Enjoy the Party, George, Enjoy the Party
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The big party in Rome is about to get underway as the currently reigning false "pontiff" prepares to "beatify" his predecessor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is but a fraudulent ape of the Catholic Church.
As the long reign of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was marked by events and decisions that have caused even some "conservative" and traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures understand are very problematic, to say the very least, in the consideration of a candidate's cause for beatification and the subsequent canonization, defenders of all things John Paul II have tried to swat away some of the criticism of the former "pontiff's" "beatification" by writing such incredibly ludicrous "defenses" of his record as to boggle the mind.
An article published on this site ten days ago now, Perhaps Judas Was the First to Sing "A Kiss is Just a Kiss", responded to feeble, emotionally-laden effort made by the editor of Inside the Vatican, Dr. Robert Moynihan, to justify Wojtyla/John Paul II's kissing of the Koran in 1999 that was nothing other than an exercise in sheer positivism and delusional mind-reading. There is no need to repeat yet again the points that have been made in other articles on this subject, including in (see
"Connecting" with Betrayal, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, Celebrating Apostasy and Dereliction of Duty and To Be Loved by the Jews). Indeed, among the many other articles that have been written recently to attempt to deal a death-blow to the party that will take place in Rome on Low Sunday in two days, Father Luigi Villa has written what is the definitive article to prove, whether not it was Father Villa's intention, to prove that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was not even a Catholic, no less a candidate for beatification and canonization by the Catholic Church. Only a few moments of your valuable time need to be spend to respond to an effort made by a biographer of the late "pontiff," George Weigel, to explain away the false "pope's" blame for covering up the crimes of clerical abuse.
Here is the article describing George Weigel's own effort to defend and exalt the record of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II:
Scholar and papal biographer George Weigel batted aside criticism of
John Paul II's speedy canonization process, saying accusations that the
pontiff is responsible for scandals that took place under his watch are
“The investigation into John Paul II's life has been very thorough,
and the results fill four thick volumes,” Weigel told CNA in an April 25
Author of the 1999 biography of John Paul II, “Witness to Hope,”
Weigel first countered the claim that the late pontiff's canonization
process has moved too quickly.
“John Paul himself waived the five-year waiting period usually
prescribed between someone's death and the official opening of a
beatification process in the case of Mother Teresa – another instance
where there was great popular conviction about the deceased's sanctity,”
Weigel also took on the argument that the sex abuse scandals which
came to light during Pope John Paul's pontificate –as well as the
problems that began to surface with Fr. Marcial Maciel, founder of the
Legionaries of Christ – are disqualifying factors.
“As a matter of fact, in the U.S. and elsewhere, the majority of
abuses cases did not happen on John Paul II's watch, although the
revelations of them did,” he explained.
“John Paul II was a great reformer of the priesthood, and the
Church's ordained ministry is in far better shape today, because of him,
than it was in 1978.”
“Unless one understands that, one is not in a very secure position
from which to assess how John Paul handled the abuse crisis when it
burst into public view in 2002,” he added.
Weigel acknowledged that certain Vatican offices, especially the
Congregation for the Clergy, “were slower than they ought to have been
in recognizing the nature of the problem in the United States and in
devising appropriate remedies for it.”
However, as for Pope John Paul himself, “once it became clear, in
April 2002, that this could not be handled by the American bishops
themselves and that a papal intervention was required, he intervened and
made unmistakably clear that 'there is no place in the priesthood for
those who would harm the young.'”
As for the Pope's relationship with Fr. Maciel, Weigel said that John
Paul II was “deceived” by the ex-priest, along with “many, many
The papal biographer said that the only relevant questions with
respect to the beatification are “whether John Paul II’s failure to see
through Maciel’s deceptions was willful or venal or malicious.”
Weigel explained that the first situation would mean “he knew about
Maciel’s perfidies and did nothing about the situation,” and the second
would mean “he knew that Maciel was a sociopathic fraud and didn’t
“There isn’t a shred of evidence that would sustain a positive answer
to any of those questions,” he stressed. “To even think that such could
be the case is to utterly miss the character of the late Pope.”
Weigel added that it's “grotesquely disproportionate, from any
serious historical point of view” to “focus so much attention on Maciel
at the time of John Paul II's beatification, as if his case offered a
privileged window into a twenty-six and a half year pontificate that
changed the history of the Church and the world.”
Weigel also addressed the criticism that Pope John Paul failed in his
duties, given the decline of Christianity in Europe in recent decades
as well as the scandals under his pontificate.
“He didn't fail, and those who suggest that he did are living in a very strange place,” he said.
