Thomas A. Droleskey
The continued blathering of the editor, Gian Maria Vian, of the conciliar Vatican's semi-official newspaper, in defense of his newspaper's stance on the administration of Caesar Obamus requires very little in the way of an original response. Part of what I wrote thirty days ago now, on May 23, 2009, is worth repeating once again in light of an extensive interview that Signore Vian gave to a reporter from Inside the Vatican magazine:
The spirit of the toleration of error as something that is not offensive to God and immediately injurious to souls that has spread throughout the veins and arteries of most Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism did not begin overnight.
Although we know that all human problems have their Remote Cause in Original Sin and are aided proximately by our own Actual Sins, for which we must do penance to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, there are other Proximate Causes for the problems of Modernity, ushered in with various aspects of the Renaissance and aided along its way by the Protestant Revolt against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church as he ordered his life socially in light of his Last End and institutionalized by means of the naturalistic philosophies of the "enlightenment" and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. There are also other Proximate Causes for the spread of Modernism in the minds and hearts of so many Catholics.
One of those Proximate Causes for the spread of Modernism--and for the spirit of the toleration of theological and philosophical errors that are offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the holy Cross--can be found in the Opening Address that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII delivered to the Fathers of the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962:
In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.
The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.
Contemporary Repudiation Of Godlessness
Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.
A Loving Mother
The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children. To the human race oppressed by so many difficulties, she says what Peter once said to the poor man who begged an alms: "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, that I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk." In other words it is not corruptible wealth, nor the promise of earthly happiness, that the Church offers the world today, but the gifts of divine grace which, since they raise men up to the dignity of being sons of God, are powerful assistance and support for the living of a more fully human life. She unseals the fountains of her life-giving doctrine, so that men, illumined by the light of Christ, will understand their true nature and dignity and purpose. Everywhere, through her children, she extends the frontiers of Christian love, the most powerful means of eradicating the seeds of discord, the most effective means of promoting concord, peace with justice, and universal brotherhood. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII 's Opening Address)
"But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord"? Behold the proliferation of error and confusion and ambiguity and uncertainty that has taken place as a result of this benign view of error that was expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who was under suspicion of heresy during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.
This proliferation of error is so pronounced and so widespread in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the average Catholic, noting, of course, exceptions here and there, has become so very accustomed to apostasy that he is incapable of recognizing that is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, for a Catholic to enter into a place of false worship and then to praise that place of diabolical rites as "sacred" and to praise the "values" held by the adherents of that false religion.
Very few Catholics have expressed any sense of outrage for the honor and majesty and glory of God in the wake of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's calling a mosque in Jordan as a "jewel" that stands out on "the face of the earth" and in the wake of his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, taking off his shoes to enter the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and calling this place that is hideous in the sight of God as "sacred." These Catholics have come to accept such acts of apostasy and sacrilege as "natural" and "normal," if not actual "obligations" required of Christian charity so as to demonstrate to all men of "good will" that a "loving God" does not make distinctions between people who have different beliefs about Him. I know of only a handful of Catholics who expressed publicly any outrage at all for the honor and majesty and glory of God after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008.
The man who believes himself to be, albeit falsely, the Vicar of Christ, on earth, has long been tolerant of theological and philosophical errors. This has been one of the hallmarks of his entire intellectual life, indicating clearly that he truly does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is very blithe, very sanguine about theological and philosophical errors, although he is very concerned about "errors" on matters of secular history, as he made clear in his prompt and repeated denunciations of Bishop Richard Williamson, who has himself learned how to tolerate "papal" apostasies as the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X commence their "negotiations" about how to view the conciliar ethos "in light of Tradition," as early as his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, "general audience" address of Wednesday, January 28, 2009.
Ratzinger/Benedict's blithe, sanguine approach to theological and philosophical error and heresy was summarized very succinctly in an article in Si, Si, No, No, that was quoted in One Sentence Says It All and is worth repeating once again now:
Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:
In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.
So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."
Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:
I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.
According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.
Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:
All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).
We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has such a blithe, sanguine spirit of toleration of error and heresy because he is himself steeped in one Modernist error and heresy after another. He has himself committed grave acts of apostasy publicly. He has gravely offended the honor and glory and majesty of God without hardly a peep of protest from anyone connected to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Ratzinger/Benedict has even remained silent now for forty-two days after "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch denied publicly that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. The man has no concept of how God hates error and to see it corrected.
