Apostates Reprimanding Apostates
by Thomas A. Droleskey
There are times in the absurd world of conciliarism when apostates reprimand their fellow apostates. As they say across the "pond," that is the Atlantic Ocean, in once proudly Catholic England, it all makes for a "jolly good show." However, it is nothing more than that: a jolly good show.
Those who have long memories of past shows that have been staged by the apostates of the counterfeit church of concilairism.
There was the time back in 1979 when the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger's old colleague from University of Tubingen, Father Hans Kung, was slapped on the wrist by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and removed from a chair of theology at University of Tubingen, whereupon Father Kung, who published Infallibility? An Inquiry in 1971 wherein he denied the doctrine of papal infallibility, simply moved over to teaching position in "ecumenical theology" that was created for him by the university's administrators, who took the additional step of rechartering the University of Tubingen as a secular institution. Just another conciliar shell game, you see. Kung continues to remain in perfectly "good standing" as a priest in the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite supporting the killing of the sick and the infirmed under the auspices of "euthanasia."
Kung endorses a "one world ecumenical church" and is a unequivocal, full-throated supporter of the disproved ideology of evolutionism. He has even gone so far as to criticize his former college, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, for having a theology was stilted by the decrees of the Council of Nicea, which happened to condemn the Arianism for which Hans Kung has quite an affinity. So much for the cordial dinner that he shared with Ratzinger/Benedict in the Apostolic Palace on September 26, 2005, four weeks to the day after the false "pontiff" had met with Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X at Castel Gandolfo (the summer residence of popes since Pope Urban VIII first used it for that purpose in 1626. Insofar as Kung's criticism of Ratzinger/Benedict is concerned, what applies to Dr. Leonard Swidler applies also to himself (see "Joe" Hasn't Changed,
The Devil's Final Battle listed just some of Kung's more egregious apostasies:
It needs to be pointed out that these are
only some of Hans Kung's heretical views, but they were the only ones
mentioned within the Vatican's sanctions. Thus, in effect. the Vatican
left Kung's other heterodox tenets untouched. For example in one of his
most famous books entitled On Being a Christian, Hans Kung:
- denies the Divinity of Christ (p. 130)
- dismisses the miracles of the Gospel (p. 233)
- denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus (p. 350)
- denies that Christ founded an institutional Church (p. 109)
- denies that the Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary (p. 323)
Kung has never retracted these unorthodox
and heretical statements. Moreover, Kung has publicly called for a
revision of Church teaching on issues such as papal infallibility, birth
control, mandatory celibacy of priests, and women in the priesthood.
Despite this blatant rejection of Church teaching, the only penalty that
the Vatican ever inflicted against Kung was that he was "not allowed"
to be considered a Catholic theologian, and as such, was not allowed to
teach theology in a Catholic university. This "penalty" was circumvented
when the University of Tubingen, Kung's home campus, retained Kung as a
teaching professor and simply restructured part of the university so
that Kung, a great celebrity, may continue teaching in that part of the
university which is now chartered as a "secular" school.
Meanwhile, the Vatican has never condemned
Kung as a heretic, never excommunicated him (as canon law provides),
never ordered that his books be removed from libraries in Catholic
seminaries and universities (where they are now found in abundance),
never prevented him being a guest-lecturer at Catholic institutions,
never obstructed him from publishing articles in Concilium or other
progressivist "Catholic" publications. Father Hans Kung is not even
suspended. Rather, to this day, Kung remains in good standing in the
diocese of Basle, with no other canonical penalties leveled against him. (Paul Kramer, ed., The Devil's Final Battle.)