“John Paul II’s radical Christian discipleship and his remarkable
capacity to let that commitment shine through his words and his actions,
made Christianity interesting and compelling again in a world that
thought it had outgrown its 'need' for religious faith.”
The late Pope “was a man of extraordinary courage,” the papal
biographer said. “Against the cultural conventions of his time, John
Paul demonstrated that young people want to be challenged to live lives
“He lifted up the dignity of the human person,” and he “proclaimed
the universality of human rights in a way that helped bring down the
greatest tyranny in human history.”
“If this is papal 'failure,' I don't know what papal success would look like,” Weigel said. (George Weigel slams critics of John Paul II's fast track to sainthood.)
The record is very clear, although not in the manner that George Weigel would suggest.
Indeed, as has been demonstrated many times on this site, information about the extent of the clerical abuse that took place during Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's long "pontificate" was presented to him and to those close to him throughout the years. Indeed, some conciliar wags have attempted to dismiss John Paul's protection of abusive "bishops" and "priests" by claiming that he did not want to believe the information that was given to him as he had been conditioned in Communist Poland to view accusations against the clergy made by the civil authorities as being founded in an effort to discredit the Catholic Church and to turn the people against their clergy.
John Paul II had much information about the extent of the clerical abuse, which did not just appear out of nowhere in 2002 when the Archdiocese of Boston's legal team failed to file the necessary paperwork to keep its records from being made public. Reports of such abuse appeared regularly in The Wanderer and in the National Catholic Reporter. Although one other reporter did about ninety-nine percent of this reporting for The Wanderer, I did a few articles on the subject myself, conducting detailed investigations into matters that were entirely distasteful to consider, no less to report, including the articles that I wrote on the abuser by the name of Daniel Leo Ryan, the conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois, from 1983 to 1999.
The publisher-editor of The Wanderer even waited to publish the first article on "Bishop" Ryan until he had sent a letter to a conciliar priest, now an auxiliary "bishop" in this country, who worked in the Congregation for the Bishops. It is furthermore the case that the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., brought one of the conciliar priests who had been abused by Ryan to meet with the then pro-prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Dario "Cardinal" Castrillon Hoyos in February of 1997. And Francis "Cardinal" George, who has been the conciliar "archbishop" of Chicago for the past twenty-four years, admitted in January of 1998 to Stephen G.
Brady, the president and the founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.,
that he, "Cardinal" George had known all about Ryan's moral corruption of
the then conciliar "bishop" of for years, urging Mr. Brady to "wait" before expose more evidence about Ryan
in addition to the information that had been brought forth by Brady in
February of 1997 and was reported by this writer in the pages of The Wanderer (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment and More Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case;
these articles--and an editorial that I wrote that appears on the same
page as the second article--were, of course, eight years before I,
bright light that I am, finally concluded that the Catholic Church could
be responsible for none of the outrages that I was criticizing). Ryan
was allowed to resign in "good standing" in the conciliar structures in
1999, and it was not until 2003 that a commission appointed by George
got around, quite belatedly, to admitting that the charges against Ryan
were true all along. Steve Brady had been correct all along.
This did not occur on John Paul II's "watch"? John Paul II did not know about this? Nonsense. Quite the contrary is true. The soon to be "beatified" "pontiff" had quite an extensive intelligence network that he relied upon during the early years of his "pontificate" by which his aides were able to gather evidence about various "bishops" before they made their quinquennial or ad limina apostolorum visits to the Vatican. Some of this evidence was gathered by Father Hardon, who died on December 30, 2000. Other priests, including the late Monsignor George Kelly, who worked closely with John "Cardinal" Wright and Silvio Cardinal Oddi during their respective tenures as prefects of the Congregation for the Clergy, also sent information to "papal" aides that was used during the interviews that John Paul II had with various "bishops."
One of those interviews took place with the late John Raymond McGann, who was the conciliar "bishop" of my home diocese, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, from 1976 to 2000 despite his record of ultra-progressivism that I documented so many times in The Wanderer, a little over twenty-eight years ago, in April of 1983. John Paul II questioned McGann closely as to why four parishes in his diocese did not schedule confessions during the recently-concluded Paschal Triduum. McGann responded by saying, "Well, you know, Your Holiness, our priests are very busy." How do I know this? Because an auxiliary "bishop" of the diocese spoke about the "papal" interview publicly at a reception at Saint Gertrude Church in Bayville, New York, following his putative administration of the conciliar rite of confirmation. Anyone who says that John Paul II did not have an intelligence network and/or that his aides "kept" information from him is the one living in a fantasy world.
George Weigel fails to mention the little fact that John Paul II rewarded the enabler of Father Paul Shanley, who cofounded an organization whose name is so repulsive that it will not be repeated here, Bernard "Cardinal" Law, by appointing him the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, where he still served to this day. No place in the clergy for abusers? Why did John Paul II continue to reward the "bishops" who protected the abusers? The rhetoric of the false "pontiff" in 2002 was meaningless, backed up by no disciplinary actions against the "bishops." This is why I wrote Time for Plain Talk in 2002, four years before I came to recognize and accept the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
Insofar as the Legionaries of Christ is concerned, it is no accident that its corrupt, venal founder maintained his "reputation" throughout John Paul II's tenure even though I know for a fact that information was sent directly to the Apostolic Palace by former presbyters in the Legion about the problems there, including that the community's founder, Father Marcel Maciel Degollado, had abused them physically and tortured them emotionally. The very man who is pushing for the "canonization" of John Paul II, the current conciliar "archbishop of Krakow, Poland, Stanislaw Dziwisz, who was Wojtyla/John Paul II's personal secretary for many years, took bundles of cash from those with ties to the Legionaries of Christ:
The Vatican office with the greatest potential to
derail Maciel's career before 2001 -- the year that Ratzinger persuaded
John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office
– was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders
such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.
According to two former Legionaries who spent years
in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for
the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983,
the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. "That's a pretty big resource,"
explains one priest, who said the Legion's work on the residence was
expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. "Pironio got
his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution."
The Legion constitution included the highly
controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak
ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who
uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression
of faith, and cemented the Legionaries' lockstep obedience to the
founder. The vows were Maciel's way of deflecting scrutiny as a
pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors' board at Congregation for
Religious balked on granting approval.
"Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz," said the priest. "Two weeks later Pironio signed it."
Dziwisz was John Paul's
closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of
the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz's support.
Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his
function as gatekeeper for the pope's private Masses in the Apostolic
Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the
occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his
family. "Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in
attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops," Dziwisz wrote
in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the
Man Who Became Pope.
"When the guests came in
(there were never more than 50)," Dziwisz wrote, "they often found the
pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total
abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering
the chapel. ... For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience.
The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay
One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR
that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass.
"We arranged things like that," he said of his role as go-between. Did
John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the
pope's ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the
funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz's book says nothing
of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest
who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in
hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds
"This happened all the time with Dziwisz," said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.
Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as
director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries "would go up
to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known
within the household."
Struggling to give context to the donations, this
cleric continued: "You're saying these laypeople are good and fervent,
it's good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita --
'We're making an offering for your works of charity.' That's the way
it's done. In fact you don't know where the money's going." He paused.
"It's an elegant way of giving a bribe."
Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him
leave the Legion. "I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve
God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating
myself to Maciel."
What's a bribe?
In terms of legal reality, does "an elegant way of
giving a bribe" add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to
heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of
Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.
Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in
the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean
emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who
has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a
general question about large donations to priests or church officials in
Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial
gift to an official in Rome "would qualify as a pious cause," explains
Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be
reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car,
need not be reported.
"That's how I read the law. I know of no
exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds
are given for the official's personal charity, that is not a pious
cause and need not be reported."
Because the cardinals did not respond to interview
requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to
Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.
"Maciel wanted to buy power," said the priest who
facilitated the Mexican family's opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use
the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality
was at issue. "It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of
lying [within the order]. The superiors know they're lying and they know
that you know," he said. "They lie about money, where it comes from,
where it goes, how it's given." (Money paved way for Maciel's influence in the Vatican.)
John Paul II did not know any of this? If he did not, he should have known. And that is what a real examination of a candidate's cause for canonization would examine as this is, at the very least, dereliction of duty by acts of omission by failing to see that one's trust in another is misplaced and is resulting in the wreckage of souls.
As has been noted on other occasions, however, this is all very much apart from the point as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul defected from the Catholic Faith long before his apparent "election" on October 16, 1978, reaffirming the fact of this defection by his apostate words and blasphemous, sacrilegious deeds throughout the course of his twenty-six years, five and one-half months as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Far from "revitalizing Christianity," John Paul II presided over the further institutionalization of the conciliar revolutions, appointed his fellow revolutionaries as conciliar "ordinaries," and conducting the most scandalous liturgies that have ever been sponsored by any entity claiming, albeit falsely, to be the Catholic Church. He demeaned his "papacy" by his acts of clownishness and as he suborned rank immodesty in liturgical stagings and at his weekly "general audience" extravaganzas.