Each of the conciliar "pontiffs" has demonstrated this broad, liberal sense of toleration of error, at least to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the particular issues of Faith involved. This includes Albino Luciani/John Paul I:
John Paul I is often portrayed as a humble, saintly prelate of the Church. His doctrinal stand was very questionable as evidence by his pastoral letter of 1967 in which he advised his clergy to "see, if instead of uprooting and throwing down [error], it might be possible to trim and prune it patiently, bringing to light the core of goodness and truth which is not often lacking even in erroneous opinions" [Reference 839: Our Sunday Visitor, September 28, 2003, "Celebrating the Smiling Pope," by Lori Pieper.] This is like a doctor telling his patient: "I won't take out all the cancer; it might be good for you. (Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times, page 530.)
The conciliar spirit of the toleration of error was condemned prophetically by many true popes, including Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1950:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., 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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
This is far, far removed the false spirit of the toleration of error under the guise of "mercy" and "patience" expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in his Opening Address at the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962. Error does not simply "go away." It needs to be opposed.
Pope Leo XIII's Custodi di Quella Fede rejects outright the Masonic "respect for all religions" and "universal tolerance" that is at the heart of the conciliar spirit:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.) (Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment.)
Gian Maria Vian is proving the truly prophetic nature of Pope Pius IX's warning about "injurious babbling" caused by "freedom of speech" and the prophetic nature of Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of those who are craving to "reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with hose of the revolution," those who "seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God." Not content with his previous statements in defense of the Obama administration, Vian has reiterated his belief that Obama views on abortion reflect an effort to reach a "common ground" between those who support baby-killing and those who oppose it. Such a delusional view trivializes of the horror of each direct, intentional attack on an innocent preborn child in his mothers' wombs. Such a delusional view is irresponsible. It is reprehensible.
Then again, as I have been trying to emphasize in article after article on this site, the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by means of chemical and surgical abortions, part of the rotten fruit of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, is made all the more possible as repeated sins against the First Commandment, which are far more heinous and offensive to God than sins against the Fifth Commandment, are committed openly and blatantly by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops."
Gian Maria Vian, who, of course, published no articles critical of Ratzinger/Benedict's calling one mosque as a "jewel" and another as "sacred" place while treating Mohammedanism and Talmudic Judaism as valid religions that are worthy of respect and esteem, had this to say when question about his statement that his belief that Obama is not a "pro-abortion" president:
You were quoted as saying, “It is my clear conviction: Obama is not a pro-abortion president.” On what basis do you hold this conviction?
Gian Maria Vian: I made that statement in an interview to an Italian journalist of “Il Riformista” who called me on the day the President was at Notre Dame for the controversial ceremony of the conferring of the law degree honoris causa. I was in Barcelona; I gave the interview over the phone and based my observation primarily on the speech President Obama gave on that occasion. A speech which demonstrated openness. In this sense, I said that he didn’t seem a pro-abortion president.
What do you mean?
Vian: He considered abortion, at least in his speech at Notre Dame, as something to prevent and above all, he said, we must proceed in the attempt to widen the consensus as much as possible because he realizes that it is a very delicate issue. Of course, Senator Obama made decisions that certainly cannot be defined as pro-life, to use the American term. He was rather pro-choice. Yet I believe that the Senator’s activity prior to his presidential election is one thing, and the political line he is following as President of the United States is another.
We have noticed that his entire program prior to his election was more radical than it is revealing itself to be now that he is president. So this is what I meant when I said he didn’t sound like a pro-abortion president. Besides, he stated that the Freedom of Choice Act is no longer a top priority of the Administration.
Naturally, it is also a sort of wishful thinking. Let’s hope that my conviction is confirmed by the political actions of the administration. This is basically the same attitude of watching, waiting and hope of the Catholic bishops of the United States. (Under the Roman Sun - Latest Newsflash - Inside the Vatican Magazine.)
"Openness"? "Openness"? Barack Hussein Obama is not simply "theoretically" in favor of chemical and surgical baby-killing, although even a "theoretical" support for the daily slaughter of the preborn is itself a heinous act that makes one guilty of being an accessory to the sins of others. Barack Hussein Obama has issued an Executive Order restoring to permit the use of American taxpayer dollars for the direct, intentional taking of innocent preborn life on the ground of international "family planning" organizations in foreign countries, thereby placing the blood of the innocent on his hands. Barack Hussein Obama is no pro-abortion "theoretician," as bad as that would be if that was the extent of his involvement with baby-killing. He has made possible the deaths of innocent human beings on the grounds of various organizations in foreign countries with American taxpayer dollars.
To be sure, as I have noted in various articles, the Mexico City policy of former President George Walker Bush was a sham from beginning to end as it permitted employees of those international "family planning" agencies to "counsel" women off of the premises of those organizations on their own time to advise them where they could go to kill their babies via surgical means. The George Walker Bush version of the Mexico City policy also permitted the surgical killing of babies on the premises of "family planning" agencies in the "hard" cases and, of course, permitted the unrestricted distribution of chemical abortifacients on those premises at all times. George Walker Bush, who was responsible for the deaths of countless thousands of innocent human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan, certainly had the blood of the innocent preborn on his hands despite all of the delusional claims made by hapless pro-life Americans that he, Bush, was their friend when he was nothing of the kinds.
