Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                January 18, 2014

Antichrist Has His Own Hierarchy

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The adversary has his own perverse hierarchy that apes and mocks the hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church. This perverse hierarchy has manifested itself more and more in the course of the past six hundred fifty years since the onset of the early phases of the Renaissance and has come more into full public view in the past five hundred years since the beginning of the Protestant Revolution in 1517 that overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King and as the welter of Judeo-Masonic "philosophies" and ideologies arose in its wake.

Today, of course, figures of Antichrist have established a very visible, if yet to be fully congealed, hierarchy that can be listed as follows:

  1. International agencies of global governance (e.g. United Masonic Nations Organization, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, International Court of Justice, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD/World Bank), International Monetary Fund, European Union, North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) Secretariat, Group of Eight/Group of Twenty, International Labor Organization, etc.)
  2. The permanent civil servants of civil governments in the nations of the world to whom national legislatures have delegated legislative powers that regulate national economies and restrict the legitimate liberties of citizens.
  3. Members of the judiciary of nation-states and their subordinate units (e.g. states, provinces, departments, administrative districts, regions, etc.)
  4. Political party leaders and their campaign donors, that is, those who control the strings of the elected officials.
  5. The international banking community.
  6. The corporate world.
  7. The mainslime media and what passes for entertainment.
  8. The high priests and priestesses of popular culture (i.e., education, law, journalism, psychology/psychiatry, sociology, feminists, environmentalists, the homosexual collective, actors, actresses, professional celebrities, professional sports).
  9. Public opinion surveys designed to "ratify" decisions made by the elite leadership levels.
  10. Religious institutions.

If you want an easier way to understand this hierarchy, perhaps it should be called to mind that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., told us last year that it is, after all, all about the fact that the Synagogue's Risen.

Demonstrating their complete subservience to this de facto, if not de jure, hierarchy of Antichrist, the lords of conciliarism are ever ready to submit "reports" to those who are above them in the Judeo-Masonic pecking order (and we are experts in the Droleskey household on the pecking order as we have ten parakeets who live according to a very exact pecking order). This is what "Archbishop" Silvano Tomasi, representing the Secretariat of the Holy See in conciliar captivity, did on Thursday, January 16, 2014, the Feast of Pope Saint Marcellus I, as he made a report in John Calvin's former stronghold of Geneva, Switzerland, to the United Nations Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Here is an excerpt from the report that "Archbishop" Tomasi gave two days ago now to his false church's superiors at the United Masonic Nations Organization's committee in Geneva:

At the time of the ratification in 1990, the Holy See made the following declaration.

"The Holy See regards the present Convention as a proper and laudable instrument aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, who are that precious treasure given to each generation as a challenge to its wisdom and humanity."

"By acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Holy See intends to give renewed expression to its constant concern for the well-being of children and families. In consideration of its singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention, does not intend to prescind in any way from its specific mission which is of a religious and moral character."

The protection of children remains a major concern for contemporary society and for the Holy See. The UN report on Violence Against Children, issued in 2006, cited shocking WHO estimates that 150 million girls and 73 million boys under 18 "experienced forced sexual intercourse and other forms of sexual violence involving physical contact".[1] Even if they contain a significant margin of error, these estimates should never be ignored nor overshadowed by other priorities or interests on the part of the international community. Moreover, this estimate does not include projections on the number of victims of child labour and child trafficking, whether for sexual exploitation, forced work, sale of organs, and other shameful reasons. Although little is known about the magnitude of the problem, the International Labor Organization, in 2002, estimated that there were 1.2 million children being trafficked each year.[2]

Abusers are found among members of the world’s most respected professions, most regrettably, including members of the clergy and other church personnel.[3] This fact is particularly serious since these persons are in positions of great trust and they are called to levels of service that are to promote and protect all elements of the human person, including physical, emotional, and spiritual health. This relationship of trust is critical and demands a higher sense of responsibility and respect for the persons served.

