Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 21, 2010

F"Fall Guys" Aren't Usually "Stand-Up" Guys

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Former President Richard Milhous Nixon was, despite his protestations to the contrary in a nationally televised press conference at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday, November 17, 1973 (which I was listening to on the radio while approaching Little Rock, Arkansas, in my 1972 Chevrolet Nova, taking an overnight at a Sheraton hotel before continuing on from Albany, New York, where I rented an apartment in preparation of my commencing doctoral studies at the State University of New York at Albany two months later, to College Station, Texas, to pick up our then six year-old beagle Blanky from my brother before proceeding down to Harlingen to visit my parents for a week--got all that?), indeed a crook. (See the "I'm not a crook" segment of that November 17, 1973, press conference.)

Who said so? Richard Nixon himself said so, if, that is, the late Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr., Nixon's last White House Chief of Staff and the "As of now, I'm in charge here, in the White House" Secretary of State of the United States of American under the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan from January 20, 1981, to July 5, 1982, is to be believed:

He [Alexander Haig] was brutally candid about his own run for office and his subsequent distaste for political life. “Not being a politician, I think I can say this: The life of a politician in America is sleaze,” he told the authors of “Nixon: An Oral History.”

“I didn’t realize it until I started to run for office,” he said. “But there is hardly a straight guy in the business. As Nixon always said to me — and he took great pride in it — ‘Al, I never took a dollar. I had somebody else do it.’ ” (Alexander M. Haig Jr. Dies at 85, p 3)


A lot of people took for the "fall" for Richard Nixon from 1973-1975. Among those who went to jail because of "Watergate" related crimes were former White House Chief of Staff Harry Robins Haldeman, former White House Domestic Adviser John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney Generals of the United States of American (not to mention, among many others, "Watergate" conspirators George Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson). Among the major "Watergate" players, however, only one, John Mitchell, who participated actively in the planning and execution of the break-ins of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, District of Columbia, that resulted in the arrest of the "Watergate burglars" by security guard Frank Wills on the evening of Saturday, June 20, 1972, remained silent to the point of his death on November 9, 1988. John Mitchell, who found himself caught up in what he called the "White House horrors," alone played his role as the silent "fall guy" until the very end. Most of the others wrote books about their "Watergate" experiences.

"Fall guys" aren't usually "stand up" guys, however. They usually fall by the wayside sooner or later, refusing to take the blame, in whole or in part, for the misdeeds of others.

Case-in-point: the elderly Monsignor Gerhard Gruber of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising in Germany, who was fingered by officials in the conciliar Vatican and in his own chancery office as the "culprit" who reassigned a known clerical abuser, Father Peter Hullermann, a priest of the Diocese of Essen, Germany, while Joseph Ratzinger was then the conciliar "archbishop" of Munich and Freising. It has been noted in several articles on this site that it is very plausible to contend that Ratzinger did indeed have direct knowledge of the case of Father Hullermann and that he personally approved the latter's assignment to parish work in a meeting at which he presided on January 15, 1980. This is just not idle speculation. Monsignor Gruber is evidently upset that he has had to take for the "fall" for his "pope:"

Catholic Church officials assigned full responsibility for the reassignment of a known pedophilic priest to retired vicar general Gerhard Gruber who served as deputy to Joseph Ratzinger when he was archbishop. Gruber is now challenging a Church statement that he "acted on his own authority," a claim he says was never discussed with him.

The emergency plan was hastily assembled in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising on the evening of March 11, a Thursday. The Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper had exposed the scandal surrounding pedophile priest Peter H., and the affair over sexual abuse in the church was getting dangerously close to the pope.

Peter H., a vicar from the western German city of Essen who had molested boys on several occasions, was sent to Munich in 1980, where he was assigned to work as a pastor again. As a result, he was able to abuse even more boys. The archbishop and chairman of the diocesan council, which approved H.'s appointment, was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger also chaired a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, in which the pedophile priest's living arrangements and therapy were discussed. He must have been familiar with H.'s criminal past. Because of this, the diocese has, in recent weeks, left no stone unturned in its effort to explain why the current pope could not be held accountable for H.'s continued service in his diocese.

That effort has been supported by documents found in the diocese records office that related to H., and that were signed by someone else at the time: the loyal Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, Ratzinger's deputy during his time as archbishop.

Apparently no one on the crisis team objected to the idea of taking Pope Benedict "out of the firing line" and using Gruber, 81, as a scapegoat instead. On the morning of March 12, while the press office was busy drafting a statement in which Gruber was given the full blame for H.'s appointment to serve as a pastor, and that included Gruber's personal apology, a church official was badgering the retired priest on the phone.

But Gruber, who felt put under pressure, later confided in theologian friends. He told them that he had been emphatically "asked" to assume full responsibility for the affair, and that church officials had promptly faxed him a copy of the statement and instructed him to make any changes he deemed necessary.

'Incorrect Decisions'

According to the statement released by the archdiocese, Ratzinger was partly responsible for making the decision to accept H.'s appointment. "Notwithstanding this decision," however, H. was assigned "by the then vicar general" to assist in pastoral care, without restriction, in a Munich parish. The statement also read: "Gruber assumes full responsibility for the incorrect decisions." A spokesman for the archdiocese later added that Gruber had "acted on his own authority" in the case of Peter H.

Gruber's friends say that the old man was only familiar with parts of the statement, that he was apparently being used as a scapegoat and that he was also under additional emotional pressure. To everyone's surprise, Gruber wrote an open letter in which he qualified the archdiocese's statement, writing that he did not sign any documents over which he had no influence. He also noted that he was "very upset" about the "manner in which the incidents were portrayed" by the archdiocese. "And the phrase 'acted on his own authority' also wasn't discussed with me," he wrote.

The archdiocese was unwilling to comment on the accusations, except to state it continued to believe that the former vicar general had acted on his own authority in the case of Peter H., and that he had admitted to having made mistakes. Gruber has gone on a trip to recuperate from "weeks that have been very stressful for me." His loyalty is greatly appreciated in Munich. Archbishop Reinhard Marx, Gruber writes, has sent him his best wishes and "expressed his appreciation for my 'participation'." (Catholic Abuse Scandal: Was Munich's Vicar General Forced to Serve as Ratzinger's Scapegoat?; see also Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.)


Monsignor Gruber isn't the only one who's been thrown under the conciliar bus to seek to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Dario "Cardinal" Castrillon Hoyos, who commended a conciliar "bishop" in France, Pierre Pican, for refusing to turn over a presbyter to the civil authorities (see Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Meet Pope Saint Pius V),  is seeking to protect himself and the current "pontiff" by blaming the refusal to hand over clerical abusers for criminal prosecution by the civil authorities on none other than Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II ("Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts):

Meanwhile, according to the Spanish daily La Verdad , Colombian cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos said at a weekend conference in Murcia that Pope John Paul approved the policy of not reporting to the police clerical sex abuse crimes.

In a September 2001 letter, recently published by the French Catholic publication Golias, Cardinal Hoyos wrote to French bishop Pierre Pican to congratulate him for not reporting an abuser priest. Earlier that year, Bishop Pican received a suspended three-month sentence for not reporting serial abuser Fr René Bissy, who was eventually given an 18-year prison sentence for child sex abuse crimes between 1989 and 1996.

Speaking in Murcia on Saturday, Cardinal Hoyos confirmed the text of the letter, adding also that Pope John Paul had seen it and “authorised me to send it to all the bishops”.

Four months earlier, in 2001, Pope John Paul assigned judicial responsibility for certain “grave” sins (including child sex abuse) to the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith. It was following this that the then prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote to all Catholic bishops advising that they refer all credible cases of clerical child sex abuse to him. That letter was accompanied by another one, also in Latin, instructing that this be kept secret.

If Cardinal Hoyos’s claim is true it would suggest that Pope John Paul’s 2001 directive was intended to encourage a policy of cover-up. (Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.)


Fall guys aren't usually stand-up guys. This is true in politics. This is true in commerce. This is true in professional sports. This is true in ecclesiastical matters. 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI acted as he did in 1980 with Father Peter Hullermann because he has a casual, dismissive attitude concerning the horror of personal sin.

Ratzinger/Benedict has said he has "nothing against" those who go to what they think is Holy Mass in the conciliar structures "on occasion, " meaning that he has little regard for the Third Commandment and for one of the six Precepts of the Church. (CARDINAL RATZINGER ON THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY).

Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of regard for the Third Commandment is but a logical consequence for the lack of regard that he has for the First and Second Commandments as he has, as Benedict XVI, personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his priestly hands and has said that "Christians and Jews pray to the same Lord" and has called mosques and synagogues and even a mountain in Japan, Mount Hiei, atop which the Buddhists worship their devils as "sacred" places.

One who can so flagrantly violate the First and Second Commandments with such utter impunity demonstrates in the objective order of things, leaving aside subjective culpability solely to God Himself, Who alone knows the interior dispositions of souls, that he does not understand Who God is or what He has revealed to us through His true Church.

This lack of understanding of the identity of God flows logically from Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of understanding of the nature of God and His Revelation, believing that the expressions of dogmatic truth are contingent on the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. One who gets such basic things wrong is not going to have much of a real sense of the horror of personal sin and how to respond to it appropriately, which is one of the reasons that Ratzinger/Benedict and his band of conciliar "bishops" have sought to protect perverted priests/presbyters time and time again until their cover-ups and abuse of power made headlines that could no longer be ignored.

Ratzinger/Benedict has a high regard for "theologians" who are steeped in error, believing that even those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ continue "believing in a Christian manner" (see Cardinal Ratzinger). Does Our Lord have such a "high regard" for those who deny His Sacred Divinity? Is He sanguine about error and defections from the Faith?

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes, blasphemously, that Holy Mother Church is a "sinner church," not the spotless, immaculate Mystical Bride of her Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He believes in a "church" that has no claim to any temporal rights whatsoever, placing himself in quite some contrast with our true popes, including Pope Pius XI:

“Let me go one step further. From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendor. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society. Contrary to what has happened until now, she will present herself much more as a community of volunteers ....

"As a small community, she will demand much more from the initiative of each of her members and she will certainly also acknowledge new forms of ministry and will raise up to the priesthood proven Christians who have other jobs. In many smaller communities, respectively in social groups with some affinity, the normal care of souls will take place in this way

"There will be an interiorized Church, which neither takes advantage of its political mandate nor flirts with the left or the right. This will be achieved with effort because the process of crystallization and clarification will demand great exertion. It will make her poor and a Church of the little people .... All this will require time. The process will be slow and painful ....

“From this interiorized and simplified Church, a great force will pour out. The men of an [artificially] planned world will feel unspeakably isolated. When God will seem to have totally disappeared for them, they will experience a complete and horrible poverty. And then they will discover the small community of those who believe as something entirely new ....

"Her [the Church’s] real crisis has hardly started. We still have to go through some great storms .... Certainly she will never again be the dominant force in society to the degree that she was until recently.
  (Fr. Ratzinger's progressivist plan to change the face of the Church.)

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Has Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI taken back anything that he has ever written? Anything? No, he has, "in everything that is essential," "remained identical?". Who says say? He does, that's who:

I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict is trying to get others to take the "fall" for his own enabling of clerical abusers in Germany and as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith even though he knew full well how the conciliar 'bishops" of the world were protecting priests and presbyters, even though he knew full well that victims were being browbeaten and intimidated by chancery officials, even though he knew full well that civil crimes were going unreported and molesters were being placed back to what he considered to be "priestly ministry" who had demonstrated themselves to be mortal threats to the bodily and spiritual welfare of Catholics attached to the conciliar structures.

Five years of apostasy.

Five years of sacrilege.

Five years of blasphemy, including, as mentioned just above, Ratzinger/Benedict's esteeming the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands in the John Paul Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, on Thursday, April 17, 2008. Ratzinger/Benedict listened patiently as the enabler of clerical abusers, including Rembert George Weakland himself, Richard Sklba, read the following blasphemous descriptions of these false religions:

A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem.

A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color.

A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue.

The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers.

A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment. (USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu Leaders To Meet With Pope Benedict XVI; see video of this blasphemous offense to God by clicking See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

Some are rejoicing now that it has been revealed that this apostate and blasphemer posing as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter offers the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace when he is not offending God by presiding over the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service publicly.

What does this prove? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. It certainly does not prove that Ratzinger/Benedict is trying to "restore the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church."

Many Modernist bishops and priests at the begriming of the Twentieth Century offered the fully unreformed Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. They did not have the Catholic Faith. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not about one's aesthetic "likes." It is about giving the Most Blessed Trinity fitting worship as the Holy Faith itself is conveyed flawlessly, without any defect or ambiguity whatsoever. And that this heretofore "secret" has been public now is to help rally the "traditionalist" troops, especially those in the Society of Saint Pius X, around him now that he finds himself under such siege in the secular media for his self-made problems.

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church to accept a menorah as a symbol of the "perennial validity of God's covenant of peace"?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a copy of the Koran, which blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by denying His Sacred Divinity and is heretical in that it does that God is a Trinity of Persons, which was represented by the American conciliar "bishops" as "the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace"?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God in the very Flesh, say what Ratzinger/Benedict said in May of 2008 when he, the false "pontiff," received yet another copy of the Koran, this time in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, called this work of blasphemy a "dear and precious book." Would Our Lord speak in such a way about a book that denies His Sacred Divinity? Restoring the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept the "metallic cube" representing the principles of Jain?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a brass incense burner (talk about a grain of incense!) with the word "Om" on it in order to "esteem" the Hindu religion?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a bell used in the false worship of Buddhism?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for a putative Roman Pontiff to call a mosque, a place of diabolical worship, or a mountain revered by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists as "sacred"?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Successor of Saint Peter to enter into synagogues and to treat the false, blasphemous religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents? Was Bishop George Hay wrong when he he wrote that the Catholic Church's attitude about the places of false worship, including the synagogue, will always be the same? Was Pope Pius XI wrong to insist on the same doctrine?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


These brief passages are absolute, unconditional condemnations of the beliefs and practices of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos is also a condemnation of the belief held by many, although not all, traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that it is necessary to come to a "correct" understanding of the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council, that these documents have been "misunderstood" in the name of "spirit of Vatican II." Wrong! Pope Pius XI made it abundantly clear that the Catholic Church "proposes a complete and easily understood teaching." Can there be any clearer statement that the confusion caused by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath is not a work of the Catholic Church but of the Master of Lies and the very Prince of Darkness himself?

Those who contend that "Pope" Benedict XVI is trying to uncover the "true" meaning of  the "Second" Vatican Council must contend with simple Catholic truth, that it is never necessary to try "uncover" that which is clear and precise, the expression of Catholic truth:

These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


That conciliarists are still arguing amongst themselves about the "true" meaning of the "Second" Vatican Council is, as noted just before, a manifest indication that that robber baron council was not the work of the Catholic Church, she who can never give us anything obscure, unclear or in the least ambiguous. As for the laughable, absurd contention made by "Bishop" Nickless that there is "no difference" between the "pre-Vatican II" and "post-Vatican II" periods, please see the compendium that I have provided in Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and Not So "Upright" After All.

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored by a man who rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King and endorses time and time again the condemned falsehood of "separation of Church and State" as he extols the heresy of "religious liberty," praising the nonexistent ability of one false religion after another to "contribute" to the "building" of a "better world"? (See (see Urbanely Accepting EvilRespect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth CommandmentL'Osservatore Del Naturalista, A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work, Figures of Antichrist Applauding Each Other, and Working for the Nobel Prize From Hell).


Anyone possessed of the sensus Catholicus knows that none of these these blasphemous actions and/or heresies are an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church," that each of these blasphemous actions is offensive to the honor and majesty and glory of God, that they demand our public acts of reparation as they represent, objectively speaking, scandalous violations of the First and Second Commandments.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never be mixed with a "little bit of truth" and a "little bit" of alleged liturgical "decorum" to serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth. Truth mixed with error is all error.

Was Pope Gregory XVI wrong when he wrote in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, that the Catholic Church can never be stained with the slightest taint of error?

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


Can truth and error be part of the teaching of the Catholic Church? Is it possible for doctrinal and pastoral statements to be so filled with ambiguity that it is necessary for an "super-magisterium," if you will, the Society of Saint Pius X, to serve as a "watchdog" upon the words and actions of a putative "council" of the Catholic Church and of putative Successors of Saint Peter? No:

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


No one who defects knowingly from a single proposition in the Deposit of Faith can remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. A la carte Catholicism is wrong for those Catholics who support one moral evil (abortion, contraception, perversity, usury). A la carte Catholicism is wrong for putative "popes" and "bishops" who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and and reject the Church's official philosophy, Scholasticism, and support most brazenly movements (false ecumenism) and propositions (religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the new ecclesiology) that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

It is always useful to remind readers of the simple truth that no one can hold to a single proposition that has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church and remain within her maternal bosom:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)


All the more reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of the symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the "Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:

"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)


Do you believe that calling a mosque "sacred" is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of Summorum Pontificum and various efforts, proposed and actual, to rein various practices (the use of "for all" in the "Eucharistic Prayer" in English) in the Novus Ordo service that Ratzinger/Benedict himself continues to observe without any hint of a change at the level of pastoral praxis? (See the "papal" Missals for Ratzinger/Benedict's "apostolic journeys:" Missal for the Journey to the Holy Land, Missal for the Journey to the United States of America, Missal for World Youth Day in Sydney.)

Indeed, how is it a "restoration" of our "ecclesiastical traditions" for almost totally naked aborigines to prance around in front of the putative "pope" and then to engage in "full, active and conscious" participation in a Novus Ordo travesty in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday, July 20, 2008? Is this "nothing" or an "exaggeration" in the sight of God Himself?

Do you believe that esteeming the symbols of five false religions is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because you want to project onto the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a progenitor and apologist of the "Second" Vatican Council, a Catholicism that is not there?

Do you believe that going into a synagogue and treating Talmudic Judaism is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of the "progress" that has been made in the past four years?

Do you believe that the thirteen million martyrs who were killed between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D. by the authorities of the Roman Empire were "martyrs for religious liberty," as Ratzinger/Benedict contended blasphemously on December 22, 2005? Is this "nothing" or "an exaggeration"?

Do you believe that Ratzinger/Benedict's praise for evolutionism and for Teilhard de Chardin, a consummate theological evolutionist, is "nothing" or "an exaggeration"?

Is God as sanguine about these things as you are?

No amount of argumentation is going to convince others who don't want to see or to admit these facts to accept them. Argumentation didn't convince me. I had to see things for myself as others prayed for me to do so. We must keep this in mind as we seek to sanctify and to save our own souls, which must be the first and last priorities of our daily lives, as we cling to to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or the nonexistent legitimacy of its false officials.

We can't force others to see or to accept that which they are not ready to see or to accept. Our sacrifices and our prayers and our sufferings and humiliations and penances, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, can help. However, we must be content to be thought of as crazy or disloyal or schismatic as we refuse to have contact with the false religion of conciliarism, as we refuse to accept a belief that the upcoming "negotiations" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the counterfeit church of conciliarism can do anything other than result in the acceptance of apostasy, at least in a "nuanced" manner. This is unacceptable to God. It must be unacceptable to us.

Our Lady wants us to sanctify and to save our souls as members of the Catholic Church. She wants us to trust in her loving maternal care. She wants us to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of her Divine Son's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces to want to pray more, to suffer more, and to sacrifice more and more for the cause of the restoration of the Church Militant here on earth as part of the glorious fruit of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. Do we not have enough love and tenderness in our poor, pitiable hearts to say more Rosaries each day, especially during this month of October?

May we beg our good Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to help us to be more conformed to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and to bear with patience and gratitude the crosses of our own personal lives--as well as those associated with the problems of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large--the sorrows that come our way, giving them to all to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, which loves us with a love that is perfect united to and beats in unison with the matchless love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

May Saint Joseph help us to be true "stand up guys" who take responsibility for our actions and make sincere reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of His foster-Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Chaste Spouse, Our Lady, for our sins and those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists who refuse to take responsibility even for those actions for which they have left a paper trail for the whole world to see and to mock.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.