Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
               February 5, 2013

Crushed By The Weight of Error

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Those of us who, through no merits of our own, have been blessed to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith know that we are living in truly astounding times.

I, for one, am old enough to be an eyewitness to the collapse of the apparent order that existed in the Church and in the world in the 1950s. This apparent order was, of course, a mirage, an illusion. Catholics and non-Catholics alike were lulled by the devil into believing that all was "well" with the world at a time that they were being conditioned to accept greater and greater doses of evil on an incremental basis.

The 1950s, however, were not so "golden.

" Indeed, that decade, which was the first of my life that began on November 24, 1951, was a harbinger of the doctrinal, liturgical and social revolutions that were to come to the surface in the 1960s as a variety of diabolical forces that had been at work for several centuries coalesced and manifested themselves into a cohesive force for disorder and chaos in the lives of individuals and their societies. This is not to condemn those who did not see things clearly back in the 1950s. My own late parents saw some elements of change that were alarming (such as "rock" music) but participated fully in others (watching television, believing in the near-salvific nature of electoral politics, dressing with short sleeves and in shorts in full violation of Our Lady's Fatima dress code). The conversation at the dinner table revolved around electoral politics and public policy, not around the Faith or the lives of the saints.

Our family was not at all atypical. Many other families, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, spent their days watching television programming, which was in its infancy in the 1950s. As I have noted on other occasions on this site, television programming in the 1950s was inoffensive in that generic, Judeo-Masonic standards of "decency" prevailed, at least for the most part. This does not mean that said programming was harmless. It was not.

Television programming in the 1950s was most harmful for three reasons.

First, television programming in the 1950s accustomed people to patterning their lives around the schedules of the various television networks, building on the habits that developed in the era of radio broadcasting before and in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Families adjusted their meal times to accommodate the television schedules. Some parishes had to reschedule their perpetual novenas, such as those to the Mother of Perpetual Help, as parishioners wanted to stay home and watch their favorite programs instead of being before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Families conversed less with each other. People got to bed later and later, especially with the advent of The Tonight Show (which began as Broadway Open House with Jerry Lester before Steve Allen and Jack Paar paved the way in the 1950s for the "king" of late-night television, Johnny Carson, in 1962), producing some anecdotal evidence that the productivity of workers decreased slightly and the attentiveness of students varied according to how late they had been up the night before a particular examination.

Second, television programming in the 1950s accustomed people more and more to accepting passively the propaganda broadcast into their homes. It is far, far easier to let others do one's thinking for one than to spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence and to pray more Rosaries as one spend some time each night in spiritual reading. The "word" of those on television became "gospel" to so many people, including a lot of Catholics. This permitted all manner of nefarious messages n the 1960s and 1970s to be communicated on television with hardly a peep from the average Catholic, who, at least for the most part, believed in the "television" more than his Faith. And it does not take much in the way of verbiage to demonstrate how the passivity engendered in the 1950s become so ingrained in the life of Catholics that a large percentage of them today accept rank pornography and blasphemy on television as nothing objectionable

Third, television programming in the 1950s proved itself to be a potent force in behalf of naturalism and religious indifferentism. Characters in situation comedies and in dramas "solved" their problems on their own, helping to propagating in the minds of so many Catholics the Americanist myth of self-redemption, that "we" can do anything "we" set our minds to doing because, after all, "we" are Americans, a prideful naturalistic attitude that is nothing other than the spirit of the heresy of semi-Pelagianism upon which the country was built in the first place. Television programming in the 1950s thus reinforced another basic tenet of the Americanist heresy, that it didn't make any difference what religion, if any, one belonged to as long as one was a "good" person and had the "best" of intentions.

What applies to television applies as well to the gradual acceptance of "rock and roll" "music" in the 1950s. This is an area where my own late parents held the line, explaining in a dinner conversation in 1955 that the gyrations and the beat of the music of Elvis Presley was decadent. That was good enough for me at the age of four, and it remained good enough for me throughout the 1960s as I understood that "rock" "music" popularized by The Beatles and others was from the devil and was designed to lead souls to Hell for all eternity. Dick Clark's American Bandstand helped to "mainstream" this vile form of noise in the 1950s, as did various disk jockeys who popularized various "singers" and who gave some credibility, at the very least, to the "Beatnik" generation that pioneered a path of social delinquency that was mastered by the "flower children" a decade later. Very few pastors of souls in Catholic parishes preached against the evil of "rock" "music" back in the 1950s. It is no wonder that this diabolical noise has found its way into "youth" "Masses" in the Novus Ordo service and is featured in World Youth Day and has been played in "papal" "Masses."

The 1950s also saw a gradual acceptance of immodesty as dresses and skirts got ever so shorter and as men began to take some liberties their own attire. Even Catholics participated in this gradual acceptance of immodesty, which became a revolution in the 1960s and thereafter.

Although it is true that the American bishops received permission from the Holy See in the 1930s for women to wear quarter-length sleeves and dresses or skirts that were barely below the knee, this fact alone should teach us something about the pernicious influences of Americanism on the life of the Faith in the United States of America. The same bishops who did not believe that there was a necessity of Catholicizing the country and who apologized for one anti-Catholic politician in the Democrat Party after another as they endorsed uncritically the American separation of Church and State that had been condemned categorically by Pope Leo XIII in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, did not see the devil's hand in the gradual acceptance of "progressive" standards of dress, something that was seen by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.:

The avowed enemies of God are rejoicing--temporarily--at having brought about an almost total collapse of the virtue of modesty among once virtuous Christian womanhood, while those commissioned by God to teach and uphold this angelic virtue insist on cowardly silence and indifference about it and on gutless permissiveness in manner of dress everywhere.

Meanwhile, vast numbers of supposedly "good" people remain as if without a conscience, being morally blind and insensitive as to what has really happened to a God-given virtue that was once a distinctive trademark of theirs. This type of blindness seems to go hand in hand with a brazen contempt and a sassy resentfulness towards any attempt to revive and restore the missing sense of modesty.

The fact stands out clearly that the immodest fashions of this unchaste generation still offend Our Lord "very much," as Our Lady foretold it through the angelic little Jacinta.

Anyone who still cares about God's virtue of modesty, which He has made shine with such heavenly beauty in the Immaculate Virgin Mary, cannot forget how Our Lord suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane when He foresaw so many sinners, including the immodest and the impure, remaining unrepentant. And the sight of so many immodest creatures displaying crude flesh, like animals, brings vividly before our mind's eye the frightful vision of Our Divine Savior being mercilessly scourged at the pillar. We need not strain ourselves in trying to picture this scene, for we can plainly see the immodest, with their unchaste displays of flesh and figure, continually scourging Our Lord. And we can see them crowning Him with thorns and nailing Him to the Cross all over again.

And look what sorrow the immodest and the impure are causing their Sorrowful and Immaculate Mother, whom God has presented to them as the Perfect Model of Modesty and Purity!

But it has not all happened by accident. Satan planned it this way. As he has done with such evil movements as Communism and Socialism and Freemasonry, so also has he planned out a program of gradual, not sudden, destruction of the sense of modesty and purity. A mere look at the past 50 years or more shows us very plainly how gradually it was all done, first by apparently innocent abbreviations of garments and by slight revelations of bare flesh and by subtle little displays of the figure, and then, as protests died down, by more and more abbreviations and displays--until the crude immodesty of our day became a shocking reality.

Many living today have seen it all happen before their very eyes. They have lived through it and, if they have managed to retain their God-given moral sense, they find the barbarian immodesty of the this day intolerable and they look upon it as a sin crying to Heaven for the vengeance that must inevitably come if sinners continue to refuse to amend their ways.

Perhaps some 50 years ago or more, a publication known as The Frenchwoman presented the following satanic program for the destruction of the virtue of modesty: "Our children must realize the ideal of nakedness... Thus, the mentality of the child is rapidly transformed. To escape opposition, progress must be methodically graduated: first, feet and legs naked, then upturned sleeves; afterwards, the upper part of the chest; then, the back... n summer, they will go around almost naked."

Even if such a daring statement of the powers of darkness had never come to light--though "enlightened" liberals have tried to keep it in the dark--we would still know that it had to be planned that way and could not have happened by accident. And we would also know that such a program for immodesty could not have originated anywhere but in the dungeons of hell and in the mind of Satan.

The program of gradualism intended to lead eventually to the crude immodesty that we know so painfully well today was evidently drawn up, or at least made known, some time during the Fatima years, possibly a little before or after the 1917 Apparitions of Our Lady. (Maybe some well-informed person can provide a precise date.) Bearing this in mind, we can easily conclude that it was no accident that Our Lady insisted so strongly on modesty in her Fatima Message. She knew well of the evil program that would endanger so many immortal souls, and she came to Fatima to warn souls and to save them from the evil awaiting them.

As Sister Lucy has said, one of the things that Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress. And still better known, though disregarded, is Jacinta's prophecy: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much"--that little liked prophecy that leaves immodestly dressed "pious" women and girls callous and insensitive and cold.

Just as Our Lady was commissioned by God to oppose the rise of Russian Communism and all the other evils named in the Fatima Message, with God's own program of sanctification and salvation, so was part of her mission to warn souls of the dangers of immodesty and impurity that were to increase the unbelievable proportions in the years to come, and to turn them to modesty and and purity and amendment of life.

In connection with the timeliness of Our Lady's message of modesty in 1917, just when Satan's program of gradual nakedness was being put into effect, we must also mention the timeliness of the message of modesty of Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922). It is fairly well known how dynamic were his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, in promoting modesty of dress, but it is not as well known that Pope Benedict XV was before them a strenuous defender and promoter of modesty at a time when we might imagine it was not so much of a problem.

We cannot believe that the statements of Our Lady of Fatima and those of Pope Benedict XV on modesty were disconnected or were merely a matter of coincidence. We can only believe that both Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy Father of that time were inspired and guided by God Himself to speak out on modesty in dress, so as to counteract the wicked program of gradual nudism that was being inspired and guided by hell's father of iniquity.

Let us quote an important statement of Pope Benedict XV--by no means his only one--so that we may see how immodesty in dress had already begun to cause moral ruin among women and girls of his day. In an Encyclical Letter (Sacra Propediem, 1921) commemorating the 7th centenary of the founding of the Franciscan Third Order, Pope Benedict wrote as follows:


"From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty."

If we did not know that a Pope wrote this in 1921, we would surely think it was written, or should have been written by someone, in 1972!

After thus deploring the immodesty of his day, the Holy Father exhorted women with these words:


"In what concerns specially the Tertiary Sisters, We ask of them by their dress and manner of wearing it, to be models of holy modesty for other ladies and young girls; that they be thoroughly convinced that the best way for them to be of use to the Church and to Society is to labor for the improvement of morals."

Whose message, do you suppose, have women and girls accepted: the message of modesty of Our Lady of Fatima and of the Holy Father or, the message of immodesty of Lucifer?

Who has recommend to them short skirts, sleeveless dresses, pants, shorts, and clownish pants suits, and so on?

Not only did women and girls buy and buy and buy the clothing that through the years became gradually shorter and skimpier and tighter and ever more unladylike, thus making the whole program of gradual nakedness a huge success, but something else happened at the same time; the sense of modesty and propriety, which God has instilled into their souls, became gradually more blurred and dim and fuzzy, until in so many it became totally blacked out and dead. They did not, and do not, know what happened to them. By blindly and stupidly following the satanic program of gradual abbreviation of attire, they destroyed in themselves a precious God-given gift--the sense of modesty--so that they have now made themselves incapable of distinguishing between modesty and immodesty, nor do so many of them care to know.

And not only have women destroyed in themselves God's gift of modesty, but they have destroyed it in their children from their earliest years, so that a whole generation has been brought up without any real understanding of modesty without any desire to possess its beauty.

And, mind you, these have been "good" and "pious" women who have done this to their children! They have been the "Lord, Lord" type who have duly said their prayers, which all are obliged to do, but who have not done "the Will of My Father Who is in Heaven" (Mt. 7. 21) by obeying His law of modesty. (Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., The Remnant, 1972.)