Another such noted apostate who was slapped on the wrists by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was Father Charles Curran, who remains a priest in "good
standing" canonically in the Diocese of Rochester, New York, despite his
consistent and unapologetic rejection of Catholic teaching on such
matters as contraception and abortion (among other sins against the
Fifth Sixth and Ninth Commandments). Curran was permitted to teach at
The Catholic University of America for eighteen years following his open
opposition to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Humanae Vitae in
1968, receiving in 1986 the same kind of censure as that meted out to
Kung in 1979 (being declared to be no longer able to teach Catholic
It is interesting to note that Curran's bishop at the time of
his open dissent from Humanae Vitae, which is in and of itself a document filled with conciliar land mines (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae), was none other than
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who took no action against him at all. And
the conciliar Archbishop of Washington, D.C., at the time, Joseph
Cardinal O'Boyle, who tried to discipline Curran by removing him from
his teaching position, was overruled by the other cardinals who served
on the governing board of The Catholic University of America, a decision
that was not overturned by Montini. Curran has been teaching at
Southern Methodist University since his dismissal from The Catholic
University of America in 1986 and still writes articles in behalf of his apostate positions.
Most often, noting a few examples here and there (such as the notorious "creation spirituality" New Age Dominican priest by the name of Father Matthew Fox, who was expelled from the Order of Preachers in 1993 by the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger). those who support
various propositions that go beyond the approve apostasies of
conciliarism remain completely uncensured by the conciliar Vatican.
Indeed, Charles Curran's own "bishop" and staunch supporter, Matthew
Clark of Rochester, New York, said in the 1990s that the "church" must
find some way to bless "unions" between "couples" engaged in perverse
sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Clark will turn seventy-five years of age on July 15, 2012, at which point he will submit his resignation after over thirty-two years of wrecking the Diocese of Rochester.
The names of other notorious figures in the counterfeit of conciliarism who have gone beyond the approved apostasies of conciliarism are legion. Among them would be many who are speakers every year at the infamous Los Angeles "Religious Education" Congress, including Richard Rohr (see What Are Richard Rohr and CAC Up To and Fr Richard Rohr joins conversations on Evolutionary Christianity) and lesser known apostates who teach in conciliar schools and universities and colleges and seminarians and speak at various events sponsored by dioceses. These ranks swell when one considers the very large number of Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical assassination of children in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law and/or support special "rights," including "marriage," for those engaged in perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
A church of apostasy breeds apostasies. It is impossible to keep error from metastasizing as it is founded in a prideful rejection of truth, which means that different people must add their own new "twists" on errors as they demonstrate what tremendous "contributions" they have made in the field of "knowledge" and human "progress."
Pope Saint Pius X described the Modernists whose victory, albeit transitory as the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end, against truth has scattered and divided the flock of the Good Shepherd, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the following terms:
The Modernists completely invert the
parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our
predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some
among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by
profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting
the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the
rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of
science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the
head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
It is thus always very amusing when men who are themselves apostates, having defected from the Catholic Faith on numerous points of doctrine and having given public scandal very notoriously on innumerable occasions by personally esteeming the symbols of false religions and engaging in inter-religious "prayer" services, attempt to reprimand those who are said to have gone "too far" with their own "unapproved" apostasies and practices that are said to be threats to, if not violations of, the Catholic Faith. The sort of illogic and disconnection from reality that is necessary for those who are themselves apostates to wrap themselves up in mantles of doctrinal orthodoxy is staggering to contemplate.
Yet it is that the William "Cardinal" Levada, who learned well from his academic mentor, Father Joseph Ratzinger, to accept the Modernist view of the nature of dogmatic truth (see Generating Controversy and Negative Press and Rescind the Appointment at Once, both which were written my "resist and recognize days in 2005; Anathematized by His Own Words, No Need to be in Limbo Any Longer, Piracy, Conciliar Style, Red Carpet For A Modernist, Words Really Do Matter and Short And To The Catholic Point), has taken effort to "discipline" the ultra-progressive, feminist-controlled Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWC). Levada, the man who, as the conciliar "archbishop" of Portland, Oregon, once told the late Father Eugene Heidt, whom he suspended for offering the Immemorial Mass of Tradition without "permission," that Transubstantiation is a "long and difficult word" and "that we don't use it any more" (see Invincible or Inculpable), has issued an eight-page Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious to raise concerns about some of the speakers chosen to appear at the LWC's conferences and certain beliefs and liturgical practices at variance with the Catholic Faith.
Here is a summary of the concerns that were expressed by the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2009 that led to an investigation of the LCWC by by Leonard Blair, the conciliar "bishop" of Toledo, Ohio, at the conciliar Vatican's request:
The decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to undertake a
doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) was communicated to the LCWR Presidency during their meeting with Cardinal William Levada in Rome on April 8, 2008. At that meeting, three major areas of concern were given as motivating the CDF’s decision to initiate the Assessment:
o Addresses at the LCWR Assemblies. Addresses given during LCWR annual Assemblies manifest problematic statements and serious theological, even doctrinal errors. The Cardinal offered as an example specific passages of Sr. Laurie Brink’s address about some Religious “moving beyond the Church” or even beyond Jesus. This is a challenge not only to core Catholic beliefs; such a rejection of faith is also a serious source of scandal and is incompatible with religious life. Such unacceptable positions routinely go unchallenged by the LCWR, which should provide resources for member Congregations to foster an ecclesial vision of religious life, thus helping to correct an erroneous vision of the Catholic faith as an important exercise of charity.
Some might see in Sr. Brink’s analysis a phenomenological snapshot of religious life
today. But Pastors of the Church should also see in it a cry for help.
o Policies of Corporate Dissent. The Cardinal spoke of this issue in reference to letters the CDF received from “Leadership Teams” of various Congregations, among them LCWR Officers, protesting the Holy See’s actions regarding the question of women’s ordination and of a correct pastoral approach to ministry to homosexual persons, e.g.
letters about New Ways Ministry’s conferences. The terms of the letters suggest that these sisters collectively take a position not in agreement with the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. It is a serious matter when these Leadership Teams are not
providing effective leadership and example to their communities, but place themselves outside the Church’s teaching.
o Radical Feminism. The Cardinal noted a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith in some of the programs and presentations sponsored by the LCWR, including theological interpretations that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father who sent his Son for the salvation of the world.
Moreover, some commentaries on “patriarchy” distort the way in which Jesus has structured sacramental life in the Church; others even undermine the revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the inspiration of Sacred Scripture. (Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.)
"Bishop" Blair presented all of the requested documentation to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2010, resulting in a meeting with "Cardinal" Levada on the "bishop" members of the congregation on January 12, 2011. Here are the highlights of the report issued on April 18, 2012:
On June 25, 2010, Bishop Blair presented further documentation on the content of the LCWR’s Mentoring Leadership Manual and also on the organizations associated with the LCWR, namely Network and The Resource Center for Religious Institutes. The documentation reveals that, while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the Bishops, who are the Church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose.
All of the documentation from the doctrinal Assessment including the LCWR responses was presented to the Ordinary Session of the Cardinal and Bishop Members of the CDF on January 12, 2011. The decision of that Ordinary Session was:
1) The current doctrinal and pastoral situation of the LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern, also given the influence the LCWR exercises on religious Congregations in other parts of the world;
2) After the currently-ongoing Visitation of religious communities of women in the United States is brought to a conclusion, the Holy See should intervene with the prudent steps necessary to effect a reform of the LCWR;
3) The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will examine the various forms of canonical intervention available for the resolution of the problematic aspects present in the LCWR. (Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.)
There are several observations that can be made at half-past Midnight on Good Shepherd Sunday, the Second Sunday after Easter.
First, none of this is "news." Hundreds of articles and scores of books have been written about the doctrinal, moral and spiritual corruption of the older communities of women religious that once made up the backbone of Catholic education and health-care here in the United States of America. Many of us have experienced this corruption on a first-hand basis.
Second, the problems listed in the "doctrinal assessment" are not confined to the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. They are pandemic in most of the once proudly Catholic communities of women religious that have "moved beyond" even the official apostasies of conciliarism into a pantheistic "spirituality" that does not exclude, at least in many instances, outright practice of witchcraft and other occult rituals. Taking more time to "examine the various forms of canonical intervention available for the resolution of the problematic aspects of the LCWR" is absurd as that organization is simply representation of the life of the older communities of women religious that bought into the conciliar agenda back in the 1960s.
Third, there is a discussion of "radical feminism" in the "doctrinal assessment" without a recognition that all forms of feminism are contrary to the true femininity of the Mother of God, after whose humility and self-abnegation women religious should model their religious lives no matter the particular charisms of the communities in which they took vows. Why was there no discussion of the lack of space given at LCWC conferences to the Rosary and True Devotion to Mary as taught by Saint Louis de Montfort?
Fourth, the "doctrinal assessment" omits mentioning the simple fact that the numbers of women religious plummeted in the United States of America from 179,954 in 1965 to 55,944 in 2011. The "doctrinal assessment," of course cannot mention this as the conciliar revolutionaries within the Vatican, starting with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict stress that their false church is experiencing a "qualitative renewal" (see an early article on this site, written in my "resist but recognize" days, that deal with the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger's assertion in this regard, By the Numbers and by God's Book: Cardinal Ratzinger is Just Dead Wrong).
William Levada cannot admit the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is merely reflecting a loss of the Catholic Faith that has resulted from the conciliar church's unremitting warfare against the Sacred Deposit of Faith and its implementation of a liturgical revolution that was designed of its nature to overthrow Catholic Tradition.
William Levada cannot admit that the problems within the Leadership Conference on Women Religious are the direct result of the abandonment of traditional habits for women religious and in the wholesale change in the very structure of religious life that occurred in the wake of the "Second" Vatican Council that drove some women religious to have nervous breakdowns and many others to leave their communities altogether.
Fifth, the "doctrinal assessment" relies on the un-Catholic "Catechism of the Catholic Church" as the foundation of doctrinal orthodoxy, which is truly laughable (see Piracy, Conciliar Style, which contains an appendix with the contents of a review of this "catechism" found on a Society of Saint Pius X website). Remember, it was this "catechism" that was the basis for the "doctrinal discussions" that took place between officials of the conciliar church, working under Levada's direction, and the representatives of the Society of Saint Pius X that are about to result in a "happy reconciliation" within a relatively short period of time (see Just About To Complete A Long March Into Oblivion).
Sixth, the mention in the doctrinal assessment of the well-known fact that the "social justice" agenda of the LCWC ignores the surgical dismemberment of children in their mothers' wombs and efforts to kill the life of the elderly and the infirmed under cover of the civil law makes it appear while supporting outright perverse "lifestyles" that contravene the Sixth and Ninth Commandment is hardly earthshaking. The appendix below will relate a story, told previously on this site, of my experience as a speaker at the "First Annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities Congress" on Saturday, May 7, 1983. I am still waiting for a return invitation twenty-nine years later.
While the concerns listed in the "doctrinal assessment" are indeed serious and legitimate when considered on an isolated basis, it must be remembered that it is impossible to use the apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and errors of conciliarism as the foundation of any kind of "unity."
How is it possible for compel the LCWC to adhere to the strictures of the conciliar Vatican when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and William "Cardinal" Levada make warfare against the very nature of dogmatic truth, thus unwittingly making their own pronouncements as "historically conditioned" and "time bound" by the dogmatic decrees issued by the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty legitimate councils and the encyclical letters issued by our true popes? It is not. (Glad to have answered that question for you.)
How is it possible for Ratzinger/Benedict and Levada to discipline, no less after taking more time to examine the "canonical" options available to them that will probably result in some kind cosmetic restructuring that will the exact same problems in the actual communities of religious women from whose ranks the leadership of the LCWC is elected by its members, wayward women religious when men such as Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg and Breisgau in the Federal Republic of Germany and the president of the German "bishops'" conference, who deny that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour died on the wood of the Holy Cross to atone for our sins goes undisciplined?
How is it possible for Ratzinger/Benedict and Levada to discipline wayward women religious for their support of "alternative lifestyles" when alleged prelates such as Carlo Martini, the retired conciliar "archbishop" of Milan, Italy, to do so without being disciplined?
Given Cardinal Martini’s prominence in the Catholic Church (some
sources suggest that he had quite a few votes to become Pope in the 2005
conclave) his statements on homosexuality point to a powerful
counter-ideology that has made significant inroads into the Church’s
teaching on the matter of homosexuality. It is an ideology or theology
that was warned about already in 1986 by Martini’s contemporary Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
In his newly released book, Credere e conoscere (Faith and Understanding), Cardinal Martini posits his disagreement
with the Catholic teaching against homosexual civil unions. “I disagree
with the positions of those in the Church, that take issue with civil
unions,” he wrote. “It is not bad, instead of casual sex between men,
that two people have a certain stability” and that the “state could
Cardinal Martini says that he can even understand (but not
necessarily approve) gay pride parades. He says he agrees with the
Catholic Church’s promotion of traditional marriage for the stability of
the human species, however he adds, it is “not right to express any
discrimination on other types of unions.” (Cardinal Martini and the false theology promoting homosexuality.)
No, the false "pontiff" and his protege, Levada, will not be reminding Carlo Montini of the following passages from Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:, that are as applicable "gay couples" as to men and women living together outside of a valid marriage:
51. Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species
of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times,
which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary,"
"experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony
and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring,
unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full
sense of the law.
52. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be
legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among
the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of
nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply
hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations
to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
How is it possible for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and William Levada to discipline wayward women religious when they permit George "Cardinal" Pell, the conciliar "archbishop"of Sydney, Australia, denies the very existence of Adam and Eve:
In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George
Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.
He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC's Q&A program last night.
Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.
"It's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world," he said.
"It's a religious story told for religious purposes." (Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist.)
You see, Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe that Adam and Eve existed. It's kind of hard for a putative "pope" to discipline one of his "cardinals," especially such a close collaborator as George Pell, for believing as he does. They believe in sophisticated "mythology." Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II referred to the account of Special Creation in the Book of Genesis as merely "allegorical."
Yet it was that Pope Pius XII, while keeping an open mind on scientific discussions on evolution, which has been proved to be a thoroughly discredited ideology, insisted in Humani Generis, August 15, 1950, that all human beings are descended from Adam:
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely
polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the
faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam
there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through
natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam
represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how
such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth
and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to
original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam
and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his
own. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 15, 1950.)
[Pope Pius XII's openness to studies in evolution seems to have changed in the 1953 after the completion
of the model of DNA, which makes it impossible for there to "evolution"
from one species to another. It was the discovery of DNA that caused one
fervent group of evolutionists in 1980 to admit that Darwin's theory of
natural selection was no longer supportable. That did not stop them
from believing in evolutionism, which could be "proved" by other
disproved explanations offered by their fellow junk scientists.
Moreover, the late Mr. Gerard Keane's Creation Rediscovered reports that Pope Pius XII expressed "serious reservations about the
scientific credibility" of evolutionism in an address delivered to the First International Congress of Medical Genetics, September 7, 1953:
In recent works on genetics one reads that
the connection between living things cannot be explained better than by
supposing a common genealogical tree. It is, however, necessary to
remark that we we have here is an image, a hypothesis, not a
demonstrated fact. . . . If most researcher workers speak of
genealogical descent as a fact, they are premature in doing so. Other
hypotheses are possible [in addition to that of evolution] . . .
[Besides] scientists of repute have pointed out that in their opinion
one cannot as yet say what is real and exact meaning of terms such as
"evolution," "descent" and "transmission"; that we know of no natural
process by which one being can beget another of a different kind; that
the process by which one species begets another is altogether
unintelligible, no matter how many intermediate stages be supposed; that
no experimental method for producing one species from another has been
found; and finally that we have no idea at what stage in the
evolutionary process the hominoid suddenly crossed the threshold of
humanity . . . [In conclusion] one is forced to say that the study of
human origins is only at its beginnings: there is nothing definitive
about present-day theory. (Quoted in Gerard Keane, Creation Rediscovered, p. 201.)
It is perhaps the case
that Pope Pius XII's 1953 allocution was an effort to further qualify
the openness to the study of evolution that had been expressed in Humani Generis,
which was unjustified, some believe, even on the basis of what was
known by true secular science in 1950. Nevertheless, everything in true
science since 1950 has debunked evolutionism, making endorsements of it by the likes of Ratzinger/Benedict and George Pell Ratzinger's
endorsement of it all the more laughable and inexcusable.
Open denials of long held Catholic beliefs and practices are commonplace in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. If Ratzinger/Benedict and Levada want to do something constructive for the Catholic Faith, you see, they should try returning to It and publicly abjure their numerous apostasies and acts of sacrilege.
We must belong to the voice of the Good Shepherd Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has spoken to us without change through the centuries by means of the teaching He has entrusted to Holy Mother Church, not to the hirelings in the conciliar church who are but wolves in shepherds' clothing.
Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, to whom we are very devoted in the Droleskey household, prophesied in the Nineteenth Century that Saints Peter and Paul would choose a cardinal to be pope after a time of apostasy. How will this happen? I don't know. I pray for a miracle of this sort every day. I am a simpleton. It would be wonderful if such an unmerited relief from the A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y that has held sway now for five decades takes place. I keep praying for this miracle. We must remain on our knees in fervent prayer.
As we await the miracle of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that will usher in a period of peace and restore Holy Mother Church, we must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to live more and more penitentially, making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own many sins and for those of the whole word., praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. No matter the problems in the Catholic catacombs, and they are problems aplenty, one can never
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Soter and Caius, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
The First Annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities Congress, May 7, 1983
Among the large number of people who were once
friends of mine but who have, within the Providence of God, of course,
withdrawn their friendship over the years, is the man who was
responsible in the summer of 1972 for directing me to pursue my
doctorate in political science. The professor, who was once a very close
friend and to whom I will always be grateful for his excellence as a
classroom instructor and for the years of friendship that he saw fit to
give, said, "You seem to have a flair for college teaching. Why don't
you consider getting a Master's degree and a law degree at the same
time. Lawyers are a dime a dozen. There are many law school graduates
today selling encyclopedias door-to-door." Well, I wound I taking his
advice entirely, eschewing admissions to several law schools, including
Saint John's, Baylor and Notre Dame, to pursue the doctorate.
It was at the recommendation of this professor in
1983, by then a colleague of mine, that I replaced him as a speaker at
something called the "First Annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities Congress"
on Saturday, May 7, 1983. Among the other speakers were none other than
the conciliar "bishop" of Albany, Howard Hubbard, who spoke on the
necessity of "economic justice." It was a pure exercise in naturalism of
the false opposite of the "left" from beginning to end. Another speaker
was a Sister Amada Miller of the Archdiocese of Detroit, the home of
the insidious revolutionary cell named "Call to Action" that was the
brainchild of the Modernist named John Cardinal Dearden, who said that
poor people needed to be given more material goods to make them happy.
(No, I am not making this up! I was there. I heard this with my own
thirty-one and one-half year-old ears.)
I began my own address by noting that the singularly
most important issue of genuine social
justice, to which the "congress" was supposedly dedicated, namely,
restoring legal protection to all preborn children without any
exception whatsoever, was not on their agenda. "I find this very
curious," I told those in the audience. Two elderly Sisters,
dressed in their traditional habits, applauded furiously. Everyone else
in the audience sat on their hands, including an auxiliary "bishop" of
the Diocese of Brooklyn, Joseph Sullivan, whose bald head turned beat
red as I noted and denounced the meeting's naturalistic, liberal agenda.
(Sullivan was a confidante and supporter of former United States
Representative Geraldine Ferraro Zaccaro and former Governor of the
State of New York Mario Matthew Cuomo.)
I was not invited back to speak at the "Second Annual
Brooklyn Catholic Charities" Congress in 1984. Was it something that I