearly $1.2 million of Church funds through investments in some London financial companies.
The papal investigation was carried out by Argentine Bishop Alcides Jorge Pedro Casaretto, who, according to L’Espresso, interviewed staff of the archdiocese and university, as well as seminarians, priests and the cardinal’s driver and secretary.
Allegations against Pineda include the building of an apartment on the campus of the Catholic University of Honduras to house a male companion. According to the Register, the two seminarians who accused Pineda of unwanted sexual advances also claimed that he took punitive action against them after his advances were not accepted.
Pineda, who was auxiliary bishop of Tegucigalpa from 2005, had been overseeing the archdiocese since January, while Maradiaga is in the U.S. to receive treatment for prostate cancer.
Born in Tegucigalpa in 1960, Pineda is a member of the Missionary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious order. He was ordained a priest in 1988. (Commissar Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez's Auxiliary Gets The Boott.)
No one knew about Juan Jose Pineda’s abuse until now?
The story is always the same with the conciliar revolutionaries. Always. Indeed, there is a pattern to how these stories evolve over time.
We have seen the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums engage in all manner of self-exculpatory "spinning" to deny the scope and extent of the clerical abuse that they had suborned for decades. This has been the standard modus operandi of the conciliar "bishops" and their factotums when caught up in the vast web of the clerical abuse scandals:
(1) Denials that anything occurred
(2) Attempts to claim that they were “framed” or “set-up.”
(3) Accusations that the victims have been lying.
(4) Efforts to intimidate the victims and their family members/friends/supporters with threats of lawsuits, sometimes threatened by chancery officials or attorneys for insurance companies in the employ of a diocese or religious community.
(5) Numerous threats to publicly humiliate the accusers with a recitation of their own sins and faults.
As we have seen, this policy of denial and intimidation and browbeating backfired about ten years ago when problems that had been reported for a long time before that in The Wanderer, among other publications, began to see the light of day in the secular media. The conciliar church has had to pay out over $2 billion in compensatory and punitive damages to victims as a result of the systematic protection and promotion of the predators while the victims were intimidated, stonewalled and browbeaten.
Cover-ups usually unravel, however. They unravel because the liars can’t keep their lies straight. They plot and they scheme and they conspire. However, sooner or later, the Master of Lies and the Prince of Darkness with whom they have been allied, whether wittingly or unwittingly, betrays them to their own dim wits to be humiliated publicly, hoping that such people will fall into the depths of despair and that the scandals they have so caused so needlessly and so selfishly will demoralize and depress Catholics into quitting the practice of the Faith and to reaffirm non-Catholics in their hatred of It.
Such was the case of the corrupt predator named Daniel Leo Ryan, who was conciliar “bishop” of Springfield, Illinois, from 1983 to 1999. A product of the homosexual stronghold known as the Diocese of Joliet under “Bishop” Joseph Imesch, himself a product of the epicenter of what Mrs. Randy Engel calls the “Homosexual Collective,” the Archdiocese of Detroit, Ryan consorted with males who trafficked themselves and abused at least two of his priests. He engaged in indescribably horrific behavior with them. He told them that they could always go to confession to him if “things went too far,” demonstrating that he had no concept of the horror of sin in general and the particular horror represented by enticing a person into the commission of a Mortal Sin by presuming that God will give them the Actual Grace to have true contrition and firm purpose of amendment for it after the fact of its commission.
A courageous layman, Mr. Stephen G. Brady, who had founded an organization called Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., was approached by the two priests who had been abused by Ryan. These men presented Brady with credible evidence of abuse. Brady thereupon wrote to Ryan in November of 1996 to demand his resignation lest the charges be made public. Ryan did not respond. The Vatican Nuncio in Washington, D.C., "Archbishop" Agostino Cacciavillan not only did not respond to an attorney’s letter about the abuse. Cacciavillan betrayed the names to the two abused presbyters to Daniel Leo Ryan himself! (This prompted a courageous layman and ex-Marine, Frank Kelly, the head of the no-exceptions Virginia Right to Life, an organization that has no links to the National Not-So-Right-Life Committee, to confront Cacciavillan outside of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, District of Columbia, in November of 1997, as many of us were praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary for the conversion of the conciliar "bishops" who were gathered inside for their semi-annual gathering against the Holy Faith. Mr. Kelly, who takes no prisoners, walked wight up to Cacciavillan and poked his fingers right at his chest, saying, "You belong in jail for what you did to protect Daniel Ryan." Cacciavillan scampered into his car in great fright.)