George Walker Bush, however, is no longer President of the United States of America. Barack Hussein Obama holds, at least in a de facto manner (leaving aside the very real possibility that he is not a native born citizen of the United States of America), that office now. He is responsible for the decisions that he, Obama, has made to permit the assassination of the innocent preborn. To overlook Obama's direct involvement in baby-killing as a result of sophistic, sophomoric speech at the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, that made "complex" what is quite simple, a strict observance of the precepts of the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life at any time, is beneath contempt.is (For a thorough analysis of Caesar Obamus's May 17, 2009, speech at the University of Notre Dame, please see
No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error.)
It is even beneath contempt for one who considers himself to be a Catholic to refer to the horror of baby-killing by the Orwellian euphemism of "pro-choice," a term that is designed to anesthetize the reality of what happens in each abortion (an innocent human baby is killed deliberately, intentionally and cruelly in full violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law) in order to shift the focus on a nonexistent "choice" of a woman to keep or kill her baby. Indeed, Obama himself referred to this "decision" in his May 17, 2009, speech at the University of Notre Dame:
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
(Text of Obama Speech at the University of Notre Dame.)
As I noted five weeks ago now:
There is no "common ground" between truth and error, between good and evil. The precepts of the Fifth Commandment make it clear that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being as the first end of a moral act.
An expectant mother has no "decision" to make when she discovers that she is carrying a child in her womb. She has a baby to nurture unto birth and then to bring to the Baptismal font to be made a spiritual child by adoption of the Most Blessed Trinity, Whose very inner life is flooded into that baby's soul as the Original Sin and that soul's captivity to the devil is flooded out of it. There is no "decision" to be made. There is no "choice" to be made. There is God's Holy Will to fulfill with love and with perfection, made possible by the supernatural helps won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of all Graces.
Although I have written (and taught) this repeatedly throughout the course of my professional life as a college professor and speaker and writer, let me reiterate this simple truth once again: Every abortion in an attack mystically on the preborn Baby Jesus in the person of an innocent preborn baby in his mother's womb. No one--and I mean no one--can say that he "loves" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and support as a matter of public law and/or participate in actively the act of dismembering or burning or poisoning Him mystically in the persons of innocent preborn children by chemical or surgical means.
It is that simple. There is "common ground" to be found. There is only God's Law to be obeyed. Period. (No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error.)
A Catholic who uses the Orwellian"pro-choice" slogan shows himself to have ceded ground to the linguistic revolution that has sought to turn logic and truth inside out in order to justify the mystical dismemberment of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs. Then again, conciliarists are quite apt at using various linguistic tricks to turn logic and dogmatic truth inside out and upside down.
It is also absurd Signore Gian Maria Vian to point to Obama's saying that the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" was not a "top priority" for him is a sign of some encouragement. Obama is a political realist. He knows full well that the "votes" do not exist in the Congress of the United States of America to overturn all existing state laws that restrict surgical baby-killing in one manner or another (please see We Don't Want to Learn Anything and Only Themselves to Blame). Obama is to be given credit for merely yielding to political reality? Absolutely absurd.
Gian Maria Vian made it clear that he has the full support of the conciliar Vatican's Secretary of State, Tarcisio "Cardinal" Bertone, in expressing the views about Obama as he has. Vian also made it clear that he fails to realize is precisely as Catholics that we must oppose abortion as it exists under cover of the civil law as a direct and inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the forces of Judeo-Masonry:
Did you hear from the Pope or the Secretary of State about your comment that Obama is not a pro-abortion president?
Vian: No. It was an interview on the fly. As usual, I didn’t ask permission from either the Secretariat of State or the Pope. It was an impression that I communicated based on the speech he had just given. President Obama said we should try to confront this question without too much division, that it is a tragedy, a frightening drama, let’s look for common ground – I think his words should be appreciated.
Some would say they are only words and it is his voting record and actions which speak more loudly. I admit that it is legitimate to be diffident in the face of the words of a President who previously has demonstrated a pro-choice line, but I hope that he changes. I hope that he understands that a politics of pro-life is good politics, not because it is religious, not because it is Catholic, but because it is human. This is what the Church repeatedly says, and in particular Pope Benedict XVI. The appeal to natural law is important because it is not based on religious principles, it is based on human principles which can be agreed on by all.
So you were fully aware of the record of the Senator, the criticisms of the US bishops and the political situation in the US?