Few such articles or sermons were given in the 1950s. Few such sermons are given today. One priest, whether validly ordained I do not know, in a traditional venue has said that he "couldn't" give such advice as his people would be offended and they would be considered "odd" by their neighbors, to which I responded, "Why bother with rejecting the Novus Ordo and Ratzinger if you are concerned about human respect? You might as well do you obeisance before your local "bishop" and be done with it." Yet others rely upon the "permission" obtained by the American bishops from the Holy See in 1930 for a modified dress code in church, demonstrating a myopic rather than a prophetic view of the Faith and the good of souls. Men and women are thus left to spend their entire lives dressing one way for Holy Mass and another in the popular culture as men feel free to bare their chests and their arms and their legs publicly and women feel free to dress in masculine attire that would never be worn by the Mother of God, who is indeed greatly offended when any woman wears pants (save the exceptions God has ordained, such as Saint Joan of Arc, who dressed as a man upon God's specific instructions so as to preserve her chastity and that of the men under her command).

We are, of course, supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past and acceptance of quarter-length sleeves and dresses or skirts just below the knee fits right into the gradual acceptance of the devil's plan for immodesty that was described by Father Stepanich nearly thirty-seven years ago now. It is this same sort of myopic rather than prophetic view of the Faith that has paralyzed so many Catholics even in fully traditional venues from seeing the utter futility of our electoral system, based upon one abject naturalistic lie after another, from recognizing that no one but no one has a moral obligation to enter into a ballot box to cast a vote for anyone who supports a single abortion, whether chemical or surgical, under cover of law, something that will be discussed yet again briefly in this commentary.

I think that we have abundant proof that the concessions obtained by the American bishops in 1930 were harmful and that it is indeed an act of true pastoral prudence to return to the universal standards of the Catholic Church from which those Americanists sought to exempt their flocks so needlessly.

The 1950s were also not necessarily a "golden" one liturgically as confusion and bewilderment greeted the liturgical changes for Holy Week that were engineered by Fathers Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Annibale Bugnini, C.M. Antonelli and Bugnini did not know whether their ultimate goal, the replacement of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church with one more favorably disposed to false ecumenism and Modernism, would or could be realized. However, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI understood full well the trajectory that started in 1951 when he "promulgated" the Novus Ordo abomination on April 3, 1969:


“Since the beginning of this liturgical renewal, it has also become clear that the formularies of the Roman Missal had to be revised and enriched. A beginning was made by Pius XII in the restoration of the Easter Vigil and Holy Week services; he thus took the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality.”  (Roman Missal Destroyed)

The "contemporary mentality" is what has devastated the Faith, is it not?

Leaving to pastors of souls decisions concerning the use of the Missal in place at the death of 1958, it is still nevertheless true that the changes wrought by Bugnini and Antonelli in the waning years of Pope Pius XII's reign, much of which was spent convalescing from various illnesses, were revolutionary and were meant to lead to the Novus Ordo as an ultimate result as they accustomed Catholics to novelty and uncertainty as a normal part of liturgical life. And so many priests, men whose training in the liturgy consisted almost exclusively in the study of Canon Law and rubrics, accepted the changes--and those that followed in the 1960s--uncritically, believing that "obedience" required them to accept without using their Catholic reason unprecedented changes to worship that would result in a devastation of the Faith in the souls of so many millions of Catholics as offenses against God have been committed without number and without cease with the advent of the Novus Ordo service forty years ago this year.

The minimalism of Jansenism, always a problem amongst some of the prelates in the United States of America of Irish descent, would lead many good priests to say, "I'm under orders. Who am I to argue if 'headquarters' says it's all right?"

Here is where the various trends during the not-so-"golden" era in the 1950s intersect.

Although it is certainly true that the ethos of the heresy of Americanism had accustomed Catholics in the United States of America to accept and to be influenced by the many, inter-related and insidious influences of naturalism long before the "Second" Vatican Council made its "reconciliation" with the revolutionary principles of 1789, it is also true that the bulwark that kept them from losing their sensus Catholicus entirely was the fact those who belonged to the Roman or Latin Rite worshiped in an atmosphere that was reverent and devout, one that required them to be silent and recollect, one that was, at least for forty-five minutes or an hour or ninety minutes, a refuge from the world rather than an enshrinement of the world and its false values. All such restraints fell away with the introduction of the Novus Ordo service as it denied Sanctifying Grace to unsuspecting Catholics, thus opening them up to be more and more accepting of cultural and political and social trends that deviated from the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and Its infallible explication.