I was approached with the matter shortly after Brady wrote his letter to Ryan, informing the editor of The Wanderer, Mr. Alphonse J. Matt, Jr., about it. Mr. Matt wanted to send the information to the Congregation for the Bishops in the Vatican (this was during the days of my being an “indult Catholic, if you will, before I came to understand the true State of Church in 2005 and 2006, although I knew that conciliar “popes” defected from the Faith in many ways, being unwilling to come to the correct conclusion as to what this meant). I had a classmate of mine from Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, Father James Conley of the Diocese of Wichita, who worked in that congregation (Conley is now the "Apostolic" Administrator of the Archdiocese of Denver, having been “installed” as a conciliar “bishop” on May 30, 2008). Conley told me that the congregation was going to do nothing despite the evidence that had been amassed.
Having done what we thought was our due diligence, Steve Brady held a press conference at the Springfield Hilton on February 11, 1997, to reveal his findings. The secular media buried the story. The communications director for the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Mrs. Kathleen Sass, who is still on the job despite all of the spinning she did (or maybe because of it), denounced Brady for lying about Ryan. My own story was published in the February 20, 1997, issue of The Wanderer. And it was shortly thereafter that a true priest, Father John A. Hardon, S.J., took one of the abused conciliar presbyters to Rome to meet with Dario Castrillon Cardinal Hoyos, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, to present the matter to him. The Vatican did not remove Ryan at that time. The presbyter, however, was given protection as Hoyos had him transferred to another diocese to work under Father Hardon.
Making a long and involved story short, more witnesses emerged a year later. Even Francis "Cardinal" George, the conciliar archbishop of Chicago, admitted to Steve Brady that the American “bishops” had known all about Ryan for years. George wanted silence from Brady in exchange for a “relationship” with the “hierarchy.” Steve refused. The Vatican did nothing. Nothing, that is, until the threat of a lawsuit by yet other victims in 1999 caused Ryan to go into an “early retirement.” He continued to function publicly until February of 2003, at which time a “special commission” finally concluded what Steve Brady had asserted from the beginning: Ryan was guilty as charged.
Cover-ups usually unravel. And whether they unravel or not in this life, all of the plotting and all of the scheming and browbeating and intimidation used to intimidate victims will be revealed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. All of the plots and schemes of abusers and liars in this life get revealed on that Last Day, meaning that no matter what level of success a cover-up had in this passing, mortal vale of tears, it winds up destroying the souls of all involved for all eternity unless they repent of their sins and make reparation for them, first of all by apologizing to those who they abused and then attempted to victimize yet a second time by accusing them of lying when in fact they were telling the truth.
Thus, you see, the story about Juan Jose Pineda is as “believable” as the recent and belated-by-decades “investigation” and slap-on-the-wrist punishment meted out to the infamous Theodore “Cardinal” McCarrick, a protégé of the notorious flamer (see Chapter 12 of Mrs. Engel’s The Rite of Sodomy) who was the Archbishop of New York from 1939 until his death in 1967, Francis Cardinal Spellman. Just as everyone in the conciliar hierarchy knew about the late, twisted pervert named Daniel Leo Ryan mentioned above, so is it the case that everyone knew about “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick and his nephews.
It was in the Spring Semester of 1988 that a student of mine in an American Government course at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York, came up to me after one of the first classes to introduce himself as a "nephew" of "Archbishop" McCarrick. I recounted this to a presbyter-friend of mine who had been with me as a seminarian at Holy Apostles Seminary during the 1983-1984 academic year, the late Reverend Michael Scott, who died on January 9, 2011, at the age of fifty-three. "Oh," Mike said to me, "one of Teddy's 'nephews.' We all know about those."
McCarrick actually got in trouble in the late-1980s when he gave a talk to some Catholic women by commenting on the sort of "day-glow" attire wore by the young men he took on trips. The then "papal" nuncio, Pio "Cardinal" Laghi, gave Teddy a slap on the wrists just prior to his, Laghi's, leaving for Rome to serve as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation of Education in 1990. Ever the supporter of the lavender agender, Teddy McCarrick went to great lengths in 2002, the year in which the American conciliar "hierarchy's" shameful record of recruiting, promoting and protecting known practitioners of perversity became more generally known than it had been prior to that time despite the efforts of The Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., The Wanderer and even National Catholic Reporter to provide documentary evidence of the scandals, to state he did not believe that those with clear homosexual tendencies should be excluded from the conciliar presbyterate.
This is to say nothing, of course, about McCarrick’s constant indemnification of pro-abortion politicians or his constant groveling at the feet of Mohammedan officials, including what he said on September 13, 2005, at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., as he honored King Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:
A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you on another occasion in this capital city, I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you and to help you make your country a bridge across which all nations might walk in unity, fellowship and love. As I listened to your words today, I believe my prayer is being answered.
Indeed, the Amman Message of November of last year is a blueprint and a challenge not only to the great world of Islam, but to the whole human race. Your thoughtful leadership is a stirring invitation to all of us, especially to the people of the Book, the family of Abraham, who share so much and who are called to be brothers and sisters in God’s one human family.
You have taken to heart the words of Pope Benedict XVI when he addressed the Muslim leaders gathered with him in Germany last month and invited them all to join him in eliminating from all hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence. As you quoted in your splendid talk to us today, Pope Benedict called his listeners, in this way, to turn back the way of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress for world peace.
Your Majesty’s call and that of the Holy Father are in so many ways the same. May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps along this noble path. May He guide and protect you, your family and your beloved country and may peace and justice come to all lands and all peoples through your efforts, your vision and your courage.
In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray. Amen. (This was found originally on the website of the Archdiocese of Washington. However, the speech was expunged after various commentaries began to be published on the internet. One of the few places to find it now other than on this site is: http://www.unavox.it/FruttiPostconcilio/NuoviPreti/Card_prega_Allah.html. The English language original is found at the bottom of the page of this Una Vox posting.)
"Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world"?
This was apostasy.
This was, objectively speaking, a Mortal Sin against the First Commandment. To offend the true and only God as He has revealed Himself solely through His true Church by invoking the name of a false, nonexistent god demands immediate acts of reparation. This is not merely a matter of a theological debate about the nature of Mohammedism as a "monotheistic" religion. Uncle Teddy McCarrick invoked the name of a false god and said publicly that he has prayed to "Allah" privately. Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio reads out of the blasphemous Talmud now and again, if not frequently, and does so on a daily basis when his rabbinic friends visit him at the Casa Santa Marta. No one, including "Uncle Teddy" McCarrick, has anything on Jorge Mario Bergoglio's epic serial violations of the First and Second Commandments.
It is nevertheless interesting that the big, strong defenders of "purity" in the conciliar Vatican usually wait until one of their high and mighty “bishops” and “cardinals” are past retirement age to “punish” them for, in essence, not being more careful about the sort of behavior that is rampant and entirely unchecked throughout many of the quarters of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
The story below from The New York Times demonstrates that the recent “news” about “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick’s behavior was not news at all:
As a young man studying to be a priest in the 1980s, Robert Ciolek was flattered when his brilliant, charismatic bishop in Metuchen, N.J., Theodore E. McCarrick, told him he was a shining star, cut out to study in Rome and rise high in the church.
Bishop McCarrick began inviting him on overnight trips, sometimes alone and sometimes with other young men training to be priests. There, the bishop would often assign Mr. Ciolek to share his room, which had only one bed. The two men would sometimes say night prayers together, before Bishop McCarrick would make a request — “come over here and rub my shoulders a little”— that extended into unwanted touching in bed.
Mr. Ciolek, who was in his early 20s at the time, said he felt unable to say no, in part because he had been sexually abused by a teacher in his Catholic high school, a trauma he had shared with the bishop.
“I trusted him, I confided in him, I admired him,” Mr. Ciolek said in an interview this month, the first time he has spoken publicly about the abuse, which lasted for several years while Mr. Ciolek was a seminarian and later a priest. “I couldn’t imagine that he would have anything other than my best interests in mind.”
Bishop McCarrick went on to climb the ranks of the Roman Catholic hierarchy — from head of the small Diocese of Metuchen to archbishop of Newark and then archbishop of Washington, where he was made a cardinal. He remained into his 80s one of the most recognized American cardinals on the global stage, a Washington power broker who participated in funeral masses for political luminaries like Edward M. Kennedy, the longtime Massachusetts senator, and Beau Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Suddenly, last month, Cardinal McCarrick was removed from ministry, after the Archdiocese of New York deemed credible an accusation that he had molested a 16-year-old altar boy nearly 50 years ago.
Cardinal McCarrick, now 88, who declined to comment for this article, said in a statement last month that he had no recollection of the abuse. He is the highest-ranking Catholic official in the United States to be removed for sexual abuse of a minor.
But while the church responded quickly to the allegation that Cardinal McCarrick had abused a child, some church officials knew for decades that the cardinal had been accused of sexually harassing and inappropriately touching adults, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.
Between 1994 and 2008, multiple reports about the cardinal’s transgressions with adult seminary students were made to American bishops, the pope’s representative in Washington and, finally, Pope Benedict XVI. Two New Jersey dioceses secretly paid settlements, in 2005 and 2007, to two men, one of whom was Mr. Ciolek, for allegations against the archbishop. All the while, Cardinal McCarrick played a prominent role publicizing the church’s new zero-tolerance policy against abusing children.
The scandal of child sexual abuse by clergy has gripped the Catholic Church for nearly two decades, resulting in billions spent by the church on lawsuits, settlements and prevention programs. But while the church has made strides in dealing with sexual abuse of children, it has largely avoided a reckoning over sexual harassment and abuse suffered by adult seminarians and young priests at the hands of their superiors, including bishops.
Because bishops have control over priests’ assignments and complete loyalty is expected by the church’s clerical culture, seminarians and priests can be especially vulnerable to sexual harassment by their superiors.
“In the corporate world, there are ways to report misconduct,” Mr. Ciolek, 57, said at his home in New Jersey. “You have an H.R. contact, you have a legal department, or you have anonymous reporting, you have systems. Does the Catholic Church have that? How is a priest supposed to report abuse or wrong activity by his bishop? What is their stated vehicle for anyone to do that? I don’t think it exists.”
Now, after the fall of Cardinal McCarrick, some Catholics are saying that the church is on the verge of confronting its own #MeToo moment, akin to the wave of painful truth-telling that has swept through other workplaces, schools and Hollywood.
The Rev. Hans Zollner, a member of the Vatican’s commission for advising the pope on protecting minors, said that he has seen more victims come forward in recent months with accounts of sexual abuse in the church that they experienced as adults.
“The #MeToo movement has created a momentum,” he said. “It has brought another level of attention to this kind of hidden abuse.”
With his warm, gregarious presence, Cardinal McCarrick rose quickly through the ranks of the church after being ordained a priest in 1958. As a bishop, he took pride in his success at recruiting young men to the priesthood — including one he met in an airport, according to his colleagues.
In 1981, the New York-born clergyman was made the bishop of the newly created diocese of Metuchen in central New Jersey. The young men he recruited would attend seminary at Mount St. Mary’s in Maryland, before being ordained as priests for the diocese.
Those who interacted with him back then said he was friendly with all the seminarians, but would invite a few he especially favored to overnight stays at a beach house in Sea Girt, N.J. It was a small, simple house, some six blocks from the ocean — a retreat that the diocese had purchased at Bishop McCarrick’s request in 1984.
About four or five seminarians and young priests would go to the house at a time, usually on a Friday, where they would sometimes cook dinner or order pizza and socialize over beers, Mr. Ciolek recalled. Before lights out, Mr. Ciolek said, Bishop McCarrick would assign sleeping arrangements, directing one seminarian to share his room, which had one large bed.
Sometimes, Bishop McCarrick would start to rub a young man’s back as the rest of the group was filtering toward the bedrooms. Other times, it would happen once the young man who had been selected to room with the bishop was alone with him.
“My observations were that people were disgusted by it,” said Mr. Ciolek. “There were some who gloried in the attention it brought on them, even if it was screwed-up attention. But I don’t remember anyone welcoming it and hoping they would be touched.”
For Mr. Ciolek, there were about a dozen trips out of town with Bishop McCarrick, including to a fishing camp in Eldred, N.Y., with other seminarians, and once to Puerto Rico, where he waited in a hotel lobby while his host spoke with the local bishop. Bishop McCarrick also took him to Yankees games. At one game, Mr. Ciolek said he was seated in George Steinbrenner’s box between the team owner and Henry Kissinger, in what he described as one of the highlights of his young life. But after the games ended, Bishop McCarrick sometimes took him to a small apartment on an upper floor of a hospital that he used for overnight stays in the city, and directed Mr. Ciolek to share his bed.
Mr. Ciolek said that even though he just wanted to be a parish priest, Bishop McCarrick would frequently bring up how he ought to go to Rome and climb the church hierarchy.
With the harassment, Mr. Ciolek said, Bishop McCarrick seemed to have a line he would not cross with him. The touching would stay above the waist, avoiding the genitals, he said. There was no kissing, no holding hands.
But a second former priest, who received a settlement from the New Jersey dioceses for abuse by McCarrick, did not describe such a limit to the physical contact. This priest, who declined to be interviewed and whose file was provided on condition that his name not be used, was also a member of Bishop McCarrick’s select circle of seminarians.
By 1986, Bishop McCarrick had been promoted by Pope John Paul II to a much bigger job: Archbishop of Newark, one of the country’s largest dioceses with more than one million Catholics. In the summer of 1987, this former priest alleged, Archbishop McCarrick took him to an Italian restaurant in New York City, and then to the small apartment above the hospital. (Mr. Ciolek described the room in similar terms.)
There, Archbishop McCarrick asked the seminarian to change into a striped sailor shirt and a pair of shorts he had on hand, and joined him in the bed, according to the seminarian’s written account. “He put his arms around me and wrapped his legs between mine,” the account states.
He also wrote that he once saw Archbishop McCarrick having sex with a young priest in a cabin at the Eldred fishing camp, and that the archbishop invited him to be “next.”
In this former priest’s file were handwritten letters that the archbishop wrote to him when he was still a student, some signed “Uncle Ted,” and “Uncle T.” They sometimes addressed him as “nephew,” a term Mr. Ciolek said was used by the archbishop to refer to the young men he took on overnight trips.
One letter was written in 1987 while Archbishop McCarrick was aboard a plane in Poland on mission for the Vatican. “I just wanted to tell you how glad I am that we had the chance to get together this summer,” the archbishop wrote to the 26-year-old student. “It wasn’t as often as I would have liked but I know how ‘social’ my nephew is!”
Archbishop McCarrick’s trip to Poland was a sign of his growing prominence. His brother bishops in the United States elected him chairman of their committees on migration, international policy and aid for the church in Central and Eastern Europe. He met with Fidel Castro in 1988.
The first documented complaint about Cardinal McCarrick came at the latest by 1994, when the second priest wrote a letter to the new Bishop of Metuchen, Edward T. Hughes, saying that Archbishop McCarrick had inappropriately touched him and other seminarians in the 1980s, according to the documents.
The priest had a disturbing confession, the documents show. He told Bishop Hughes that he was coming forward because he believed the sexual and emotional abuse he endured from Archbishop McCarrick, as well as several other priests, had left him so traumatized that it triggered him to touch two 15-year-old boys inappropriately. The Metuchen diocese sent the priest to therapy, and then transferred him to another diocese. But Archbishop McCarrick’s stature remained intact; he was even given the honor of hosting John Paul II on a visit to Newark in 1995 and leading a large public Mass there for the pope.
Around 1999, Mr. Ciolek was called in by Archbishop McCarrick’s former secretary in Metuchen, Msgr. Michael J. Alliegro, who knew about the trips with seminarians, including the bed-sharing. He asked Mr. Ciolek, who had left the priesthood in 1988 to marry a woman, if he planned to sue the diocese, and then mentioned Archbishop McCarrick’s name. “And I literally laughed, and I said, no,” Mr. Ciolek said, adding that the monsignor responded with a sigh of relief.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II promoted Archbishop McCarrick to lead the Archdiocese of Washington D.C., one of the most prestigious posts in the Catholic Church in America. He was elevated to cardinal three months later.
At least one priest warned the Vatican against the appointment. The Rev. Boniface Ramsey said that when he was on the faculty at the Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University in New Jersey from 1986 to 1996, he was told by seminarians about Archbishop McCarrick’s sexual abuse at the beach house. When Archbishop McCarrick was appointed to Washington, Father Ramsey spoke by phone with the pope’s representative in the nation’s capital, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the papal nuncio, and at his encouragement sent a letter to the Vatican about Archbishop McCarrick’s history.
Father Ramsey, now a priest in New York City, said he never got a response.
Cardinal McCarrick’s ascent by that point seemed unstoppable, given his importance to the church. He was a prolific fund-raiser; as a founding member and president of the Papal Foundation, he rounded up deep-pocketed donors to pledge $1 million to the pope’s pet causes.
When Pope John Paul II made him Washington archbishop and a cardinal, the pope was in decline from Parkinson’s disease.
“He was not tracking these things closely because of his health, and his aides were not inclined to bring particular cases to his attention,” said John Thavis, a longtime Vatican correspondent and the author of “Vatican Diaries.”
Mr. Thavis pointed out that John Paul II also disregarded multiple warnings about a different, more notorious sexual predator, the Rev. Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legion of Christ and another renowned church fund-raiser.
In 2002, when the turmoil in the church over the child sex abuse scandal was at a peak, Cardinal McCarrick was among the cardinals summoned by the pope to help manage the crisis.
Cardinal McCarrick voted in the papal conclave in 2005 that elected Pope Benedict XVI, and participated in the cardinals’ meetings in 2013 that led to the election of Pope Francis. He retired as leader of the Washington archdiocese in 2006 at 75, the standard retirement age for bishops.
For many years, Mr. Ciolek, who became a lawyer after leaving the priesthood, told no one about his experiences. Then in 2004, after he began receiving counseling, he filed for a settlement from the church and received $80,000 from the Dioceses of Trenton, Metuchen and Newark.
Two years later, the church paid a settlement of $100,000 to the other priest alleging abuse. That priest had been forced to resign in 2004 under the church’s new zero-tolerance protocols against child abuse, based on his confession about touching two boys a decade earlier.
Father Ramsey said he continued to warn church leaders about Cardinal McCarrick. In 2008, he said, he raised the issue with Cardinal Edward Egan, the New York archbishop, but Cardinal Egan cut him off quickly. Father Ramsey said he was disturbed in 2015 to see Cardinal McCarrick serving at the funeral Mass for Cardinal Egan, so he wrote to Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston, who had been appointed by Pope Francis to lead a commission on sexual abuse of children.
“I have blown the whistle for 30 years without getting anywhere,” Father Ramsey said recently.
Cardinal O’Malley, through a spokesman, declined to comment.
Richard Sipe, a former priest who is an authority on clergy sex abuse, said that seminarians began to confide in him about the beach house sleepovers while he was a professor at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore in the 1980s. He said he wrote a letter to Pope Benedict in 2008, telling him the illicit trips to the shore home “had been widely known for several decades.”
One possible reason the allegations did not impede Cardinal McCarrick’s ascent is that unwanted touching of an adult by a bishop or superior is not explicitly stated as a crime under the church’s canon law, Catholic legal scholars said. There is a relevant canon (a legal provision), which says that anyone who abuses their “ecclesiasticfal power” and “harms somebody” is to be “punished with a just penalty.” But it was never applied to Cardinal McCarrick.
“He could have been removed from office — he certainly should not have been advanced,” said Msgr. Kenneth Lasch, a canon lawyer and retired priest in New Jersey who serves as a victims’ advocate.
The Vatican has removed bishops from their posts for having affairs with women and men; Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the church in Scotland, stepped down under Vatican pressure in 2013 after revelations of his sexual misconduct with seminarians and priests. But such punishments are rare, and are decided on a case-by-case basis by the Vatican.
In a statement to The New York Times, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark said that he was “greatly disturbed by reports” that Cardinal McCarrick, his predecessor in Newark from 1986 to 2000, had “harassed seminarians and young clergy.”
“I recognize without any ambiguity that all people have a right to live, work and study in safe environments,” he wrote. “I intend to discuss this tragedy with the leadership of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to articulate standards that will assure high standards of respect by bishops, priests and deacons for all adults.”
Many dioceses in the United States have their own policies on workplace sexual harassment. But there is no global policy in the Catholic Church on sexual harassment of adults, and no standard procedure for reporting sexual wrongdoing by one’s bishop locally, experts say.
The “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,” adopted by the American bishops at the height of the child sexual abuse scandal in 2002, does not cover victims older than 18. The bishops’ charter also contained no procedures for holding bishops accountable other than “fraternal correction” by fellow bishops. Cardinal McCarrick helped to draft the charter.
The Catholic Whistleblowers, a network of priests and nuns, recently sent a letter urging the American bishops to expand the category of victims to include adults, in particular those who are vulnerable to clergy sexual abuse because of overpowering intimidation by the abuser or because the victims are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. It also urges them to apply its zero-tolerance policy to bishops, said Father Lasch, a Whistleblowers member.
When Mr. Ciolek received his abuse settlement in 2005, it came with no formal admission of fault, and it barred him from ever speaking to the media about the abuse.
But since Cardinal McCarrick’s suspension, Cardinal Tobin, of Newark, and the bishop of Metuchen, James F. Checchio, have both apologized to Mr. Ciolek personally on behalf of the church. “I am sorry beyond words, and embarrassed beyond belief, at this atrocious conduct,” Bishop Checchio wrote to him. Mr. Ciolek has been released from his confidentiality agreements to permit him to speak publicly.
“If the church is genuine about cleaning up the rest of the mess, it ought to do something,” he said. “And that’s when I will judge the sincerity of the expressions of sorrow that I’m now receiving.” (McCarrick Abuse Story.)
This is the story of practically every such case within the counterfeit church of conciliarism and, sadly, it is the story of similar cases within the semi-traditional world of the conciliar church as well as in the Catholic underground in this time of apostasy and betrayal. The pattern is always the same: Deny. Cover-up. Protect your friends. Destroy Evidence. Circle the wagons. Blame the Accuser/Whistleblower. Delay. Obfuscate. Blow smoke. Intimidate. Threaten. Belittle and demean. Anything but admit the truth until after more and more victims have been abused and more souls lost to the Catholic Faith, possibly forever. Some victims of clerical abuse have even committed suicide.
There has been a worldwide, systematic recruitment, retention, promotion and protection of men into the conciliar presbyterate who are inclined to commit perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The rot in this regard runs all the up to the highest quarters in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, where many "bishops" have created quite consciously a "lavender friendly" environment in conciliar church buildings and in their catechetical programs.
Buzzwords such as "diversity" and "tolerance" and "compassion" and "love" are used to insidiously mainstream the agenda of perversity into the minds and hearts of Catholics of all ages. It is no accident that men who have been recruited because of their being effeminate and inclined to look upon perversity with a false sense of "compassion" have created this atmosphere as those steeped in unnatural vice, being unable to reproduce naturally, must seek to reproduce themselves ideologically by means of external symbols and the use of slogans to gain for them an acceptance in this life that will be wanting in the next if they persist until their dying breaths in a state of final impenitence.
Saint Paul the Apostle explained in his Epistle to the Romans the tendency of those steeped in unnatural vice, having rebelled against their very nature, which is made by God to know, to love and to serve Him, something that is impossible to do when one is steeped, objectively speaking, in Mortal Sin, must the seek the approval of their fellow contingent beings, each of whose bodies is destined for the corruption of the grave until the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead:
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)
It is the worldwide recruitment of men inclined to unnatural acts of vice into the conciliar "episcopate" and "presbyterate" that has produced a scandal of seismic proportions that no amount of endless Vatican spin-doctoring can ever minimize or make "go away." It is this worldwide recruitment, retention and promotion of those steeped directly in unnatural vice and/or its justification before men that is at the proximate root of the scandal that is shaking the counterfeit church of conciliarism to its very rafters.
While victims must forgive their perpetrators as nothing that happens to any one of us is the equal of what one of our own least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity on the wood of the Holy Cross, justice must be pursued against the malefactors without malice. No priest or presbyter who is inclined to commit acts of unnatural vice can be reassigned to parish work again. And those 'bishops" who are responsible for the recruitment, promotion and protection of the malefactors themselves must be removed from their positions.
The Catholic Church has dealt with problems of this sort in a forthright manner in centuries past. Although Pope Leo IX in the Eleventh Century made distinctions among various sins against nature, he gave no quarter was given even to those who had confessed their moral crimes against nature committed with others and who had pledged to reform their lives. Priests guilty of such sins against nature were sent to monasteries to do penance for their sins and to offer Holy Mass to give honor and glory to the Most Blessed Trinity and to add Actual Grace in the world-at-large.
The "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have dealt with the explosion of scandals that they helped to generate with a mixture of sorrow and indignation, never admitting that they have created the problem by the recruitment of effeminate men into the conciliar presbyterate. Officials, such as the aforementioned "Archbishop" Charles Scicluna, in the conciliar Vatican have dealt with the cases sent to them from the diocesan and archdiocesan levels as judicial matters, largely with a view as to whether a priest or presbyter (who is a layman to begin with) should be laicized. Lost in all of this, however, has been the larger, more prophetic understanding of the nature of the problem, namely, the creation of an entire ecclesiastical and liturgical culture that helps to mainstream an acceptance of effeminacy in men who believe themselves to be priests but who have no sense of the horror personal sin and who are not averse to giving open scandal to the faithful. No mere judicial process can resolve what is ultimately a crisis of the Faith itself.
The situation in the counterfeit church of conciliarism has been worsened, of course, because the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo worship service is offensive to God and devoid of His grace.
More and more men have been blinded as a result of this lack of grace.
Blinded to the horror of personal sin.
Blinded to the truth that the sin of Sodom is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Blinded to the necessity of acting with alacrity to punish malefactors and to safeguard the spiritual and temporal welfare of souls.
Blinded even to speak with honesty at first until they are forced to do so when victim after victim after victim comes forth and their own documents are released court deposition to prove that they are liars, thus causing many who are weak in the Faith to quit its practice altogether and to reaffirm fallen away Catholics and non-Catholics in their determination to blame the Catholic Faith for what is the failure of men and, in this instance, the actions of apostates who commit acts of blasphemy and sacrilege against God all of the time.
This is a point that simply cannot be emphasized enough. Men who are steeped in the falsehoods of conciliarism and who praise the "values" of false religions and who esteem their symbols, each of which is hideous to the true God of Revelation, are going to be less likely to react appropriately when confronted by the moral misbehavior of their subordinates, admitting that fallen men can always find excuses to protect themselves and their their friends and to seek to indemnify malefactors while engaging in cruel acts of character assassination against their critics. It is also the case that those who are steeped in acts of unnatural vice are more likely to embrace the precepts of a false religion whose principal liturgical rite contains very few references to a God Who judges us or to the possibility of losing one's immortal soul for all eternity in Hell. Conciliarism thus winds up both creating and sustaining perversity as those steeped in it need its false precepts to reaffirm themselves about their essential "goodness" as they persist in that which is incompatible with the life of Sanctifying Grace: a life of unrepentant Mortal Sin.
Also reaffirmed as a result of the blindness of many of the lords of conciliarism is the anti-Catholic stereotypes fixed in the minds of millions of Protestants and Jews and Mohammedans and Buddhists and Hindus and other unbelievers that will keep them out of the true Church perhaps for the rest of their lives, not that the lords of conciliarism are in any way concerned about converting them to what they, the conciliar "bishops," believe is the Catholic Church. Oh, may God have mercy on us all!
The way out of this mess runs through Our Lady's Fatima Message. We must continue to do penance for our owns sins as we seek to fulfill the terms of our total consecration to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permit.
God has known from all eternity that we would be living in these troubling times. There is work for us do as we seek to sanctify our souls and make reparation for our sins. We have to pray to Our Lady, therefore, to keep close to the tender mercies of her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart so that the sacrifices we make will be more acceptable in the eyes of her Divine Son and thus more efficacious in planting at least a few seeds for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the vanquishing of her Divine Son's foes in the world and in the counterfeit church that is the embodiment of this prophecy of Saint Paul:
And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word. (2 Thes. 2: 1-16.)
May Our Lady help us to persevere in our own personal resolutions so that we can continue to walk the rocky road that leads to the narrow gate of Life Himself, truly sorry for the many times that we have walked so casually on the wide and smooth road that leads to the gates of perdition. It is only by the graces won for us by Our Lord that are sent to us through Our Lady's loving hands that we can continue to walk the rocky road with persistence, recognizing that our vigilance in attending to the interior castle of our soul will help to build up the Church Militant on earth and prepare us to be of more worthy assistance to the Church Suffering in Purgatory and for a blessed reunion with all of the souls of the just in the Church Triumphant in an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.
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.
Saint Apollinaris, pray for us.