Vian: When we published the infamous article on the first 100 days, we wrote that the moderation that President Obama had so far demonstrated compared to what was expected in no way eliminated the reasons for criticism that the US Bishops Conference expressed many times.
So mine was not an ingenuous statement. I must say that it was an interview which mirrored my personal point of view and that what is more important is what is published in L’Osservatore Romano. The editorial line of the paper is above all reflected by what is published in the paper, but the two things aren’t that far apart.
I realize that Obama is much more pro-choice than McCain, who was his adversary, but Obama won and let’s hope that that his actions on these themes are less radical than they have been before the elections. At least that is the case so far.
On the article judging President Obama’s first 100 days did you hear any reaction from the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone?
Vian: No. Naturally we spoke about it because it created a lot of noise but he did not say that it was an article that wasn’t right or should not have been printed.
The article on the first 100 days was written by the head of international news, Dr. Giuseppe Fiorentino. I reviewed it and added some things on the ethical questions saying, again, that this greater moderation shown by the President compared to the propaganda of then-Senator Obama does not mitigate criticism, especially in the field of bio-engineering, the use of embryonic stem cells and in general with respect to ethical questions. That he is more moderate than expected does not mean that there is approval, obviously, on the part of the Holy See, or of its newspaper.
On the ethical question, Michael Novak accused me in the Italian paper, Liberal, of actually being pro-abortion. Given the fact that Novak has come to visit us at the paper and was very kind and said he would be happy to write for us and is besides a gentleman, I responded to his article in a very cordial manner saying that such an accusation towards the newspaper of the Pope, that it is a pro-abortion paper, makes me smile, so as not to say in a more crude manner that it is ridiculous.
Should a reader interpret the editorial line of the newspaper to be also that of the Pope and the Secretariat of State?
Vian: Well, we need to distinguish something here. The paper is not official: it is not the expression, in every single part, of the point of view of the Vatican, that is, of the Secretariat of State. But it is obvious that it is an authoritative point of view of the Holy See, because ours is the only newspaper of the Holy See and has a century and a half of history. We were started during the American Civil War. That finished in 1865 and we were started in 1861. It’s a paper with a very long history and it has always been rightly interpreted as the expression of the thought of the Holy See, without a doubt, but that is not to say that every word that comes out in the paper is exactly the thought of the Pope or the Secretary of State.
But the average reader would assume that he will find in the Vatican’s newspaper an editorial line that is in agreement with the Pope...
Vian: Let’s say that L’Osservatore Romano expresses a line generally in agreement with the Holy See. This is obvious because the paper is owned by the Holy See. My editor, in the Italian sense of the owner of the paper, is the Pope, via the Secretariat of State. I could not possibly create a paper in disagreement with the owner, just like no newspaper director could create a paper in dissension with the owner. If I ran the newspaper like that, I would have already been fired.
Do you receive regular feedback from Cardinal Bertone or the Pope on articles that you publish?
Vian: I am here since the fall of 2007 and I have never had a problem. The Pope and the Secretary of State have so far given me and the newspaper their full confidence.
I know the paper very well: my grandfather wrote for this paper, my father wrote for this paper, my brother wrote for this paper and I wrote for this paper from 1977 until 1987 and then 20 years later I’ve come back as director. I knew the paper very well, it was the newspaper that arrived at home every day when I was a child.
I did not imagine I would find the autonomy that I have found here. Sure, we have made mistakes. But I jokingly say that it’s my editor, the owner, who is infallible, not me, not us.
We make mistakes, but so far not the Pope, the Secretary of State or anyone in the Secretariat of State has ever said, ‘You’ve made a serious error.’ (Under the Roman Sun - Latest Newsflash - Inside the Vatican Magazine.)\
Obama is more "moderate than expected." He is a pro-abort and a statist who is intent on suppressing legitimate criticism of him by the use of invective and slogans and straw men as his supporters, such as the Mayor of Sacramento, California, Kevin Johnson, drink heartily at the trough of the American taxpayer by means of the unconstitutional "economic stimulus package" that is also an exercise in immorality as it indentures American taxpayers for decades to come at the same time his, Obama's, friends, have their bank accounts fattened (see John Kass, Obama's political play should shock no one). "More moderate than expected"? Define "moderate," Mr. Vian. Define "moderate." See Jill Stanek's substantially different view of
"Obama's 100 days of death, a documentary record that is slightly different than the irresponsible claims about Obama made by Gian Maria Vian.
Obama is no "moderate." He is an enemy of souls--and thus of all social order--not only as a result of his support, but as a result of his violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity that was enunciated clearly by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931:
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.
The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.