Although the United States of America was founded on false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles and had been set on a path of degeneration thereby (see It's Still a World of Sisyphuses as well as the excerpts from Orestes Brownson's "National Greatness" that are included in Figures of Antichrist), the graces made available by the offerings of Holy Mass by thousands upon thousands of priests in this country retarded this process of degeneration somewhat.

The absence of such graces in the past forty-three years has permitted the floodgates of the world to overwhelm Catholics and non-Catholics alike in a figurative tsunami. The false premises of the American founding, which so many Catholic moral theologians and Catholic authors of textbooks on American government refused to see and accept, demonstrated themselves to be but prophetic precursors of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's own view of Church-State relations.

Yes, just as many Catholic priests in the United States of America did not see the harm of television or "rock music" or the gradual change of men's and women's fashions as they accepted the truly revolutionary changes of Holy Week without much reflection or study, so is it the case that those who wrote textbooks and moral theology manuals on civics and voting did not see the inherent harm of the American founding and accepted its "political ecumenism," if you will, as perfectly compatible with, if not actually beneficial to, the Catholic Church and its role in a pluralistic society.

You will not find in any of these textbooks the critical and authentically Catholic insights into the falsehoods of the American founding that one can find in Mr. Hugh Akins's recently reprinted No King But Caesar and Monsignor Henri Delassus's Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy and Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers (each available from Catholic Action Resource Center). None of these textbooks and or manuals in moral theology referenced Pope Saint Pius X's injunction in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, that the thesis of the separation of Church and State was "absolutely false" or that the Catholic Church had an absolute right to be recognized by the civil state as the true religion. These authors of the 1950s and before accepted uncritically--and to a man--the false premises of the American founding as compatible with the Faith and presented as absolutely obligatory participation in this fraudulent political system without any qualifications or conditions whatsoever. (Even Pope Pius XII's allocutions on voting contained qualifications and conditions that must be judged and assessed in concrete circumstances.)

Thus it is that the errors of Modernity in the world that have been proliferating since the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution have been permitted by false doctrines and sacramental barrenness of the conciliarism to spiral out of any control whatsoever. Modernity celebrates the "sovereignty of man" in the civil realm. Concilairism celebrates the "sovereignty of man" in the ecclesiastical realm. The lords of Modernity in the world are crushing us with the collective weight of over five hundred years of error because they have been enabled by the lords of Modernism, theological and liturgical revolutionaries who have crushed the sensus Catholicus out of the souls of most Catholics today by weighing them down with one falsehood after another.

Sentimentality must crush truth in such a scenario.

Those, for example, who think that truths of the merely natural order will stop the march of the Homosexual Collective in its assault upon all remaining vestiges of resistance are deceiving themselves.

I mean, why would not the Boy Scouts of America succumb to the pressure to be "tolerant" when its very false foundation is premised upon religious indifferentism and semi-Pelagianism? Why?

Why should "conservative," "pro-life" Catholics in public life oppose "civil unions" for those engaged in unnatural acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when the Occupy Vatican Movement itself is considering endorsing some means of "legal protection" for such unrepentant sinners?


VATICAN CITY (RNS) A high-ranking Vatican official on Monday (Feb. 4) voiced support for giving unmarried couples some kind of legal protection even as he reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the church should do more to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

In his first Vatican press conference since his appointment as the Catholic Church’s “minister” for family, Paglia conceded that there are several kinds of “cohabitation forms that do not constitute a family,” and that their number is growing.

Paglia suggested that nations could find “private law solutions” to help individuals who live in non-matrimonial relations, “to prevent injustice and make their life easier.”

Nevertheless, Paglia was adamant in reaffirming society’s duty to preserve the unique value of marriage.

“The church must defend the truth, and the truth is that a marriage is only between a man and a woman,” he said. Other kinds of “affections” cannot be the foundation for a “public structure” such as marriage.

“We cannot surrender to a sick egalitarianism that abolishes every difference,” he warned, and run the risk of society becoming a new “Babel.”

France is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage despite fierce opposition from the Catholic Church; a similar fight is brewing in Britain with the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches sharply opposed to the move.

In a September 2012 document on gay marriage, French bishops recognized the value of France’s current civil unions law, which grants heterosexual and homosexual couples some benefits, such as tax breaks.

In November, voters approved gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington state, and the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring over federal and state bans on gay marriage.

Responding to journalists’ questions, Paglia also strongly condemned discrimination against gay people, who he said “have the same dignity as all of God’s children.”

“In the world there are 20 or 25 countries where homosexuality is a crime,” he said. “I would like the church to fight against all this.” (Vatican signals options for protecting gay couples.)

In other words, as noted in Conciliar Mud Wrestling, Pope Saint Pius V was wrong when he wrote the following:


That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)

Pope Pius XI must have wrong when he condemned legal recognition of what he termed a "new species of union" between men and women engaged in natural vice that is, of course, as applicable to those engaged in unnatural vice:


50. How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

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.)

Perhaps more to the point, God Himself must have been wrong to have destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gommorha:

And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way. And the Lord said: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him. And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.

I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.

And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty. And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty. Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty. I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. And the Lord departed, after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 16: 16-33)

And he said to him: Behold also in this, I have heard thy prayers, not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken. Make haste and be saved there, because I cannot do any thing till thou go in thither. Therefore the name of that city was called Segor. The sun was risen upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.

And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 19: 21-28.)


Many of you have been told by your relatives and friends that you are "outside of the Church" for refusing to accept the legitimacy of the conciliar officials. Look at the evidence as to who is outside of the Catholic Church, and it is not those who reject the legitimacy of the spiritual robber barons of conciliarism.

Yet it is that many in the "recognize but resist" movement continue to attack sedevacantism as a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church, no less that it applies in these incredible times of apostasy and betrayal, even though a conciliar "cardinal," Mario Francesco Pompedda, who headed the Occupy Vatican Movement's Apostolic Signatura for seven years, said eight years ago that sedevacantism is indeed part of the Church's canonical doctrine:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; see also see also Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.)

Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I was not one of them.

We separate ourselves from the conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith, starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in Holy Mother Church. We must understand, however, that offenses against the moral order are no less of a concern to God than offenses against doctrine. Offenses against the moral order, many of which have been committed by the conciliar "bishops" and their chancery factotums and their insurance companies are not "little things," unless, as I have noted in other commentaries in recent weeks, that the loss of the Faith in a single soul is a "little thing" and that the clergy responsible for indemnifying the loss of just one soul do not show themselves to be enemies of the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as a result.

Although there are those who tell us that we should "stay and fight" in once Catholic parishes that now in the hands of apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Truth in the moral order is as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.

We do not need to conduct a "search" for the "true meaning" of the doctrines contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We accept what has been handed down to us as docile children of Holy Mother Church.

We must hate heresy. Hate it.


Because God hates heresy and everything to do with it, a point that will be made yet again in part two of this series tomorrow.

The only way to deal with the Antichrists in the world, men and women who have a set of "values," if you will, to which they are absolutely committed without any compromise or exception whatsoever, and their enablers in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is to adhere and to profess openly the truths of the Social Reign of Christ the King without fear of the consequences. We are not likely to see "results" in our lifetimes. That does not matter. The only thing that matters is that we persevere in a State of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church until the point of our dying breath while simply planting the seeds for the conversion of conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Conscious of our need to make reparation for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may the Rosaries we pray each day to console the good God in this time of apostasy and betrayal help to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the same Immaculate Heart of Mary when a true pope fulfills her Fatima Peace Plan consecrates Russia, thus ceasing the spread of the errors we see so manifest before us today, with all of the world's bishops to this very heart out of which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus was formed and with which it beats as one.

May each Rosary we pray help to effect this miracle that the devil fears and for which we must be uncompromising in working to achieve as soldiers in the Army of Christ so that we will not be crushed by the weight of the errors of Russia, which are the errors of Modernity and Modernism, now and, quite possibly, for all eternity.

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 James the Greater, 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 Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Titus, pray for us.

Saint Dorothy, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints




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