Confronted with this reality, the Holy See has carefully delineated policies and procedures designed to help eliminate such abuse and to collaborate with respective State authorities to fight against this crime. The Holy See is also committed to listen carefully to victims of abuse and to address the impact such situations have on survivors of abuse and on their families. The vast majority of church personnel and institutions on the local level have provided, and continue to provide, a wide variety of services to children by educating them, and by supporting their families, and by responding to their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. Egregious crimes of abuse committed against children have rightly been adjudicated and punished by the competent civil authorities in the respective countries.

Therefore, the response of the Holy See to the sad phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors has been articulated in different ambits.

On the level of the Holy See, as the Sovereign of Vatican City State, the response to sexual abuse has been in accord with its direct responsibility over the territory of Vatican City State. In this regard, special legislation has been enacted to implement international legal obligations, and covers the State, and its tiny population.[4]

On the international level, the Holy See has taken concrete action by the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990. In 2000, the Holy See acceded to the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography, as well as the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. The Holy See then promotes and encourages these international instruments.

At the same time, the Holy See as the central organ of the Catholic Church has formulated guidelines to facilitate the work of the local Churches to develop effective measures within their jurisdiction and in conformity with canonical legislation.

Local Churches, taking into account the domestic law in their respective countries, have developed guidelines and monitored their implementation with the aim of preventing any additional abuse and dealing promptly with it, in accordance with national law whenever it occurs. Reference to examples of such measures by local Churches are cited in paragraph 99 of the Holy See Periodic Report. For example, the Catholic Church in the United States adopted a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and a series of related measures.[5] Other practical initiatives have been undertaken, for example the production of e-courses by the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome together with the University of Munich and the promotion of good practices by Catholic-inspired NGO’s, and these have a transnational accessibility.

The result of the combined action taken by local Churches and by the Holy See presents a framework that, when properly applied, will help eliminate the occurrence of child sexual abuse by clergy and other church personnel. Given the unique standing of the Holy See within the international community, and the presence of the local Churches in so many parts of the world, the Catholic Church is keen to become an example of best practice in this important endeavour as required by the high values and ideals incorporated in the Convention and its Protocols.

The Holy See’s Periodic Report on the CRC is divided into four Parts: Part I deals with general considerations, including the nature of the Holy See as a subject of international law. Part II responds to the concluding observations of the Committee to the Holy See’s Initial Report, and, in particular, questions concerning reservations; the Committee’s four principles and the duties and rights of parents, the education of girls, education about health, and education on the CRC. The Holy See also discusses the principles it promotes concerning the rights and duties of the child within the context of the family. Part III presents the international contributions of the Holy See in advancing and promoting basic principles recognized in the CRC on a full range of issues pertaining to children (e.g., the family, adoption, children with disabilities; health and welfare; leisure and culture; and special measures to protect children, including questions pertaining to sexual abuse, drug addiction, children living on the streets and minority groups). Finally, Part IV addresses the implementation of the Convention in Vatican City State. (Presentation of the Periodic Reports of the Holy See by H.E. Msgr. Silvano Tomasi to the Committee on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, 16 January 2014.)

Given the paucity of time available for the completion of this article at a reasonable hour, suffice it to say that Silvano Tomasi's report is a farce from beginning to end.

First, the Catholic Church is subservient to no civil body on the face of this earth.

Second, no official of the Catholic Church makes "reports" to a civil body. Indeed, Saint Thomas a Becket was martyred because he sought to uphold the liberties of Holy Mother Church in England to prosecute clergy accused of civil crimes in her own courts (see A Martyr for the Church's Liberties).

Third, officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have placed themselves in a position of reporting to the civil authorities on the matter of the clerical abuse of children precisely because they have refused to punish such clergy until the systematic and sustained program of protecting and enabling them became a matter of international headlines twelve years ago even though some of us had been reporting on these crimes in the previous decade and before.

Fourth, even though it was confirmed yesterday that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI approved the laicization of three hundred eighty-four priest/presbyter abusers in calendar years 2011 and 2012, the fact remains that the proverbial "barn door" remains wide open to future abuse as no one, starting with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict and his successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in the counterfeit church of conciliarism has yet to admit that the problem of clerical abuse has been caused principally by the systematic recruitment and retention of homosexual and/or effeminate men into seminaries and communities of religious men while candidates exhibiting any traits of firmness and masculinity have been weeded out as "psychologically unfit" and/or "rigid," "insensitive," "judgmental" and "Pharisaical."

Fifth, the following empirical proof can be given that Jorge Mario Bergoglio will never rid himself of what he once called a "gay lobby": Bergoglio continues to maintain "Monsignor Battista Ricca, a proven pervert and abuser, as the head of the Vatican Institute for Religious Works, known more commonly as the Vatican Bank (see Dispensing With The Last Pretenses Of Catholicism). Remember, it was in reference to Ricca's record as an abuser that Bergoglio responded "Who am I to judge" when questioned by reporters aboard his flight back to Rome on Monday, July 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martha, following the conclusion of the travesty known as World Youth Day in Rio de Janiero, Brazil (see Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three)

Sixth, all one needs to do to demonstrate the purely symbolic nature of the laicization of three hundred eighty-four priests/presbyters in 2011 and 2012 is to the point to the fact that very few conciliar 'bishops" have been forced to resign or take early "retirement" for their own roles in protecting these abusers.

Seventh, Vatican support for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which dates back to 1990 and hence to the time of the false pontificate of the soon-to-be "canonized" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II is in and of itself manifest proof that, all of their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, do not support the Natural Law principle of Subsidiarity and are willing to subordinate their own policies to the "mandates" of international organizations that are universally headed and staffed by those who support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers wombs and who support feminism, the agenda of the homosexual collective and every bit of pantheism that represents itself under the aegis of the slogan of "environmentalism."

Dr. Stephen M. Krason, who is the chairman of the Department of Politics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville and a co-founder, along with Dr. Joseph Varacalli of Nassau Community College, of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, has written extensively on the odious provisions of "child abuse" laws in the fifty states of the United States of America, many of which have been used against home schooling parents. It was in an 2007 article of his that Dr. Krason mentioned the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, making detailed reference to a letter that he co-wrote with this writer in 1995 that was sent to every member of the United States Senate at that time to convince them not to ratify this Marxist "convention:"

While all of these legal problems are caused by the nature of both our federal and state laws, a new threat to the family has loomed on the international horizon which, if not approached properly by the U.S. Government, may render fruitless any efforts to correct our laws--and may have the effect of extending the threat to families throughout the world. This is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was motivated by the thinking of, and drafted by, Western and Western-oriented "child-savers" and has now been widely ratified by nations around the world, some with reservations, although the U.S. Senate has not yet done so. A detailed discussion of the Convention is not possible here. We will merely quote from a letter the Society of Catholic Social Scientists sent to all the members of the Senate, urging a vote not to ratify. The letter was primarily drafted by political scientist and journalist Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey and contributed to by this writer:

It is clear that the Convention on the Rights of the Child seeks to subject parents to close bureaucratic supervision. Parents who do not educate or raise their children according to the dictates of the prevailing cultural trends will be subject to all kinds of civil and criminal penalties, if not the seizure of their children. This is a form of ideological totalitarianism.

Article 12 of the Convention states that children have the "right" to express their own views freely in all matters. All matters? Child-rearing? Discipline? The fact there are some self-appointed child advocates, such as Hillary Clinton, who believe that children as young as seven years of age can assert legal rights indicates that it would be possible under the Convention for grammar school students to sue their parents in order to express their views. This is absurd. Children are children. They need to learn about life. They need to respect their parents. They need to understand the virtues of humility and obedience, of submission to lawful authority. Also, of course, they will not be able to sue or otherwise oppose their parents on their own. The state will do it for them, with "child advocates" supplanting parents and deciding what is best for children.

Article 13 asserts that children have the right to receive all kinds of information through the "media of the child's choice." Parents concerned about protecting the purity and innocence of their children would be legally barred from censoring the television watched in the home, the movies their children choose to watch, and the books they choose to read. And those parents who do not have a television in their homes might be forced to secure one in order to respect their children's "right" to receive information. Is it overkill to point out that child pornography laws would be invalidated by this article of the Convention? Article 17 extends this "right" to national and international sources in the media.

Article 14 discusses the right of each child to freedom of religion. This appears, at first glance, to be praiseworthy. The article, however, contains an implicit threat to the rights of parents to raise their children. Can a child who does not want to receive religious education sue his parents for abuse because the parents refuse to honor the child's wishes? Can parents who tell their children to engage in family prayers be judged guilty of not respecting a child's freedom from religion? This is an attempt on the part of the secularists to free children from the influence of parents who desire to pass along transcendent truths to their children.

Article 16 immunizes children from any degree of parental censorship insofar as correspondence is concerned. While confidentiality is an important part of correspondence, parents nevertheless have to monitor the activities of their children, particularly those in the adolescent years. Can one seriously suggest that a parent has no right to determine if his child is being solicited by a pornographer or child molester? Does a parent have no right to determine if his child is receiving contraband drugs through the mail? This is absurd.

Article 18 seems likely to encourage the displacement of parents in raising their children by the state as it calls for the expansion in the state role in providing facilities to care for children.

Article 19 provides the basis for the establishment of dangerous, coercive state structures to track and pressure parents who violate the Convention’s notion of their children's "rights." In fact, Article 43 establishes perhaps the ultimate in distant, arrogant bureaucratic structures--an international committee of ten "experts" to oversee the progress of the Convention’s implementation. In other words, ten individuals will dictate to the hundreds of millions of parents in the world how to raise their children.

It appears as though Article 30, which guarantees a child the right to use his own language, might sanction the use of profanity. A parent would be powerless to tell his child to speak clearly and nobly, never using any vile language. And Article 31, giving children the "right to rest and leisure," would make it difficult for parents to command their children to do anything. All a child would have to do to avoid chores or assignments is to say that he is entitled to rest and leisure. 



How ironic it is that I helped to draft the points above while being oblivious to the fact that the man I believed to be the "pope," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II had legally bound the Holy See to the very United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child whose passages I had critiqued. To be honest, it is pretty shameful to have been reasonably clear about the dangers in the "convention" while ignoring the fact that the "pope" supported the very thing I was opposing. No, it more than "pretty shameful." It is very shameful. Yes, I have much for which to make reparation before I die. Much.

Eighth and finally, it is absurd for any conciliar official, including Silvano Tomasi, to speak of the "protection" of children when the counterfeit church of conciliarism exposes children to the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, and as its officials abuse children by means of the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandment while filling their immortal souls with the junk of conciliarism's numerous false doctrines and odious pastoral practices. These are the greatest child abuses of all, something that so few people, including traditionally-minded Catholics who are attached as of yet to the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church despite all of the evidence proving the heretical nature of conciliarism and its lord 

These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, should give us pause before we continue to rush into the insanity of considering the conciliar officials as anything other than outside the pale of the Catholic Church as they embrace naturalism while rejecting the fact that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society.  (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

The late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, as can be see in this passage from Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (which is available from Mr. Hugh Akin's Catholic Action Resource Center), explained in the most basic terms the simple truth that the conciliar revolutionaries reject so boldly even though they keep being bitten by the snake whose allurements they simply cannot resist:

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?"


The conciliar revolutionaries do not see or accept this because they have rejected the Catholic Faith in favor of another: the New World Order of Judeo-Masonry.

It is that simple.

Where does one begin to explain to the unconvinced that none of the errors being promoted by the conciliar revolutionaries come from the Catholic Church?

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Yes, The Chair is Still Empty, which is why we need to pray on the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter, something that will occur in a truly miraculous manner.

Far, far from the mind and heart of the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and minions such as Silvano Tomasi, is the following expression of Catholic truth found in Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

May we believe in this exhortation with all of our hearts as we give unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary all of our efforts to plant a few seeds when all men everywhere will exclaim as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary when the only peace plan that matters, Heaven's Peace Plan, Our Lady's Fatima Peace Plan, is fulfilled.

We need to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and make much reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as clients of those twin Hearts of matchless love that suffered as one during our Redemption and beat now as they have always beat, as one Heart that wills our salvation and the right ordering of men in states that are subordinate at all times to the Social reign of Christ the King.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, 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, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Prisca, pray for us.

© Copyright 2014, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.