No one who understands anything about Catholic Social Teaching can claim that Barack Hussein Obama's policies have been "more moderate than expected." No one who supports a single, solitary abortion, whether accomplished by chemical or surgical means, is qualified to hold any office of public trust as such an individual acts in defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the eternal safekeeping and infallible explication of the Catholic Church and thus hinders the advancement of man's Last End (which Pope Saint Pius X noted in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, was a principal responsibility of the civil state) while at the same time sowing the seeds for social chaos and disorder.
Gian Maria Vian would have us believe that it is possible for a man who believes in and supports things that are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity can promote the common temporal good here on earth. Such a belief is delusional and has been denounced by pope after pope, including Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, and by Pope Pius IX in the afore-cited Quanta Cura. Writing in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, Pius XI cited the follow passage from Silvio Cardinal Antoniano to teach us that it is not possible to pursue the common temporal good while promoting things contrary to the good of the souls of men:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity.
Mr. Vian, what part of "it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity" is difficult for you or "Cardinal" Bertone to understand? It is impossible for Barack Hussein Obama and his policies to produce true temporal peace and tranquility as they are very much opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity.
Mr. Vian went on to imply that support for the chemical and/or surgical execution of children in their mothers' wombs under cover of law is not a disqualifying consideration for those who want to participate in the Judeo-Masonic farce that is American electoral politics, stating that the Democratic Party, which is institutionally committed to the preservation of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, could be supported legitimately by Catholics in the United States of America:
What do you mean by a political stance?
Vian: Well they say that the [American conciliar "bishops'"] conference, or at least the presidency of the US bishops’ conference has a conservative Republican line – no. On questions such as the defense of life the bishops speak in the same way to Republicans as they do to Democrats.
But you have said that Obama is not a pro-abortion president which is not the position of many US bishops...
Vian: I don’t know the opinion of all of the American bishops but we have collaborators in the US and I am in contact with the English section of the Secretariat of State and also have personal contact with some American bishops.
Have you heard from any of the bishops on this topic?
Vian: Recently and directly, no. I learned indirectly of the reactions of cardinals and bishops in the United States and their opinions are very varied. Besides, in politics, there are no dogmas; there are no dogmas of faith.
What do you mean by no dogmas in politics?
Vian: A Catholic can vote Republican or Democrat. In fact, there were Catholics who voted Democratic.
But if a Catholic in good conscience should not vote for a candidate who supports abortion, often they can only choose the Republican...
Vian: In fact, the paper has never taken political positions, not in Italy, Spain nor in the US, also because the Holy See has diplomatic relations with countries and therefore institutional relationships with different states outside of particular administrations so it would be absurd if the Holy See were to support Republicans rather than Democrats.
Vian is only partly correct in saying that the conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America speak in the "same way to Republicans as they do to Democrats," but not in the way he meant his statement as it is simply not true that the conciliar "bishops" as a body treat Republicans and Democrats alike. They do not. Vian's statement is partly correct because both the "left" and "right" wings of the conciliar "bishops" are most selective in choosing not to criticize politicians who are "closer" to their own positions than are others.
To wit, those conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America who are identified being vocally "pro-life" ave been, at least as a general rule rightly critical of pro-aborts in public life, especially Catholics who belong to the Democratic Party. By the same token, however, none of these "pro-life" "bishops" ever criticized former President George Walker Bush for his support--as a matter of principle, not as a matter of expediency-- for "exceptions" in certain "hard cases" to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment. None of these "conservative" "bishops" ever criticized the administration of George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney for its massive funding of domestic and international "family planning" programs, which resulted in the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands of babies by means of chemical abortifacients. None of these "conservative" "bishops" ever once pointed out the fraudulent nature of Bush's Mexico City policy. Only one or two, if memory serves me correctly, uttered a word of protest about the Bush administration's decision to permit nonprescription over-the-counter sales of the Plan B "emergency" contraceptive, which is an abortifacient, on August 24, 2006. And not a single, solitary conciliar "bishop" known to "pro-life" ever said a word about the failure of the Bush administration to reverse the William Jefferson Clinton administration's September, 2000, decision to permit the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486.
The "pass" given by "conservative" "bishops" in the conciliar structures in the United States of America to Republican "pro-life" politicians who are simply less pro-abortion than those who support unrestricted baby-killing under cover of the civil law in all instances is quite similar to that given by the "ultra-progressive" conciliar "bishops" to their fellow leftists and statists in the Democratic Party. Indeed, some of these "ultra-progressive" conciliar "bishops" criticize "pro-life" politicians who support the death penalty, subscribing to the late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin's apologia for pro-abortion, statist Democrats, the "consistent ethic of life."
