Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                November 11, 2013

Always Asking All The Wrong Questions

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The conciliar revolutionaries suffer from many afflictions, including what could be described as "Theological Alzheimer's Disease" that has wiped out their memories of the history of the Catholic Church before the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one and Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants) on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, and placed them in fantasy worlds of their own creation whereby their can invent a "past history" of the Catholic Church that has nothing to with actual truth whatsoever.

Revolutionaries, it must be understood, are concerned about the promotion of an ideological agenda. Words must be used to manipulate, distort and misrepresent facts in order to appeal to the basest instincts of those they seek to convince to join their demonic crusades. Invariably, of course, revolutionaries appeal to the "people" for support even though they are elitists who believe themselves far superior to the lowly creatures they claim to represent and serve with such unctuous "piety" and "devotion."

It is in the name of appealing to the "people" that the list of questions included in part one of this commentary yesterday, Sunday, November 10, 2013, the Twenty-fifth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Andrew Avelino and the Commemoration of Saints Tryphon, Respicius and Nympha, has been sent out to the conciliar "bishops" in preparation for next year's so-called "extraordinary synod on the family" even though the authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River know full well what the "people" at the "retail level" in the world's dioceses desire an what it is that they, the revolutionaries, plan to do to make those desires come true insofar as pastoral praxis is concerned. The survey is merely to an attempt to legitimize a thoroughly illegitimate process as God remains what He has always been, a majority of One.

God is immutable. He is without any shadow of change or alteration. He lives outside of time and space.

Similarly, His Sacred Truth is immutable and without any shadow of change or alteration or contradiction. Its transmission by Holy Mother Church, our mater and magister, is protected by the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, which is why those, such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who claim that the expression of dogmatic truth is contingent to the limitations of human language to express it and the particular circumstances that gave rise to its formulation is blasphemous on its very face.

As has been demonstrated amply on this site in the past eight months now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his pals, especially Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four), do not even make any kind of advertence whatsoever to Ratzinger/Benedict's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity," which Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had termed "living tradition," as they just dismiss anything about Catholic teaching and history that they do not "like" or believe is "relevant" to the "changed circumstances" of modern times.

Those who care not for the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication always show themselves to have no care whatsoever for the truths of history, which must become as much their personal "plaything" as Divine Revelation Itself.

Having made their "official reconciliation" with the principles of the "new era inaugurated in 1789," at the price of Catholic blood, I should hasten to add (!), the conciliar revolutionaries do not see that the very breakdown of the family that they bemoan and believe can be "resolved" by their revolutionary schemes and programs is the result of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of the organized forces of naturalism within the disparate ranks of Judeo-Masonry. An entire world has been created wherein men all across the vast spectrum naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies, ranging from libertarian to "conservative" to "democratic socialism" to outright Marxism--and everything variation in between them, believe that is either unnecessary, imprudent, impractical or a violation of "the dignity of man" that everything in personal and social life be defined by the Catholic Faith. This synthetic world that is in revolution with its very Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier is filled with prideful men who believe that they can "improve" themselves and the world without belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.

Instead of identifying the true culprits in the diabolical warfare against the family, dating back to Martin Luther himself, men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his minions hack away repeatedly at believing Catholics as "Pelagians," "Pharisees," "restorationists," "triumphalists" and as they denounce the "no church" of that past that was "too closed in of itself" and "self-referential," living in a "ghetto" as she thought of herself as possessing all truth and a perfect society with full authority to teach infallibly in the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer Himself, Christ the King.

The "Catholic ghetto," however, is a figment of the revolutionaries' very active and fertile imagination. What they call the Catholic "ghetto" in the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism on October 28, 1958, was the resistance of our true popes and bishops to the consequences of the proliferating errors of Modernity that had overthrow the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church. The conciliar revolutionaries are incapable of admitting that, despite the fallen nature of man that causes problems, both individually and collectively at all times, all of the constituent elements of society--the Church, the family and the civil state--worked together harmoniously for the temporal and eternal good of souls.

Father Denis Fahey, C.SS.P., explained the harmony that existed in the Catholic Middle Ages among the constituent elements of society:


The organization of the Europe of the thirteenth century furnishes us with one concrete realization of the Divine Plan. It is hardly necessary to add that there were then to be seen defects in the working of the Divine Plan, due to the character of fallen man, as well as an imperfect mastery of physical nature. Yet, withal, the formal principle of ordered social organisation in the world, the supremacy of the Mystical Body, was grasped and, in the main, accepted. The Lutheran revolt, prepared by the cult of pagan antiquity at the Renaissance, and by the favour enjoyed by the Nominalist philosophical theories, led to the rupture of that order." (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 10.)

We can thus easily see that the entrance of Christianity into the world has meant two things. Primarily and principally, it has meant the constitution of a supernatural society, the Mystical Body of Christ, absolutely transcending every natural development of culture and civilisation. Secondly, it has had as result that this supernatural society, the Catholic Church, began to exercise a profound influence upon culture and civilisation and modified in a far-reaching way the existing temporal or natural social order. The indirect power of the Church over temporal affairs, whenever the interests of the divine life of souls are involved, presupposes, of course, a clear distinction of nature between the ecclesiastical authority, charged with the care of divine things, and the civil authority, whose mission is concerned with purely temporal matters. In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of states came to be sought in a manner calculated to favour the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social life came more and more under the influence of the supreme end of man, the vision of God in the three divine Persons.

Accordingly, the divine plan for order in our fallen and redeemed world comprises, primarily, the supernatural social organism of the Catholic Church, and then, secondarily, the temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of that influence in social institutions. From the birth of the Catholic Church on Calvary and the solemn promulgation of her mission at the first Pentecost, the Kingdom of God in its essence has been present in the world. As a result of the gradual acceptance of the role of the Church by the temporal representatives of Christ the King, the social institutions of states and nations became deeply permeated with the influence of the supernatural life of Christ. Then, and only then, could the Kingdom of God in its integrity or the rule of Christ the King in its integrity, be said to exist. The Kingdom of God or the rule of Christ the King is present in its integrity only in so far as the whole social life of states, political and economic, is permeated with the influence of the Church. To put it in other terms, Christ fully reigns only when the programme for which He died is accepted as the one true way to peace and order in the world, and social structures in harmony with it are evolved.

The Kingdom of God in its essence is always with us, but the influence of the Church on politics and economics, in other words, the extension of the Kingdom of God in its integrity, has varied with the centuries. Broadly speaking, the thirteenth century has been, so far, the high water mark of that influence. Since then, until recently, there has been steady decay. No particular temporal social order, of course, will ever realise all that the Church is capable of giving to the world. Each of them will be defective for several reasons.

First of all, the action of the Church, welcomed by some Catholics, will be opposed by the ignorance, incapacity and perversity of others.

Secondly, even if all Catholics did accept fully, they could only reflect some of the beauty of the Gospel as the saints reflected some of the infinitely imitable holiness of Christ.

Thirdly, there would still remain the vast number of non-Catholics to be won for Christ and have their social life organised under His rule. It is towards this latter goal that every generation of Catholics is called upon to work. The aim is not, needless to say, to bring back the Middle Ages, for the river of time does not turn back in its course, but the aim is to impregnate a new epoch with the divine principles of order so firmly grasped in the thirteenth century. The result of the so-called Reformation and the French Revolution has been to obscure the rights of God proclaimed by our Lord Jesus Christ and to diffuse naturalism.

Naturalism consists in the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the supernatural life and order, or more radically still, in the negation of the very existence of that life and order. In our day owing to the progress of the anti-Christian revolt, the more radical meaning has become common. Naturalism may be defined therefore as the attitude of mind which denies the reality of the divine life of grace and of our Fall therefrom by original sin. It rejects our consequent liability to revolt against the order of the divine life, when this life has been restored to us by our membership of Christ, and maintains that all social life should be organized on the basis of that denial. We must combat that mentality and proclaim the rights of God.

In his Encyclical letter on Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII teaches authoritatively: “From what we have already set forth, it is indisputably evident that their [the Freemasons’] ultimate aim is to uproot completely the whole religious and political order of the world, which has been brought into existence by Christianity, and to replace it by another in harmony with their way of thinking. This will mean that the foundation and the laws of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure naturalism.” Now, it is historically certain that the Declaration of the Rights of Man had been conceived and elaborated in the Masonic lodges before it was presented to the States-General of France. Accordingly, the infamous Declaration, a naturalistic or anti-supernatural document, is in reality a declaration of war on membership of Christ and on the whole structure of society based on that supernatural dignity. The same naturalistic hostility to membership of Christ and the supernatural life of grace runs through all the documents concerning human rights drawn up under the influence of the organised forces that were responsible for the Declaration of 1789. That is the real struggle going on in the world, and in it every member of Christ is called upon to play his or her part. There can be no neutrality. “He that is not with me is against me ” (St. Matthew XII, 30.)  (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

The conciliar revolutionaries are simply part and parcel of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic warfare against the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Lost in the warped, corrupted minds of the conciliar revolutionaries is that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else. And it was Catholicism during the time of Christendom that produced stable families whose lives revolved around the Holy Faith.

Most of the Catholics of the Middle Ages learned the Faith at home, sometimes from parents who could neither read or write. Children in the Middle Ages were immersed into the Faith from before their birth, listening to the sounds of Gregorian chant while they were in their mothers' wombs, thus being predisposed to the things of the Faith even before their spiritual regeneration in the Baptismal font, which took place within days, if not the very day, of their birth. Children in the Middle Ages learned about First and Last Things at home, which is where they learned to become saints as they did their daily chores for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, conscious that their homes were meant to replicas of that of the Holy Family of Nazareth.

While it is true that certain children who demonstrated a particular aptitude were sent to a craftsman to learn a trade at a relatively early age and that some boys were selected by their parish priests to study at a local monastery, the lion's share of children in the Catholic Middle Ages, the Age of Christendom, learned what they knew from their parents. And parents recognized that it was their God-given responsibility to pass on the truths of the Holy Faith to their children upon the peril of the loss of their own immortal souls, as well as to develop within their children a deep interior life of prayer. Parents in the Middle Ages understood that they would be judged by God partly on the basis of how well they had discharged their responsibilities to provide for the spiritual formation of their children, making sure to provide their children with a model of family life that they would seek to replicate if any of them chose to marry rather than to enter the Holy Priesthood or the consecrated religious life.

Local parishes did play a role in sacramental preparation of children. The parish priest frequently gave such instruction himself. He questioned all those who would present themselves for the Sacraments. He knew, however, that his role was subsidiary to that of the parents. There was no educational bureaucracy in a local diocesan chancery office (or in the offices of a nonexistent national "episcopal conference") intent on using force and intimidation to coerce parents to bend to their own iron will to teach things contrary to the truths of the Catholic Faith. Bishops and priests in the Middle Ages understood the hierarchy that existed both in the Order of Creation (Nature) and in the Order of Redemption (Grace)--and how the Church was supposed to foster, not undermine, parental responsibility within the family unit. Bishops and priests helped parents to discharge their duties as the principal educators of their children. They did not undermine or disparage their rights to do so.

Furthermore, it was the case in the Catholic Middle Ages--and for a long time thereafter--that Catholic bishops and priests made sure that Catholic institutions of education were staffed by those who subscribed to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith without any exception or deviation or dissent whatsoever. Although most of those who staffed Catholic elementary and secondary schools as they came into existence in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries in the wake of the effects of the Industrial Revolution (as parents were taken off of the land to work in factories) to provide a haven from the state-mandated curricula of public schools were members of religious orders, those in the laity who taught in Catholic schools or what became known in this country as the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (C.C.D.)--Sunday school or released-time instruction for public school students--were known for their personal probity and their complete acceptance of the Catholic Faith, including how the Faith is to be lived in their own homes, especially as relates to the Virtue of Modesty and to the non-participation in cultural trends that were inimical to the sanctification and salvation of their own souls and those of their children.

The smug, arrogant, hubristic conciliar revolutionaries dismiss all of this as part of a "bygone" era that not only can never be recaptured again but was actually "harmful" to the "liberation" of women and their "fulfillment" in the world. They, the revolutionaries, aping their counterparts in the real of the civil state and in public or privately-run secular schools, colleges, universities and professional programs, believe that "they" have "new" answers to "new" problems that are nothing other than the direct result of the revolutions with which they have been their "reconciliation."

As noted briefly in part one of this two-part commentary, one of the chief ways in which the conciliar revolutionaries have undermined the very character and stability of Catholic family life is by inverting the ends proper to Holy Matrimony and by introducing the terminology of Margaret Sanger and her disciples in the anti-family population "limitation" movement by referring to what they call "responsible parenthood," which is a code word for limiting the size of families, albeit by "natural" means (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change).

Pope Pius XII specifically condemned those who would dare to invert the ends proper to Holy Matrimony by placing what is called the "unitive" end, the union of the man and woman for their mutual support and enjoyment, above what the Catholic Church teaches is the principle end, the procreation and education of children:


Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Pope Pius XII's reference to the Holy Office's March 10, 1944, condemnation of those "authors who denied the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it" is very relevant to the recently issued survey by the conciliar church's "synod of bishops" as question "7.a" made reference to "responsible parenthood," a phrase that had been used and will never be used by the Catholic Church.

Although Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick was the conciliar "pope" who introduced the term "responsible parenthood" in his revolutionary "encyclical," Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, the Feast of Saint James the Greater, two Jesuit moral theologians, Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly, pushed the limits of their belief in family limitation as far as they could in the 1950s before the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Thereafter, however, they wrote freely, and Father Ford, in particular played a major role in the shaping of Humanae Vitae:


"Responsible parenthood," writes Dr. Richard Fagley, "in the context of population explosion, more often than not means restricted to limited procreation in view of the total responsibilities of parenthood." And again, " 'Responsible parenthood,' in fact, is becoming the preferred term throughout Protestantism for limiting the number of  progeny." Dr. Fagley's words suggest the reasons why little seems to have been said about responsible parenthood fifty years ago and why today the words are becoming a popular slogan with the occasional connotation that Catholics favor irresponsible parenthood. Everyone has always agreed, however, that parenthood is a serious, responsible business. Catholics have not differed from their neighbors on that pint. The truth is fifty years ago we heard very little if anything about responsible parenthood, as that phrase is understood today, whether from Protestants, Catholics or non-believers. Why? (Father John C. Ford, S.J., and Father Gerald Kelly, S.J., Contemporary Moral Theology, Volume 2, The Newman Press, 1964, pp. 451-453. For a complete discussion of this, please see Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)

It was a scant four years later that Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick made this revolutionary phrase his very own:


And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."8

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.

In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968.)

Who had been calling for "responsible parenthood" for five decades prior to her death on September 6, 1966? The nymphomaniac, racist and eugenicist named Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League that became known as Planned Parenthood, that's who. Her followers continue to champion this shopworn slogan that found its way into the text of an alleged "papal" encyclical letter. Montini/Paul VI's acceptance of "responsible parenthood" slogan of Margaret Sanger and her diabolical minions, coupled with the inversion of the ends of marriage propagated by Dietrich von Hildebrand, constitutes a revolution against the ends of marriage that have "baptized," if you will, a supposedly "natural" form of contraception that is to be used as a matter of routine, not in truly extraordinary cases, where is it only lawful, that is, permissible, and never mandated.

The inclusion of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children by the use of "knowing" the physicality of a woman's body has been interpreted rather broadly, shall we say. In plain English: the use of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children has been used to reaffirm the "consciences" of those who are "not ready" for children. This is no different whatsoever than those who have chosen the use of artificial means to prevent the conception of children because they are "not ready" to have them. They have careers. They have poor finances. They have elderly parents for whom to care. They have "plans." They have to get through school. And on and on on. Everybody's got a "serious reason." These are nothing other than excuses and rationalizations that consider marriage in purely naturalistic and materialistic, if not utilitarian, terms without any true love of God and thus of trust that He will send married couples all of the supernatural and temporal helps that they need to provide for the children that God sees fit to send them.

The "teaching" that led to what is called today as "natural family planning" is not to be found in Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession. It is to be found in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, devoted to the "responsible parenthood" slogan of Planned Parenthood and the United Nations and environmental groups.

Truly responsible Catholic parenthood is founded in a love for God's Holy Will and by training however many or few children in the truths of the Catholic Faith, which require parents to eschew worldliness and to arm them with the supernatural and natural means to live in a "popular culture" devoted to the glorification of the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is, sin. That's truly responsible Catholic parenthood. Not that which is represented by "Paul the Sick" and Humanae Vitae, and that remains the foundation of the revolution against the family that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and friends seek to advance with the forthcoming "extraordinary synod of bishops" on the "pastoral challenges facing the family."

The notion of "family limitation" had been discussed at the "Second" Vatican Council, something that horrified the Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the great foe of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and his Americanist efforts to make "religious liberty," termed as a  heresy by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, and as insanity by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832. Cardinal Ottaviani spoke as follows concerning "family limitation" at the "Second" Vatican Council:


"I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents' minds, because they trusted in Providence. [I am amazed] that yesterday in the Council it should have been said that there was doubt whether a correct stand had been taken hitherto on the principles governing marriage. Does this not mean that the inerrancy of the Church will be called into question? Or was not the Holy Spirit with His Church in past centuries to illuminate minds on this point of doctrine?" (As found in Peter W. Miller, Substituting the Exception for the Rule; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books and Publishers, 1967, is cited as the source of  this quotation.)

The appropriation of the term "responsible parenthood," which is used to this very day by the conciliar revolutionaries, is simply another example of how the false religion of conciliarism has advanced Antichrist's agenda for the destruction of the family and the rise of a One World Ecumenical Church that is part of Judeo-Masonic New World Order, an order that will give way to Antichrist himself.

The conciliar revolutionaries do not understand that many of the social problems that exist in the world today are not caused by their myth of "overpopulation" but by the depopulation of entire countries as a result of contraception, abortion and "natural family planning" (see Birth rate drops to the lowest ever in Britain for one such example; there are many more, of course).

Families have become unstable.

Adultery and divorce have skyrocketed.

Hundreds of millions of children have been killed by chemical and surgical means around the world.

Children have been abandoned, consigned to be shipped between parents and a variety of step-parents and grandparents and step-grandparents.

Mothers who work by choice, not out of necessity because of the confiscatory taxing powers of the civil state and by the presence of single women in the work force that has made it more difficult for husbands and fathers to fulfill their duties as the principal breadwinners of their families, frequently drop their infants off at daycare centers as early as six to eight weeks after birth. These children grow up to be sent to pre-school and after-school programs that accommodate their mothers' career schedules and plans.

Artificial means to produce life have made possible "designer babies" who are chosen for their genetic composition, demeaning the beauty of what God had joined together between Adam and Eve the moment of Special Creation and reducing children to the level of utilitarian objects who can be without any kind of physical or mental "defects."

Unspeakably perverse forms of "unions," discussed in part one yesterday, have exposed children to growing up in an atmosphere of rank immorality that is a threat to their spiritual, moral, physical and psychological well-being and maturity.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries desire to use the forthcoming "extraordinary synod of bishops" to further revolutionize what is purported to be an "updated" "Catholic" understanding on the marriage and the family in light of "today's changed conditions."

Oh, what poor prophets the conciliar revolutionaries and those, such as Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly, S.K. who promoted the concept of "responsible parenthood" were!

Look at the results of what the ethos of contraception, which both Fathers Ford and Kelly opposed, and that of "natural family planning" have wrought: the depopulation of Europe and the destabilization of families and family life in developed countries, including the Untied States of America, whose population is only increasing as a result of immigrant and whose nonwhite population will constitute a majority of the nation by the middle of this century precisely because of contraception, surgical abortion and the ethos of "natural family planning" that has convinced Catholics all across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide that it is their "right" to limit the size of their families to pursue career goals, material comforts and "freedom" from excessive "concerns" about caring for and feeding progeny.

Unfortunately for these poor prophets,  you see, their view of tying the procreation of children to population for purposes of economic stability and production, which was what the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sought to do throughout the course of its history (surgical abortion between 1918 until after World War II; encouraging procreation thereafter to compensate for the loss of lives in the war) and what the Red Chinese do to this very day, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in his November 26, 1951, address to the Association of Large Families:

But there is an even deeper misery, from which we must preserve family, namely the terrible serfdom, which reduces a mentality, which tends to make a pure body to serve the community social, to procreate with it a sufficient mass of 'material' for the human race. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)


Any questions?

Italy's population rate has plummeted to well below replacement levels as a result of chemical abortifacients and surgical baby-killing and the prevalence of the ethos found in "natural family planning" that seeks to limit the size of families on a regular basis, including for reasons of emotional "stress" and "psychological health."

Indeed, a family with five children who were in Rome at the same time we were in May of 2005 was approached constantly with cries of great joy from older and invariably completely modestly dressed Italian women, who exclaimed:

Che un bel bambino. Che bellissimi bambini. Che bella famiglia. Non ci sono famiglie in Italia. Dio vi benedica per il vostro bebè.

(What a beautiful baby. What beautiful children. What a beautiful family. There are no families in Italy. God bless you for your babies.)


These women who were so excited to see a large family did not read Contemporary Moral Theology, Volume 2. They knew nothing of the nuance upon nuance upon nuance that was designed to deconstruct the plain words of a papal address and propagate a view of married life alien to the Catholic Faith. These simple women only knew the beauty of a large family (and five is not really that large of a number of children to have) because they loved God and knew what pleased Him. Fathers John Ford and Gerald Kelly sought to make complex that which is simple: obeying God by pleasing Him at all times, yes, even to the point of making sacrifices to give unto our own children what had been given to us by our own parents.

The late Monsignor George Kelly noted the following, in his The Catholic Marriage Manual as he sought to be faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church and not to the demands of the "population control" crowd and their myth of overpopulation:

If the necessary conditions are not met in a particular case, would a couple commit sin in practicing periodic continence? And if it is sinful, how serious is the sin? Writing in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Father Goodwine has answered:

"If any one of the required conditions (that the parties be willing to abstain, that they be able to abstain without proximate danger of serious sin, and that they have a justifying reason) is not met, recourse to periodic continence will be sinful.

"In certain cases it may even be seriously sinful,"For instance, if the first condition is not verified and the practice of periodic continence is insisted on by the partner against the reasonable objections of the other, a sin of injustice would be committed. In such circumstances one partner would be unjustly depriving the other of his right to the marriage act during the fertile periods. So also, if the second condition is not met and the practice of periodic continence becomes a proximate occasion of sins against chastity, there would be serious sin. The otherwise permissible practice of periodic continence becomes seriously wrong when it leads to grave danger of other mortal sins. Similarly there would be serious sin if the practice involves a proximate danger of divorce or breakup of the marriage, or of other sins against the obligations of married life."

Large families the Christian ideal: Pope Pius XII has described large families as "those blessed by God, beloved by the Church and considered by it as one of its most precious treasures."

In an address to the Association of Large Families of Rome and Italy, His Holiness restated a truth that is sometimes forgotten that "faith in God supplies parents with the strength necessary to face the sacrifices and renunciations required for the rearing of children; Christian principles guide and lighten the difficult task of education; the Christian spirit of love watches over the family's order and tranquillity while it dispenses, almost drawing upon nature itself, the intimate family joys common to parents, children and brothers. . . . "But God also visits large families with His providence, to which the parents, especially poor ones, give an open testimony by placing in it their entire trust when human efforts are not sufficient. It is a trust well founded, and not in vain . . . God does not deny the means to live to those He calls to life."

In this connection, the following comments by Father Goodwine should be carefully considered.


"There is a tendency to limit the discussion of periodic continence to questions of strict morality, to concentrate almost exclusively on right and wrong, to attempt to draw the line between what may and what may not be done without committing sin," Father Goodwine states. "All too often such discussions lose sight of the Christian ideal of family life. Hardly ever do we hear any mention of the ideal of parenthood or of family life as the ideal type of married life.

"God instituted marriage as the means for the propagation of the race. The fruitful marriage, therefore, and not the sterile marriage, is the marriage that falls in best with God's plan. Having children is the primary goal of marriage. The family, therefore, consisting of father, mother and children is the ideal for the Christian.

"There is something amiss when a couple wishes to marry, yet does not want to have any children; or determines to postpone having children for one, two or more years; or intends to have only three or four or six children but no more. A priest friend of mine likens such people to a young man seeking ordination to the priesthood who makes the stipulation that he will never have to say Mass, administer the sacraments, preach, or take duty. Such a young man would be seeking to avoid the very purposes for which men are ordained to the priesthood. So, too, the married couple who, without sufficient reason, seek to avoid children, fail to fulfill their purpose in life. Even the couple who has a sufficient reason for practicing rhythm can be counseled to do more than is required by duty; to strive deliberately and consciously after the ideal.

"The present Holy Father has said: It is one of the fundamental demands of right moral order that a sincere inner acceptance of the office and duties (of parenthood) correspond to the use of conjugal rights.' There must then be a willingness on the part of married persons and on the part of couples entering marriage to 'serve' motherhood and fatherhood a willingness to become parents. Perhaps more attention should be paid to what Dr. John Kane, of Notre Dame, calls the 'almost unanimous conclusion' of sociological studies on marital happiness: 'Happiness in marriage is not associated with the presence or absence of children in the family, but with a strong desire to have children. (Text as found in Monsignor George Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, Random House, 1958, pp.58- 60.)

This is a ringing condemnation of the views held by the conciliar revolutionaries to this very day.  It is also a ringing condemnation of anyone and everyone today who says that it is better that couples practice "natural family planning" under all circumstances rather than to sin by the use of contraceptive pills and devices. Condemned. Completely. Unequivocally.

Consider, for example, Saint John Marie Vianney's stern warning given to those parents who deny God the children He meant them to have to give Him honor and glory in this life on earth and thence to do so in the glory of His Beatific Vision for all eternity in Heaven:


He preaches to the married on the duty of having children: "Must little birds serve you as examples? Look at the little creatures, how they rejoice to see their generation multiply. During the day, they are occupied in finding them food, and at night they cover them with their wings to protect them from the inclement air. If a greedy hand takes their little ones away you hear them weep after their own fashion. They seem to be unable to leave their nests, always hoping to find their children again. I am not talking to pagans but to Christians. How shameful that animals should be more faithful to fulfil the designs of Providence than the children of God, the fathers and mothers God has chosen for the peopling of Heaven!". . . .

Once, as we have noted, he compared the multitude of the damned to snowflakes falling thick and fast on a winter's day. It is alarming when he speaks of the multitude of the damned, and we are glad to learn that round about 1840 he became less severe to his judgments, owing to the influence of some other priest. However, to a woman overburdened with many children he said: "If you only knew the women who are in Hell for  not having given to the world the children they should have given." (Margaret Trouncer, Saint Jean-Marie Vianney: Cure of Ars, Sheed and Ward, 1959, p. 151; p. 174.)

I do not suppose that his sermon will be discussed at next year's "extraordinary synod of bishops," do you?

Of course not. Conciliarism is a false religion. It is not Catholicism.

Indeed, the forthcoming "extraordinary synod of bishops" whose "home office" has sent out the survey of questions even though the answers to them are very well known will probably feature some kind of variation of Resolution 15 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect that started to give "Christian" impetus to the Sangerian revolution whose basic ethos shapes the whole conciliar teaching on marriage and the family:

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

Conciliarism is not Catholicism. Period.

As noted around two months ago now, To Blind To The Truth At This Point Is Irresponsible.

To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernity and Modernism once and for all. May our own efforts to make reparation for our sins, many though they may be, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary help to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics, clergy and laity alike, will come to embrace the truths of the Holy Faith without any concessions to the deceits of the devil as each of us attempts, to pray more, to talk less and to sacrifice in behalf of the restoration of the Church Militant on earth, especially by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, pray for us.


Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Martin of Tours, pray for us.

Saint Mennas, pray for us.


© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.