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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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