Indeed, Bernardin's "seamless garment" policy that was meant to indemnify the likes of the then Governor of the State of New York, Mario Matthew Cuomo and United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), among so many others, sounds very much like Barack Hussein Obama's May 17, 2009, address at the University of Notre Dame and very much like Gian Maria Vian's (and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's) belief that social evils such as abortion should be opposed on non-religious grounds:
The substance of a Catholic position on a consistent ethic of life is rooted in a religious vision. But the citizenry of the United States is radically pluralistic in moral and religious conviction. So we face the challenge of stating our case, which is shaped in terms of our faith and our religious convictions, in non-religious terms which others of different faith convictions might find morally persuasive. . . . As we seek to shape and share the vision of a consistent ethic of life, I suggest a style governed by the following rule: We should maintain and clearly communicate our religious convictions but also maintain our civil courtesy. We should be vigorous in stating a case and attentive in hearing another's case; we should test everyone's logic but not question his or her motives. ("A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue".).
The conciliar madness of "listening" to the views of those in error was on full display in Bernardin's December 6, 1983, address at Fordham University. This is same kind of madness that was on display in Caesar Obamus's May 17, 2009, address at the University of Notre Dame, and it is of the essence of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's lifelong spirit of toleration of heresy and error, dissected in the Si, Si, No, No article on Cardinal Ratzinger, that are the foundation of his belief in the insanity of "inter-religious dialogue." Bernardin's "consistent ethic of life" thesis has been used by "ultra-progressive" conciliar "bishops" to indemnify Democrats just as "conservative" conciliar 'bishops" have indemnified partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion Republicans by means of a blithe acceptance of the precepts of Americanism and by means of making constant advertence to the "lesser of two evils" slogan that has permitted the so-called "lesser evil" to increase exponentially over the years (see
When Lesser is Greater.)
Insofar as no "dogmas" in politics, Mr. Vian is quite wrong. Here is a cogent summary of those dogmas, provided to us in succinct form by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
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. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."
No dogmas, Mr. Vian? You are a fool whose mind has been rendered incapable by the lies of conciliarism of seeing the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith as opposed to the naturalistic eyes of realpolitik, which is why L'Osservatore Romano ought to be named L'Osservatore del Naturalista.
No dogmas, Mr. Vian? Try this one on for size: the immutable Catholic doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the doctrine that requires those in public life to pursue the common temporal good with a due subordination to the Deposit of Faith in all that pertains to the good of souls and that is ready to yield with humility and docility to the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church when she, in grave circumstances and only after having exhausted her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, interposes herself to forbid (and/or to punish) civil actions that are contrary to the good of 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. That's dogma, Mr. Vian, not a blithe spirit of indifference to social evils advanced by naturalists who belong to the false opposites of the "right" and the "left."
As I have noted so many times in the past, despite a few differences in details on various points here and there, naturalists of the "right" and of the "left" are united in their essential core belief that it is not necessary for men, whether acting individually in their own lives of collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, to subordinate themselves at all times to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and that it is not necessary for men to have belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace in order to be virtuous, no less to scale the heights of sanctity as the fundamental prerequisite for social order. The naturalists of the "right" and of the "left" are united in their rejection of the this truth, namely, that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
In this regard, you see naturalists of the "left" and of the "right" have ready allies and enablers in each of the wings of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as the conciliar "popes" themselves reject the dogmatic truth that Catholicism is the sole foundation of personal and social order, thus making a mockery of the words of Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XI as they reiterated most eloquently the simple Catholic truth that Catholicism is indeed the one and only foundation of personal and social order:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.
Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)
Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.
When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.
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.)
As Gian Maria Vian of L'Osservatore del Naturalista observed in his interview with Inside the Vatican, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does indeed support the religious indifferentism of the United States of America, believing that the United States is a "secular country for love of religion," implying, of course, that is a generic sense of "religiosity" that is broaden than Catholicism and into which the true Faith can fit neatly without ever having assert itself as having the sole basis for personal and social order:
Some US Catholics feel that the Vatican, predominately European, does not understand their particular situation. That there is a more liberal, leftist, socialist European culture here which influences the way you see the US...
Vian: I respect this point of view. Naturally any American who is versed in politics will be more prepared than I am on the topic. I am European, Italian and have a cultural formation obviously different from an American but this does not equal a liberal point of view, in the American meaning of liberal. Or a socialist point of view. I don’t recognize myself in this description.
There is a problem between Europe and America, this is true. Pope Benedict says that the US has much to teach Europe because they give public space to religion that is not invasive but democratic, respectful of all opinions. On his pastoral visit to the US, the Pope cited a beautiful distinction of the United States. He said that the United States is a secular country for love of religion. I second that sentiment entirely. I, too, believe Europeans must learn from the US how to be more open to a serious consideration of religion and its public consequences.