John Paul II advanced the "dignity of the human person" and the "universality of human rights"? Let's see what two of our true popes have written about human dignity and its exaltation by the spirit of Modernity and Modernism:
The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God.
That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of
religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion
towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which,
please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier
times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by
the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and
voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer
those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in
mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also
suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all
races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii.,
32). (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the
Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a
coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from
the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation,
indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and
interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that
benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious
reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if
the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social
action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church!
But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the
audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of
re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth,
over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and
justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of
no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might
divide them - their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long
as they share what unites them - a "generous idealism and moral forces
drawn from whence they can" When we consider the forces, knowledge, and
supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian
City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by
the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the
heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the
streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound
together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the
Wisdom of God, the Word made man - when we think, I say, of all this, it
is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better
by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What
are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A
mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing
in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice,
Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an
ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous
agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less
Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the
Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this
developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social
action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor
Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the
leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic
Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the
"Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves,
Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon?
Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising
expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been
harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now
no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy
being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World
Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither
discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the
reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak,
and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Ah, you see, George Weigel has contempt for our true popes. The hagiographer of John Paul II went so far as to say in an address at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia, in 1999 after the publication of his Witness to Hope, that "This pope really knows how to pope!" Nope, George Weigel. Nope. The popes quoted above were defending the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that was undermined relentlessly by the revolutionary reign of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, a false pontiff whose exercises in religious syncretism reaffirmed Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the abject falsehood that all religions serve God and thus contribute to the betterment of the world. This is a lie from the devil.
Enjoy the party, George, enjoy the party this weekend. The celebration that will take place in the Vatican this Low Sunday does not reflect the sorrows of Our Lady, whose Most Holy Rosary was itself revolutionized by the disciple of the condemned tenets of the "new theology," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, whose "witness" drove millions upon millions of Catholics out of what they believed was the Catholic Church and whose blasphemous, sacrilegious acts gave fodder to many fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant sects to recruit those who had left as a result into their own diabolical ranks.
Let me close by reiterating what I did ten days ago as there is no need to change a single word of what I wrote then:
Once again, the "cause" of Wojtyla/John Paul II is absurd to begin with as it is being advanced by apostates who have defected from the Faith just as much as he did.
As I have noted so many times on this site, those who remain indifferent to or accepting of blasphemies and sacrileges committed against the honor and glory and majesty of God can no longer call themselves Catholics:
But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
I was indifferent to the blasphemies of Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. I was fooled by the fact that the late conciliar "pontiff" spoke as a Catholic to Catholics on many occasions. Shame on me for being so blind.
We know more now, do we not? We see God being offended regularly by these conciliar "popes" who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and believe in other condemned propositions that have been critiqued on this site time and time again. How can we remain attached to men who defy the anathemas of the Catholic Church repeatedly as they offend the Most Holy Trinity so grievously?
The Catholics in Alexandria held steadfast to the true Faith for a long time in the midst of one persecution after another than was waged against them by the Arian bishops and their protectors in the Roman Empire, including Emperor Constantius II and Emperor Julian the Apostate:
It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had uphold the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison.
St. Antony, over a hundred years old, was on his deathbed. His monks, crowding around the dying Saint, groaned over the evil days that had befallen the Church.
"Fear not," replied the old man, "for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end? Did not the Master Himself say, 'They have persecuted Me, they will persecute you also'? Did not the 'perils from the fallen brethren' begin even even in the lifetime of those who had been the companions of Christ? And yet, did not the Master Himself promise that, although she must live in the midst of persecution, He would be with His Church forever and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against her?"
With these words of hope and comfort on his lips, St. Antony passed to his reward, and they laid him in his lonely desert grave. His coat of sheepskin, given by Athanasius long years before, he sent with his dying blessing to the Patriarch, who cherished it as his most precious possession.
The Alexandrians had not given in without a struggle. They had protested openly against the violence of Syrianus, proclaiming throughout the city that Athanasius was their true Patriarch and that they would never acknowledge another. It was of no use; a new reign of terror began in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a "runaway, an evildoer, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death." Letters came from the Emperor ordering all the churches in the city to be given up to the Arians and requiring the people to receive without objections the new Patriarch whom he would shortly send them.
As time went on, things grew worse. The churches were invaded; altars, vestments and books were burned and incense thrown on the flames. An ox was sacrificed in the sanctuary; priests, monks and nuns were seized and tortured; the houses of the faithful were broken into and robbed. Bishops were driven into exile and their sees filled by Arians, those who were ready to give the most money being generally chosen. Some of them were even pagans; the people were ready to bear any sufferings rather than hold communion with them. (Mother Frances Alice Monica Forbes, Saint Athanasius, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 64-66.)
Why are we so willing to hold communion with the heretics and blasphemers of today? Why are so willing to hold communion with those who are indifferent to the heretics and blasphemers of today?
Ah, some might retort, Arianism had been condemned by the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea. True enough. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's views of dogmatic truth have been condemned and anathematized solemnly by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. His views on Sacred Scripture and against Scholasticism and in favor of the new ecclesiology and false ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue and inter-religious "prayer" and religious liberty and separation of Church and State have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church (see
Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism). We just need to ask open our eyes and to see the plain truth that is staring us right in the face.
To this end, of course, we need Our Lady's help. We honor Our Lady today as the Mediatrix of All Graces. It is through her loving hands that the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross in obedience to God the Father and that are made present in the Sacraments by the working of God the Holy Ghost flow into our own hearts and souls. She, the great foe of heresy, will help us to recognize the plain truth that the jaws of Hell have indeed prevailed against the Church if true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter can deny Catholic doctrine openly and publicly as they hold give public expression to private views that expelled them from the Church long before their apparent "election." And she will help us to have the courage to cleave exclusively only to those true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or its blaspheming apostates posing as "popes" and "bishops."
Once again, we need to take heart from the example of Saint Servatus:
Servatus held the bishopric of Tongres (Belgium) at a time when the whole of Christendom had Arian tendencies. The all-powerful emperor, Constantius, was a heretic and supported the heresy; many bishops no longer believed in the divinity of Our Lord; St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, great champions of orthodoxy, were in exile.
The story of the Jewish origins of St. Servatus and his kinship with St. Anne appears legendary. It is not known when he became bishop of Tongres, but by 336, when St. Athanasius spent his exile at Trier, he had already occupied the see. The declaration which he made before the Council of Cologne in 346 informs us both of his meeting with the celebrated Alexandrian doctor and of his own orthodoxy. This is what he says in reference to the bishop of Cologne, deposed on that occasion: "It is not from hearsay that I know what he has been teaching, but from having myself heard it. Our churches are adjacent; many times I have had occasion to contradict him, when he has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has happened in the presence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. .. . I judge that he can no longer be bishop of Christians; and those do not deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion with him."
After failing in his efforts to reconcile the usurper, Magnetius, with the Emperor Constantius, Servatus made a pilgrimage to Rome. He returned convinced that Tongres would soon fall to the Huns. Hastily he carried the relics of the church to Maestricht, and there, shortly afterwards, he died. The towns of Tongres remained thereafter for nearly a century without a bishop. (Omer Engelbert, The Lives of the Saints, Barnes and Noble, p. 186.)
Even a now deceased conciliar official conceded in 2005 what many in the "resist and recognize" movement, including those in the Society of Saint Pius X, refuse to concede even in principle as being true, no less that this truth applies in these our days, namely, that the See of Peter is indeed vacant in cases of heresy:
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; for an explanation of how a long papal vacancy is not excluded by the doctrine of perpetual successors of Saint Peter, please see, Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.,
An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter.)
Holy Mother Church, our spotless, immaculate mother on earth, cannot give us even any teaching with "even a light tarnish of error." We are in the midst of the "operation of error," awash with apostasy and blasphemy that can never be given us by Holy Mother Church, which is why we must be pray for our true bishops and priests so that they will be remain as faithful as Saint Athanasius and that we will remain steadfast in our knowledge that we have the Faith while the blaspheming apostates have the church buildings and other church properties.
In the midst of the "respect" shown for false religions by the conciliar "pontiffs," men who never invoke the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity in their appearances before non-Catholics, who most need to hear exhortations to convert to the true Faith before they die, it is good to once again take note of Pope Leo XIII;s words in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and to recognize that they condemn the life work of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
Let George Weigel try to refute the work of Father Luigi Villa, linked earlier in this article, on the "beatification" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II without resorting to positivism and emotionalism. He will be unable to do so. Perhaps he could do a joint project in this regard with Robert Moynihan. They will be unable to do so, which is why Father Villa's work must be ignored.
Keeping close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we end the Easter Octave, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit as we continue to offer up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to that same Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed and with which It beats as one. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we attempt to make reparation to Jesus through Mary for our sins and those of the whole world as we make reparation for our own sins and those of the conciliar revolutionary whose life will be so honored in but two days.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
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.
Saint Peter Martyr, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints