0 Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 July 24, 2012

Fortnight of Fraud

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Time is at a premium. This article will be relatively short, concise and straight to the Catholic point.

Eleven articles on this website, dating back to December 29, 2011, have dealt with the clever box into which the reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, the lawless wonder who rules according to ideological predilections by simple fiat as befits a true son of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, has put the hapless conciliar revolutionaries here in the United States of America by means of the "mandate" issued at his behest by the pro-abortion Catholic Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to require all employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and other "family planning" services. Those who are unfamiliar with those articles might want to review them as all I am going to do here is to review a few salient points to demonstrate that the so-called "Fortnight of Freedom" called for recently by the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America was a fraud from beginning to end.

Permit me a few brief points, some with explanations, others without as the statement itself explains all.

1. Barack Hussein Obama is the quintessential end product of "religious liberty." The heresy of "religious liberty" championed by the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America is what produced the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and made it possible for Catholics in the United States of America to view the Catholic Church and their solemn duties to her through the eyes of the Americanist concepts of "democracy," "equality," "freedom" and "individualism."

Pope Leo XIII explained what the future holds for men who do believe that civil society can know social order over the course of the long term when the state gives "equal rights" to all religions, an absurdity that leads to the triumph of practical atheism, of which Barack Hussein Obama is a prime example:



To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

To think that one is going to fight the assaults of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Company against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law with the very poison, religious liberty, that made their rise to public prominence possible is insanity.

2. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has insisted on protecting the "liberty" of its institutions while failing to protect the rights of individual Catholic employers. 

3. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has thus far refused to assert that the Obama-Biden-Sebelius "contraception mandate" is evil in se and is offensive to Christ the King and to the good ordering of the domestic cell of the Church and the fundamental building block of society, the family.

4. Most of the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America, noting very few exceptions here and there, support ObamaCare as a matter of principle.  Most of the members of the conciliar "hierarchy" and their chancery factotums subscribe to some variation of the "leftist" brand of naturalism.  These unfortunate men, who offend God every day as they stage the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that is sacramentally barren and that falsifies Catholic doctrine (the sacerdotal nature of  the priesthood, the expiatory nature of the Holy Mass, the very Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) and who propagate one condemned proposition after another, really believe that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve as the foundation of personal and social order. They are apostates.

5. Many of the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America have suborned the use of contraceptives by those who bother to darken the doors of their formerly Catholic church buildings. Some have gone so far as to invite "theologians" who openly dissent from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to speak in parishes and/or have done nothing to prevent such speakers from speaking at universities or colleges.

To wit, who believes that the "bishops" of the United States of America who recently concluded a "fortnight of freedom" in behalf of "religious liberty" are going to do anything to correct, no less condemn, the distribution of monies collected by Catholic Relief Services to the organization known as Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE) that distributes chemical abortifacients and even provides a reference service for those seeking to surgically assassinate their innocent preborn children? Judge for yourselves:

July 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the epic battle between the American Catholic bishops and the Obama Administration over being forced to pay for contraceptive coverage, the efforts of the bishops have been undermined time and again by individual Catholics and Catholic entities that support contraception. One major example of this is within the Bishops’ own jurisdiction.

Catholic Relief Services (CRS), “the official overseas relief and development agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops” has recently given millions to an organization that doles out contraceptives, including abortifacient ‘emergency contraception.’

The most recent CRS annual returns (2010) indicate that the largest CRS grant — $5.3 million — went to CARE, an international “relief and development organization,” that actively promotes and provides contraceptives for women in developing countries, and supports pro-abortion groups and legislation.

According to the 2010 990s, CRS gave $5,380,466 to CARE, which is noted on page 86 of the filing.

Noted theologian Dr. William Marshner told LifeSiteNews that he believes the CRS’ funding of CARE is “ghastly.”

“Obviously this expenditure of funds on the part of Catholic Relief Services is an immoral use of the money,” he said.

Human Life International, the largest international pro-life Catholic organization is similarly troubled. There is “no way to support CARE financially that does not also support the problematic work that they do,” Fr. Shenan Boquet told LifeSiteNews.

The HLI president noted that that CARE has made “‘reproductive health’—which typically includes contraception as well as abortion—a cornerstone of their ‘development’ strategies.” Because the revenues that CARE receives are fungible, he said, any funds given them would automatically support their whole program—including abortion lobbying and contraception.

“We hope that CRS reconsiders its funding for CARE and for other groups who have for some time, whether knowingly or not, set themselves against the Church’s view of the dignity of the human person,” said Fr. Boquet.

When asked if, given the evidence on CARE, CRS would end its partnership with the organization, CRS Communications Director John Rivera said “no.” He indicated that concerns had already been raised and dismissed.

Rivera told LifeSiteNews that CRS doesn’t so much give the money to the organization as act as a “pass-through” for federal funding to such groups, and that the money is given only to projects in line with Catholic teaching.

However, when asked if CRS would similarly issue ‘pass-through’ funding to Planned Parenthood for a morally neutral project, Rivera replied in the negative. “We would never partner with Planned Parenthood,” he said.

He explained the difference saying, it’s about “the preponderance of work they do.” Rivera noted that CRS acts on criteria developed by the U.S. bishops. “We’ve given this a lot of consideration, and there’s a threshold in terms of what the focus of an agency is, and the preponderance of their work.”

Marshner, the founding professor of theology at Christendom College, took issue with this rationale:

“Well this is like saying that we will fund an organization that does 50 or fewer assassinations a year, but not one that will commit 50 or more assassinations a year. The idea of such a threshold is preposterous. The only defense would be if a group to whom they had given money incidentally, or rarely, or accidentally, or inadvertently did something immoral with it. But, if the group to whom the money is given has a regular practice of using some of their funds in this way, then it is immoral for a Church organization to give money to that outfit.”

In its Mission Statement, CRS claims to “uphold the sacredness and dignity of all human life,” and “embody Catholic social and moral teaching.” In April 2009, CRS senior communications manager, Tom Price, told LifeSiteNews: “We would not fund any [abortion] advocacy organization.”

Price said at the time that CRS’s official policy “on relationships with organizations that carry out activities counter to Church teaching is that we would not partner or fund them. This is very clear policy at CRS. We are an agency of the Catholic Church and we do not just follow Church teachings, we embrace them.”

However, CARE’s provision of contraceptives is explicit. In a statement on International Women’s Day, the CARE website declared: “…CARE instituted community-based distribution systems to make contraceptives available at clients’ doorsteps”.

While claiming that “CARE does not fund, support or perform abortions,” CARE notes its partnership with leading abortion-provider Marie Stopes International (page 4).

CARE also provides abortifacient emergency contraception. “Together with governments and other partners,” the CARE website states, “we are focusing on emergency obstetric care, family planning (including emergency contraception)…”

In an article titled “A Request for President Obama” on the CARE website, CARE clearly expresses its hostility to anti-abortion legislation: “Thankfully, on Election Day, we did not choose four more years of conservative, unsympathetic leaders. Under the previous administration, we simply made it far too difficult for women outside of the U.S. to access reproductive-health and family-planning services. Case in point: In 1984, the Reagan administration established the Mexico City Policy… because it denies foreign organizations receiving U.S. family-planning assistance the right to use their own non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion or counsel, or even to refer abortion or to lobby for the legalization of abortion.”

HLI President Fr. Boquet called for the immediate defunding of CARE, and for a review of its granting policies. (U.S. bishops’ relief agency gives $5.3 million to major contraception-providing charity; see also American Life League President slams Catholic Relief Service’s ‘doublespeak’)


The miscreants at Catholic Relief Services were just following the "guidelines" of the American "bishops," who are satisfied if a "preponderance" of the work done by a recipient organization is "worthy" of support. No, as Dr. William Marshner pointed out correctly, evil is evil. To provide money collected by Catholics in the name of providing "relief" to organizations involved in the chemical and/or surgical assassination of children, is forbidden.

To be sure, each of us help to fund all manner of evil indirectly by doing business with various banks and supermarkets and other businesses, including hospitals. This is the diabolical world in which we live. This is far, far different from actually collecting money in the name of what is alleged to be the Catholic Church to provide charitable assistance that is used for the promotion of evil. Forbidden.

What will happen to Catholic Relief Services? Nothing. Nothing at all. It's policies will continue as "Care" is a "big name" in the provision of "relief everywhere." It's too "big" to oppose lest the conciliar authorities be termed "mean" and "hateful," something that they really, really, really don't like very much. Most of them are, you see, so very "sensitive" and "caring," save, of course, for the honor and glory of God and the the sanctification and salvation of souls that their own blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies undermine.

Case in point number two: Melinda Gates, a practicing Catholic in the conciliar structures, who has announced that it is her intention to dedicate the rest of her life to the promotion of contraception and other "family planning" services:"



The billionaire philanthropist Melinda Gates, a practising Catholic, has thrown down the gauntlet to the Vatican and vowed to dedicate the rest of her life to improving access to contraception across the globe.

Gates, who with her husband, Bill, the founder of Microsoft, is one of the world's biggest players on development issues, predicted that women in Africa and Asia would soon be "voting with their feet", as women in the west have done, and would ignore the church's ban on artificial birth control.

Gates, who was a speaker at the London Summit on Family Planning organised by her foundation in conjunction with the UK government and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), said that since she announced her new direction a few weeks ago she had been inundated with messages of support from Catholic women, including nuns.

"A church is made up of its members, and one of the things this campaign might do is help women speak out. I've had thousands of women come on to websites and say" 'I'm a Catholic, but I believe in contraception.' It's going to be women voting with their feet."

Gates said that in the west the bishops said one thing, but ordinary Catholics did another. "In my country 82% of Catholics say contraception is morally acceptable. So let the women in Africa decide. The choice is up to them."

She admitted, though, that she had agonised over whether to speak out in defiance of the church hierarchy. "Of course I wrestled with this. As a Catholic I believe in this religion, there are amazing things about this religion, amazing moral teachings that I do believe in, but I also have to think about how we keep women alive. I believe in not letting women die, I believe in not letting babies die, and to me that's more important than arguing about what method of contraception [is right]."

Being a woman and a mother were at the heart of her decision to focus on family planning, said Gates, who has three children aged 16, 13 and 10. "It would have been nice to stay as a private citizen but part of the reason why I'm so public is that it does take a woman to speak out about these issues.

"Why have women not been at the heart of the global health agenda? It's because we've not had enough women speaking out. We need to give a voice to women all over the planet.

"This will be my life's work."

Wednesday's conference, which brings together 250 delegates from around the world including Jakaya Kikwete, the president of Tanzania, Chantal Compaoré, first lady of Burkina Faso, and the Bangladeshi minister of health, AFM Ruhal Haque, is the launch of what the Gates Foundation is billing "a groundbreaking effort to make affordable, lifesaving contraceptive, information, services and supplies available to an additional 120 million girls and women in the world's poorest countries by 2020". Gates announced on Wednesday that her foundation was pouring $560m over the next eight years into improving access to birth control. The UK government is pledging to double its efforts on family planning, up from its current £90m a year to £180m a year.

In her interview with the Guardian, Gates said the moment had now come to push contraception back to the top of the development agenda. "The reason it fell off the agenda was because we made it controversial – people backed away because of fear. But today there are 200 million women who want to have access to contraception, and if we're not serving them that's not right."

She said that when she and her husband first set up their foundation 18 years ago, they had originally focused on family planning but had then shifted their agenda to providing vaccines after realising that childhood mortality was the top issue, and that women would not choose to have fewer children until they were sure their children would survive childhood. "But once we saw that was happening, we could take family planning back on," she said.

It was meeting women in Africa and Asia on her travels through the developing world, said Gates, that made her determined to push contraception back on to the agenda. "Over and over again women have told me that all they want is to be able to put time between one child and another child. It's a universal thing to want to feed your children and to educate your children, and women know that the only way they can do that is not have so many. And this campaign could give them the tools to make sure they can do that."

The campaign would include research to look at developing better methods of contraception, said Gates – and these methods could, in time, benefit women in the west as well as women in Africa and Asia.

"What I'm most excited about is thinking about tools that will have fewer side effects and could be longer-lasting," she said. "Luckily for women in the west it's not a life-and-death situation, but for women in the developing countries it is, which is why I believe in putting them at the heart of it." (Melinda Gates challenges Vatican by vowing to improve contraception.)

The American "bishops" have huffed and they have puffed in the direction of Barack Hussein Obama and his cronies. They will do nothing about Melinda Gates. Nothing.

As noted above, the American "bishops" do not oppose ObamaCare in se. Their "fortnight of freedom" is a fraud from beginning to end.

6. Moreover, apart from their complete support for each of conciliarism's multiple defections from the Holy Faith (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, condemned interpretation of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and States) while embracing in a full-throated manner many aspects of a culture that glorifies evil, particularly by means of indecent attire and amusements that are in and of themselves incentives to sin, they have enabled and suborned Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn.

7. The American "bishops" support the vivisection of living human beings in the name of "organ donation" for purposes of "giving the gift of life."

8. The American "bishops" undermine the innocence and purity of programs by providing programs of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

9. Many of the American "bishops" have promoted tolerated the promotion of --a "gay friendly" agenda in their schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, parish, religious education programs, conferences and "workshops" for purposes of "theological updating."

10. Many of the American "bishops" and their chancery factotums still continue to recruit, protect and promote effeminate men to the conciliar presbyterate and then browbeat, intimidate and harass the victims of those among these effeminate ranks who have abused children or others for their own immoral purposes. These criminals, some of whom are still hiding information that protects men who are threats to souls and whose lack of veracity on key points could be attested to if conciliar officials had the desire to protect souls rather than the "club," have had to be dragged yelling and screaming into court so that civil justice could be done in behalf of the victims. Is it not more than a little ironic that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has more a sense of justice in behalf of the brutality known as "college football" than the conciliar officials (and some traditionally-minded Catholics who have been just as determined to protect friends despite the clear evidence of the "grooming" of victims, who are then blamed in a vicious campaign of character assassination, a tactic taken straight from the "playbook" of the American "bishops" and their attorneys to victimize the victims and thus to indemnify threats to souls without the slightest regard for the souls who might in jeopardy in the future as it is all about "winning" and protecting "one's own," you understand) have had to defend the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and who have looked to them, the conciliar officials, for pastoral care? (Yes, that was one sentence.)

Who appoints the American "bishops"?

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Who has served as a major protector of clerical abusers in his own wretched right?

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Who has championed the very thing, religious heresy, which the American "bishops" are claiming is their "defense" against the "contraception mandate"/

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Consider Father Luigi Villa's scathing analysis of "religious liberty" in Vatican II: About Face:



No topic has been argued so much as that of “religious freedom,” because no other topic has so interested the enemies of the Church, since “freedom” has always been the most important goal of liberalism. Liberals, Masons and Protestants know extremely well that by using this argument they can strike at the heart of the Catholic Church.

By having it become accepted in “common law” in civil societies, it would reduce Her [the Catholic Church] to that of a single sect, and could possibly make Her disappear altogether, since the “truth” cannot give rights to an error+ without negating itself.

But this “Declaration” on religious freedom is the offspring of a “Revolution,” albeit one conceived in the Christian realm. Naturally, many men of this “New Church” applauded the fruits of this Revolution, regardless of the anathemas of the Popes prior to Vatican II and the disastrous consequences [of this Revolution].

In a message “of peace,” Pope Benedict XVI himself raised many eyebrows with his unusual affirmation, “Everyone is free to change their religion if their conscience requires it.”

Let us try to understand this Papal puzzle. Fr. Congar (who was later named a Cardinal!) had to confess that “on the Pope’s request, I participated in the last paragraphs of the Declaration on ‘Religious Freedom’; which involved demonstrating that the theme of ‘religious freedom’ appeared in the Holy Scriptures, even though it does not.”

It can be said, therefore, that “Religious Freedom” opened the way to “Freedom of thought” and to the world. This caused Prof. Salet, when commenting on the Declaration of “Religious freedom” for “Corriere di Rome,” to say that “the Declaration is heretical!”

In the Declaration, at N° 1044, it says, in fact, that:



"The Council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society."

Vatican II, therefore, was concerned with serving “the inviolable rights of the human person”, without saying, though, that before the rights of the “human person,” there are the rights of God, Creator and absolute Master of the“human person,” who had established and imposed the obligation – with the penalty of Hell! – to accept the only religion created by Him. And even in doctrinal documents of recent Supreme Pontiffs, regarding the inviolable rights of the human person, it is enough to remember the “Syllabus” by Pius IX in which, in proposition 15°, paragraph III, he solemnly condemned this fundamental error of “Dignitatis Humanae Personae”:



"Liberum cuique homini est, eam amplecti, ac profiteri religionem quam rationis lumine, qui ductus (...) veram putaverit." (“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”)

It is evident, then, that Pius IX put absolute superiority on the rights of God, expressing with precision and force his rejection of every reform regarding faith! So, it remains, a crime of Vatican II to have deliberately ignored “Mediator Dei,” “Pascendi,” and “Syllabus,” three pillars of Catholic dogma!

Therefore, the doctrine of “Dignitatis Humanae” does not reconcile with previous Papal documents. In fact, in N° 2, it states:



"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom."

Obviously! This represents the right of everyone to immunity from coercion. The text, though, avoids citing concrete facts, even though it establishes as a “principle” that every man has the right to act according to his own conscience, because it would be a natural right, ignoring that such a principle is contrary to the teachings of previous Popes and goes against all traditional teachings, which have always taught that the true religion must be favored and supported by the State.

Furthermore, the Council’s “Declaration” is the religious claim, not only for those of other religions, but also for those who deny the existence of God, so that they could also publicly profess their errors and and promote their irreligiosity. How could “Dignitatis Humanae” not have seen this“strange right” of atheistic proselytism as contrary to Catholic doctrine?

“Religious freedom,” therefore, was the weapon of those who wanted a modern evolution to demand new positions, even if they were in contrast with the doctrine and the steadfast Magisterium of the Church,  an expression of the liberal position, that it would be supported by many, such as the Bishop of Bruges, Msgr. de Smedt, who distinguished himself in his aggressiveness and firmness, followed by Fathers Murray, Congar, Leclerc (...) all representatives of the liberal themes of “human dignity,” of “conscience,” of “non coercion,” without distinction to internal and external acts, or private and public ones, thus, confusing psychological freedom with a moral one, arriving at expressing absurdities, as when Fr. Congar said, in the Bulletin of Studies and documents of the Secretariat of the French Bishops’ Conference (June 15, 1965, N°5, p.5), that religious freedom does not relate anymore to a relationship with God, but rather a relationship with man!

It is surprising, then to read at the end of the Declaration, on page 6:



"This Holy Council declares that the current constitutional regime is respectable and truly indispensable for the effective safeguarding of
society and personal and civil human dignity."

But, then, the doctrine taught by the Church until now, would have been considered false, especially by the recent Popes! In fact, the principles of the “Declaration” on “Religious Freedom”, affirm:



"Founded on the dignity of the human person, religious freedom demands equality of rights for all religions in a civil society. It must be neutral and assure the protection of all religions, within the limits of public order."

The author himself writes:



"A long historical, political and moral evolution led to this conclusion, in force only since the 18th century."

This conclusion destroys “ipso facto” every argument of the Declaration, because, in the name of dignity of human reason, the philosophers of the 18th century, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire (...) had already attempted to destroy the Church, with the massacres of bishops, priests, religious figures and the faithful. With Lamennais, in the mid- 19th century, there was an attempt to adopt this concept of the Church’s doctrine, but they were condemned by Pius IX and Leo XIII in the encyclical “Immortale Dei,” making us reflect on the fact that even Jesus Christ was crucified precisely in the name of public order, as were all of the martyrs; this also reminds us that only Divine Law is the key to the question on “religious freedom,” because it is the fundamental law, so one cannot speak about “religion” while ignoring Divine Law.

This expression of “religious freedom” became popular after Vatican II issued “Dignitatis Humanae,” which was precisely on “religious freedom.”

It is a fact that the contradiction between Vatican II and the previous traditional teaching is more than evident. It is enough to compare two official texts: “Dignitatis Humanae” and “Quanta Cura” by Pius IX. The discussion that occurred in the Council meetings between the two factions was a true dialogue that fell on deaf ears. Everyone, even though using the same text, gave it a different interpretation. I will limit myself here to mention the“heterodoxy” of the teaching of “Dignitatis Humanae,” in its form and application, and, for example, in Spain.

In my opinion, the rift with Vatican II was on the issue of “Religious Freedom.”

Let us immediately consider its application in Spain.

The Fundamental Law of the Spanish State, “Fuero de los Espagnoles,” adopted on July 17, 1945, authorized only the private practice of non-Catholic religions, and forbid any type of propaganda of “false” religions.

In fact, Art. 6, paragraph 1 states:



"The profession and practice of the Roman Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection,"

and in paragraph 2:



"No one will be disturbed for their religious beliefs, nor for the private practice of their faith. No other ceremonies nor public manifestations will be permitted other than those of the Catholic religion."

Following Vatican II, however, the “Organic Law of the State” (January 10, 1967) replaced paragraph 2 of Art. 6 with this disposition:

"The State will assume the protection of religious freedom, which will be guaranteed an equal judicial protection and safeguard of the
moral and public order."


Furthermore, the Preamble to the “Charter of the Spanish People”, modified by the above-mentioned Organic Law, explicitly states that:



"… given the changes introduced in article 6 of the Organic Law of the State, ratified by national referendum, with the purpose of adapting
the text to the Council’s Declaration on“Religious Freedom,” promulgated on December 7, 1965, and requesting the explicit recognition of this right, and in conformity with the fundamental principles of the Movement, according to which our legislation is inspired by the doctrine of the Church."

Therefore, it was precisely to realize explicitly the agreement with the “Declaration” of Vatican II that paragraph 2 of Art. 6 from 1945 was replaced with that from 1967!

Now, we wonder: on which basic principle of “natural law” was Vatican II’s rupture based?

The answer: According to traditional Catholic doctrine (that is, pre-Vatican II!) paragraph 2 of Art. 6 from 1945 completely conformed to natural law.

Now, considering that there does not exist any natural right to “religious freedom” for man, that would allow him to practice a “false religion” in public; considering that Pius IX, in his “Quanta Cura” (Dec. 8, 1864), solemnly reminds us of this perpetual doctrine of the Church and condemns the double affirmation that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society,” so why would Vatican II ever, with its Declaration in “Dignitatis Humanae”, make paragraph 2 of Art. 6 of the law from 1945 inherently evil, by directly saying that it is officially contrary to the fundamental right of man?.. that is, to the civil right of freedom in religious matters... that Vatican II is proclaiming this right as valid for everyone, whichever religion they practice, be it a true or false one?..

Worse still: Vatican II, to avoid the risk of a false interpretation, was very careful of explicitly considering the case of a country (such as Spain, Italy…) where a religion is already officially recognized! This, in fact, as we have seen, happened in Spain with the law of 1967, that keeps paragraph 1 of Art. 6:

"If, by reason of special circumstances in which people are found, an order is given obtaining special civil recognition to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.”» (“Dignitatis Humane”, art. 6 - responsibility regarding religious freedom - paragraph 3)

This is dangerous! This, in fact, shows that a legal disposition, such as the one established by Art. 6, paragraph 2 of the “Fuero de los Espagnoles” of 1945:

This is dangerous! This, in fact, shows that a legal disposition, such as the one established by Art. 6, paragraph 2 of the “Fuero de los Espagnoles” of 1945:

1) essentially “conforms” to natural law, according to traditional Catholic doctrine;

2) essentially “contrary” to natural law, according to the doctrine of Vatican II.

Conclusion: here, it must be said that there is a real contradiction between Vatican II and the traditional doctrine of the “pre-Vatican. (Father Luigi Villa, Th.D., Vatican II: About Face:)

Of course there is a contradiction. Consider, yes, yet again, the direction contradiction represented by Pope Saint Pius X's complete and total condemnation of the "separation of the Church and State" as a "thesis absolutely false" that the "popes have never ceased to condemn" (Paragraph Three, Vehementer Nos, Feburary 11, 1906) when denouncing the "law of separation" in France and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's praise of it in 2005:



Pope Saint Pius X: That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. . . .Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II Correctly understood, the principle of laïcité (secularity), to which your Country is deeply attached, is also part of the social teaching of the Church. It recalls the need for a clear division of powers (cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nn. 571-572) that echoes Christ's invitation to his disciples: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Lk 20: 25). For its part, just as the non-denominational status of the State implies the civil Authority's abstention from interference in the life of the Church and of the various religions, in the spiritual realm it enables all society's members to work together at the service of all and of the national community. Likewise, as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council recalled, the management of temporal power is not the Church's vocation for: "The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified with any political community nor bound by ties to any political system" (Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, n. 76 2; cf. n. 42). Yet, at the same time, it is important that all work in the general interest and for the common good. The Council also stated: "The political community and the Church... each serves the personal and social vocation of the same human beings. This service will redound the more effectively to the welfare of all insofar as both institutions practise better cooperation" (ibid. 3). (Letter to the President of the French Episcopal Conference marking the 100th Anniversary of the law separating Church and State, February 11, 2005.)

Direct contradiction:  Pope Saint Pius X explained that the "non-denominational" civil state praised by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was a"great injustic to God, for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. Far from being satisfied with the ability of "all society's members to work together at the service of all and of the national community," as contended by Wojtyla/John Paul II, Pope Saint Pius X, reiterating the constant teaching of the Catholic Church and, as Father Luigi Villa, Th.D., noted, of the Natural Law itself, the state has an obligation to worship the true God and to aid man in the pursuit of his eternal happiness."

Here is yet another contradiction, this one between Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of the separation of Church and State in Portugal in 2011 and and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's complete endorsement of it in 2010:

Pope Saint Pius X:  2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what

patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. . . .

Accordingly, under the admonition of the duty of Our Apostolic office that, in the face of such audacity on the part of the enemies of God, We should most vigilantly protect the dignity and honor of religion and preserve the sacred rights of the Catholic Church, We by our Apostolic authority denounce, condemn, and reject the Law for the Separation of Church and State in the Portuguese Republic. This law despises God and repudiates the Catholic faith; it annuls the treaties solemnly made between Portugal and the Apostolic See, and violates the law of nature and of her property; it oppresses the liberty of the Church, and assails her divine Constitution; it injures and insults the majesty of the Roman Pontificate, the order of Bishops, the Portuguese clergy and people, and so the Catholics of the world. And whilst We strenuously complain that such a law should have been made, sanctioned, and published, We utter a solemn protest against those who have had a part in it as authors or helpers, and, at the same time, We proclaim and denounce as null and void, and to be so regarded, all that the law has enacted against the inviolable rights of the Church. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)


Let me see. Abortion. "Marriage" between persons of the same gender under cover of the civil law. Rampant licentiousness. A "new era of freedom for the Church"? Yes, a new era, all right. Not of "freedom," but of the triumph of the devil over Christ the King in a land favored by the Mother of God herself ninety-five years ago this year.

As thorough as Father Villa's study is, however, it ignores the simple truth that the foundation of all of the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism is to be found in the denial of the nature of dogmatic truth that has been examined on this site in hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this site. To attack the nature of dogmatic truth is to attack the very nature of God Himself. It is pretty easy form there to create a new religion with a new theology and a new liturgy and new pastoral praxes thereafter. Very easy. All one has to do is make it up as he goes along.

Please, don't try to say that "things are turning around" because conciliar authorities in Rome have requried the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru to remove the words pontifical and Catholic from its name given its refusal to abide by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's Ex Corde Ecclesia, August 15, 1990. It is laughable that men who are not themselves Catholic are telling others not to use the word Catholic.

Yes, you see, Pope Leo XIII wrote it all concerning our own times when he explained that anyone who defected from even one article of the Catholic Faith defected from It in Its entirety and could not be called a Catholic. One can use his Catholic common sense, the sensus Catholicus, to realize this and thus to flee from spiritual robber barons and their false church that pleases the devil, not Christ the King.

Pope Leo XIII explained as follows in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:



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).

We have witnessed Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his band of conciliarists place many drops of poison throughout the course of the past fifty years, drops of poison that have inflected "the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."

It must be remembered that Modernism is a mixture of truth and error. Most Catholics have become so accustomed to this admixture of truth and error (see Accustomed to Apostasy thirty-eight and one-half months ago now) that they are prone to dismiss major acts of apostasy and sacrilege because they believe that the devotional statements made by the "popes" and the "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism somehow "counter-balance" those acts of apostasy and sacrilege. Some have been so bold as to suggest that there is an "irreducible minima" of beliefs that one can maintain while remaining a member of the Catholic Church, a patently absurd proposition that has been made up out of whole cloth and has absolutely not a shred of any foundation in the writings of the Church Fathers or the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Indeed, as Pope Leo XIII stated so forcefully in Satis Cognitum, the exact opposite of the phony "irreducible minima" standard that is designed to exculpate the conciliar "pontiffs" is true: to defect from the Faith in one thing is to defect from It in Its entirety.

Pope Saint Pius X warned us about the ways of the Modernists, explaining to us that they can sound like Catholics at some times and as Modernists on other occasion. The warning is clear. Very clear:


Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all hut fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy. . . .

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


Anyone who says that this is not a prophetic statement concerning our own days is either very blind or intellectually dishonest.

The "fornight of freedom" was a fortnight of fraud as it sought to promote a heresy born of a new religion that it is itself a product of a new theology that is but a total fraud from beginning to end.

Today is the Feast of Saint Francis Solano, a wonderful son of Saint Francis of Assisi who braved a shipwreck and then the wilds of the jungles and poisonous  berries, which turned harmless when he blessed them, while en route to South America from Spain to seek the conversions of the Indians in Peru, Argentina and Paraguay. Saint Francis Solano sought the conversion of the Indians. He wanted to see the conversion of the Americas to the true Faith. That's what missionaries desire. They do not engage in "inter-religious" dialogue with "other believers." Saint Francis Solano, for instance, converted over 20,000 Indians in northern Argentina on one Holy Thursday in a matter of hours, using his ability to play a violin as the "catch" whereby the Indians would listen to him rather than murder him as they had intended to do. Catholics speak as Catholics at all times. They provide no admixture of truth and error. None whatsoever.

Indeed, Saint Francis Solano, knowing that the ship he was sailing on to the Americas was about to founder, baptized an entire cargo hold of Africans who had been sold into slavery by other members of their own tribe or by enemies of their tribe who had captured them for the sake of making money from the white slave-traders. He thus liberated their immortal souls from captivity to the devil just before God Himself accepted His new children into Heaven to save them from service in chattel slavery.

We need to pray to Saint Francis Solano to save us from captivity to any association with or concession to the conciliar devils so that we will be liberated to serve Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as members of His underground church, yes, replete with all of the problems and conflicts that take place there but are simply the result of fallen human nature and repetition of such conflicts that divided even faithful Catholics from each other during the Protestant Revolution in England, so that we, vivified by the true sacraments administered by true priests and praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, wil know the blessedness of Heaven for all eternity.

Heaven is worth a little suffering and ridicule now, is it not?

This will all pass. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest, and it will be a triumph beyond all telling.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us, on this your feast day!

Saint John the Baptist, 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 Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Saint Cristina, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?




© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.