At the same time, Americans should not assume that everything that comes from Europe is leftist and should be ignored.
I have always had great respect and admiration for America, perhaps also because my father studied, in the early 30s, Library Science at Ann Arbor University, Michigan, sent by the Vatican Library, and always had great memories of his time there. I have always enjoyed American Catholics because they offer a new point of view, younger and very useful sometimes for the whole Church.
How much do you think your thinking about President Obama represents the thinking at the Vatican?
Vian: I don’t think Obama has yet defined a precise line on certain questions. Of course his decisions on international help for reproductive health are dangerous because they could signify supporting the campaign in favor of abortion, which is unacceptable. Were this to be confirmed, it would be unacceptable. But I don’t think one can ask for a condemnation or a benediction a priori. We need to see day by day what happens. At L’Osservatore Romano we are doing that; waiting and seeing and we hope that the wishes of the bishops find confirmation and we hope that Obama does not follow pro-choice politics not because we want him to follow Catholic politics but because we hope and want Obama to guide politics at the service of the weakest and the weakest are the unborn, the embryos.
Vian is living in an alternate universe. Obama has already issued an Executive Order that has resulted in the full restoration of American taxpayer funding of surgical baby-killings on the premises of international "family planning" organizations." One cannot indeed "ask for a condemnation from you right and here now, Mr. Vian. You are engaged in what lawyers call "special pleading," attempting to make the facts fit your own stated views about Caesar Obamus. There is no need to "wait and see" what Obama believes and/or how he will act in accord with those beliefs.
And, yes, we do want Barack Hussein Obama to follow the Catholic Faith in all that he does as nothing other than the salvation of his own immortal soul depends upon his conversion to the true Faith and upon his acting in according with It with every beat of his heart, consecrated as his heart--and each one of our hearts--should be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must think, speak and act as Catholics at all times, something Pope Leo XIII made abundantly clear in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:
The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
Although the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Gian Maria Vian and Tarcisio Bertone may be content with an American model of a secular republic with a "love" of "religion," God is not satisfied with anything other than the conversion of men, including Barack Hussein Obama, and of nations to the true Faith as each civil government in the world recognizes the Catholic Church as its official religion and accords it the favor and the protection of the laws:
Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)
Those who fear not to offend God by esteeming the places and the symbols and the beliefs of false religions, however, will fear not to offend Him as they reject the immutable teaching that He has left to His Holy Church concerning the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to yield to her authority, exercised rarely and judiciously after the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention.
Alas those who fear not to offend the honor and majesty and glory of God by praising false religions and their nonexistent "ability" to "contribute" to the "building" of the "better" world do not realize that it is offenses against God that make all the more possible offenses against man, starting with the innocent preborn. And those who are guilty of silence in the wake of these offenses ought to reckon with the words of Pope Leo the Great and the words of Saint Teresa of Avila:
But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
The chief point is to beware not of men, but to beware of displeasing the majesty of God. (St. Teresa of Avila, quoted in A Year With The Saints, A Virtue For Every Month, published originally in 1891 by the Reverend Sisters of Mercy in Hartford, Connecticut, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1988, p. 208.)
The conciliar revolutionaries think nothing of displeasing the majesty of God, and not one conciliar "bishop" anywhere on the face of this earth has the courage or even enough of the sensus Catholicus to speak up in defense of the honor and glory and majesty of God when He is offended and profaned by a conciliar "pope" as he breaks the First Commandment repeatedly, becoming accomplices themselves in enabling the breaking of each of the other Commandments.(It should be noted that "Cardinal" Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the now retired conciliar "archbishop" of Hong Kong, has criticized Ratzinger/Benedict for accommodationism, so far unrequited, with authorities in Red China.) Indeed, most of the conciliar "bishops" themselves are quite active in offending God by doing the same sorts of things in their dioceses that the current conciliar "pontiff," Ratzinger/Benedict does on a global scale. When will even one of them learn that it is not possible to stop the killing of babies when God Himself is offended at their very hands every day as they engage in a profane form of faux "worship" in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service?
As I have noted before, the madness of conciliarism that grips the likes of Gian Maria Vian and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, replete with its insanity of "dialogue" and respect for errors and false religions, is a long, long way from the clarity provided us by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:
"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
This is the language of the Catholic Church, not "dialogue" and "toleration." How many more babies must be killed for the conciliar revolutionaries to realize that their own soul-killing liturgies and false doctrines have made it more possible for men such as Barack Hussein Obama to rise to political prominence and to have the enthusiastic support of large numbers of Catholics. The
apostasy of the conciliar ethos does indeed have consequences.
The counterfeit church of conciliarism's spirit of toleration--and even respect--for theological and philosophical errors is displayed in many conciliar parishes as "bishops" and priests and presbyters speak whatever it is that comes to their minds and/or propagate with malice aforethought propositions that have been long condemned by the Catholic Church and that are, in many instances, even "unapproved" by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. I was an eyewitness to these assaults upon the Catholic Faith for three decades. I reported about many of them in detail in The Wanderer, hoping that the conciliar "pope," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, would "take care" of the "bad bishops" if only we found a way to "let him know" what was going on with those "bad bishops." I was a fool, as I indicated in
"Connecting" with Betrayal. Wojtyla/John Paul II broke the First Commandment with regularity, as does his "successor," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Is it any wonder that so many Catholics, including those who work in the conciliar Vatican, are so confused about fundamental issues of Faith and Morals.
It is only by means of the merciful designs of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that any of us who have been so foolish as to think that the counterfeit church of conciliarism was the Catholic Church as we "stayed and fought" errors and blasphemies and apostasies and sacrileges at the "local" level that had--and continue to have, at least for the most part--approval from the conciliar Vatican have been able to cooperate with the graces sent to us by Our Lady to cleave to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.
Catholics do not embrace error. They flee from it. (See Father Frederick Faber's meditation for the Sixth Dolor of Our Lady contained in
Our Mother of Sorrows.) They make reparation for it as they make reparation for their our sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as their states-in-life permit.
Contemporary politics, brought forth as it has been by the errors of Modernity and enabled by the errors of Modernism and thus unfettered from any semblance of loyalty to the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen, have made a prophet of Saint Francis de Sales, who responded as follows when a friend told him that he would have been "successful" in politics:
"No," he replied, "the mere name of prudence and policy frightens me, and I understand little or nothing about it. I od not know how to lie, to invent or dissimulate without embarrassment, and political business is wholly made up of these things. What I have in my heart, I have upon my tongue; and I hate duplicity like death, for I know how abominable it is to God." (Saint Francis de Sales, quoted in A Year With The Saints, A Virtue For Every Month, published originally in 1891 by the Reverend Sisters of Mercy in Hartford, Connecticut, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1988, p. 207.)
Lies? Look at Barack Hussein Obama.
Duplicity? Look at Barack Hussein Obama.
Lies? Look at Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as he deconstructs the nature of dogmatic truth and praises false religions, each of which is hated by God.
Duplicity? Look at Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI for denouncing the "dictatorship of relativism" when he one of the biggest relativists of all, a man who talks about opposing secularism while he embraces the very thing that gave rise to secularism, the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity that is founded on the lies of the separation of Church and State and religious liberty.
Embarrassment? Look at the shameful answers given by Gian Maria Vian about the pro-abortion, statist President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, without even once saying that he was praying for the man's conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
Neither Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI or Tarcisio Bertone or Gian Maria Vian believe that it is necessary or desirable to restore the Catholic City. Pope Saint Pius X, our last authentically canonized saint, taught us otherwise, and we must recognize that those who disagree with him are apostates who have expelled themselves from the Church by having violated the Divine Positive Law, defecting from many, not just one, points of the Faith (as Pope Leo XIII made clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, Number Nine):
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
I can assure you, good readers, that not one conciliar "bishop" agrees, at least not openly for the world to hear, with Pope Saint Pius X's simple reiteration of Catholic truth.
As I have noted so frequently in the past, we must also remember Our Lady's words to Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill near Mexico City on December 12, 1531:
Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God. . . . Here I will show and offer my love, my compassion, my help and my protection to the people. I am your merciful Mother, the Mother of all those who love me, of those who cry to me, of those who have confidence in me. Here I will hear their weeping and their sorrows and will remedy and alleviate their suffering, necessities and misfortunes. . . . Listen and let it penetrate into your heart. . . . Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. So not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else that you need?
No, dear Blessed Mother. We have you. There is nothing else we need as you pray for us to your Divine Son now, and at the hour our deaths. There is nothing else we need other than for you to pray for us to remain faithful to your Divine Son without making any concessions or compromises at all to the figures of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism or in the realm of politics and civil government. Help us to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart as the fruit of the fulfillment of your Fatima Message.
Let us participate in is Excellency Bishop Robert McKenna's fifteen Saturdays' Rosary Crusade that begins in five days. Let us remember these words of Our Lady, who hates all heresies, to Saint Dominic de Guzman, the founder of the Order of Preachers to which Bishop McKenna has belonged for fifty-eight years, fifty-one of them as a priest:
"One day, through the Rosary and Scapular I will save the world."
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Our Lady, Queen of the Apostles, 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.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Paulinus of Nola, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints