Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

December 16, 2013


Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although it is probably the case that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been warned by high ranking veterans within the wall of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River to cease giving interviews, the Argentine Apostate simply cannot help himself. He is compelled to talk ceaselessly.

Yes, just when a man who is completely physically spent from nine months of long, sleepless and/or sleep-deprived nights thought he could take a brief break from the madness represented by the thoughts, such as they are, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, yet another interview given by him, this time to Vatican Insider editor Andrea Tornielli, wherein reiterated the same themes that he has spoken of endlessly in his daily screeds at the Casa Santa Marta and in his three preceding interviews.

[The first interview was given to journalists who accompanied him on the airplane taking him back from Rio de Janiero, Brazil, to Rome, on Monday, July 29, 2013--see Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three. The second was given to "Father" Antonio Spadaro, S.J., and was published in the United States of America on in the Jesuit publication, America, on September 30, 2013, although it was made available online on September 18, 2013--see Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part one, Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part two and Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part three. The third was Bergoglio's explosive interview with atheist nonagenarian Eugenio Scalfari that appeared in La Repubblica on October 1, 2013--see Nothing Random About This, part one, Nothing Random About This, part two, Nothing Random About This, part three, Nothing Random About This, part four, Nothing Random About This, part five.]

Bergoglio is intent on reforming what he thinks is the "papacy" by further destroying whatever dignity and decorum that his predecessors had not already destroyed before his "election" on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, a subject that has been much discussed on this site in the past nine months. His exercise of the "Petrine Ministry" reduces what most people in the world believe to be the papacy to the equivalent of a presidency or prime ministership (see Rabbi Bergoglio.)

Bergoglio's' compulsion to speak all the time is novel even to the papacy in its conciliar captivity as not even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave "homilies" during their daily staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, although Wojtyla/John Paul II gave interviews on airplanes during his own many travels around the world, thus setting the precedent for Ratzinger/Benedict to do so. Wojtyla/John Paul II also paved the way for Ratzinger/Benedict to publish "unofficial" books that were not recorded in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply taking this to the next logical step: interviews given at will in order to spread his revolutionary agenda.

This is all reminiscent of a wonderfully hilarious episode of Car 54, Where Are You?, "Change Your Partner," that aired on Sunday, October 8, 1961. The premise of the episode, the fourth in the first season of the series, was the remarkable discovery by a police chief, played by the late Dan Frazer, who would play Captain Frank McNeil on Kojak from 1973 to 1978 (I had a chance to meet him on the set of Kojak in 1976 after Kevin Dobson, who played Detective Bobby Crocker, invited me to visit after meeting me at Shea Stadium), who was amazed that Officers Francis Muldoon, played by the late Fred Gwynne, and Gunther Toody, played by the late Joe E. Ross, had been together for nine straight years without interruption. The police chief queried Muldoon and Toody separately to see what held them together even though they were so different from each other. Muldoon was thoughtful and reflective; Toody never stopped talking about nonsense.

The police chief discovered in the course of his question of Toody and Muldoon that each had a few minor gripes about one another, gripes that each began to notice and to be bothered by more and more after they had been questioned. Exasperated with each other and in the presence of a the police chief and newspaper reporters, Toody and Muldoon requested a change in partners, much to the embarrassment of the long suffering Captain Paul Block of the fictional Fifty-third Precinct, played so well by the late Paul Reed, who was appearing on the Broadway in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying throughout the entire two-year run of Car 54, Where Are You?

Each of the patrolmen of the Fifty-third precinct were assigned to be the partner of either Toody or Muldoon, with whom none could get along.

In one delightful moment that only a New Yorker could appreciate (series' creator Nat Hiken, who had also created and produced You'll Never Get Rich, aka The Phil Silvers Show, spent an entire year visiting New York City police precincts to get a "feel" for police work and the interpersonal relationships within precinct houses and while on patrol with police officers), Officer Ed Nicholson, played by one of the program's two surviving cast members, Hank Garrett, is teamed with Toody, wearing a blank expression riding in the passenger seat as Toody just gabbed and gabbed and gabbed. Finally, Nicholson, who had had quite enough of Toody, turned to his left and tapped Toody on his right shoulder. The following exchange occurred:

Nicholson: Toody.

Toody: What?

Nicholson (screaming at the top of his lungs): SHUT UP! (This hilarious scene can be seen, pun intended, at the seven minute, fifteen second mark in part two of the episode on You Tube: Car 54 where are you? "Change your partner" Part 2).

Well, this is what I have to say to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!

Yes, Another Interview

It was early last evening that I discovered the existence of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interview with Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider. Although Novus Ordo Wire has provided a very fine "reality check" to respond to the major points in the interview while at the same featuring a thorough response to Father Francois Chazal's sad effort to discredit the canonical doctrine of sedevacantism (see You Can't Have It Your Way), I do have a few comments of my own to make before attempting to head off to bed earlier than I have most nights recently (and by recently, of course, I mean the past nine months!). Time, however, permits only a few brief comments from several selected excerpts"

To the first excerpt from the interview, "Never Be Afraid of Tenderness," that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave to Andrea Tornielli

Tornielli: What does Christmas say to people today?

Bergoglio: “It speaks of tenderness and hope. When God meets us he tells us two things. The first thing he says is: have hope. God always opens doors, he never closes them. He is the father who opens doors for us. The second thing he says is: don’t be afraid of tenderness. When Christians forget about hope and tenderness they become a cold Church, that loses its sense of direction and is held back by ideologies and worldly attitudes, whereas God’s simplicity tells you: go forward, I am a Father who caresses you. I become fearful when Christians lose hope and the ability to embrace and extend a loving caress to others. Maybe this is why, looking towards the future, I often speak about children and the elderly, about the most defenceless that is. Throughout my life as a priest, going to the parish, I have always sought to transmit this tenderness, particularly to children and the elderly. It does me good and it makes me think of the tenderness God has towards us.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Brief Comment:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's concept ot "tenderness" that he has shown throughout the course of his forty-four year career as a lay Jesuit is one that does away with the nasty little thing called doctrine and seeks to welcome with open arms sinners who have no intention of repenting or of reforming their lives. Bergoglio's concept of "tenderness" includes a harsh, bitter and unceasing warfare against those who do hold to every jot and tittle of the Received Teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Bergoglio even used his response to Tornielli's question by not-so-subtly attacking his favorite bogeymen, those straw men "restorationists" that were the subject of yesterday's Jorge The Humble On The Warpath, to refer once again to his self-serving revolutionary contention that "ideologies" and "worldly attitudes," which are just two of his own code phrases to refer to faithful, believing Catholics who have the misfortune, he believes, to be attached to some version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, "hold back" what he thinks is tenderness.

Once again, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is such a "humble" man, of course, is trumpeting himself as the champion of false "tenderness," of false "charity" and of false "joy" (see Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven).

Finally, isn't how wonderful to see how much "tenderness" Jorge Mario Bergoglio is showing to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata?

He has authorized a brutal campaign of terror and psychological reprogramming for those Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who are somewhat critical of the "Second" Vatican Council and are devoted to the modernized version of the Immemorial of Mass of Tradition as he believes them to be committed to "ideologies" and of displaying "worldly tendencies that hold them back from showing "tenderness." (See Jorge The Humble On The Warpath.)

The man is insidious. Absolutely insidious.

To the second excerpt:

Tornielli: This coming January marks the 50th anniversary of Paul VI’s historic visit to the Holy Land. Will you go?

Bergoglio: “Christmas always makes us think of Bethlehem, and Bethlehem is a precise point in the Holy Land where Jesus lived. On Christmas night, I think above all with the Christians who live there, of those who are in difficulty, of the many people who have had to leave that land because of various problems. But Bethlehem is still Bethlehem. God arrived at a specific time in a specific land; that is where God’s tenderness and grace appeared. We cannot think of Christmas without thinking of the Holy land. Fifty years ago, Paul VI had the courage to go out and go there and this marked the beginning of the era of papal journeys. I would also like to go there, to meet my brother Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and commemorate this 50th anniversary with him, renewing that embrace which took place between Pope Montini and Athenagoras in Jerusalem, in 1964. We are preparing for this.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness)

Not-so-brief Comment:


This is not the first time that Bergoglio has referred to Bartholomew I, the "patriarch" of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox Church, as "my brother." He did so on Tuesday, March 20, 2013, following his installation as the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "Petrine Minister" on the Feast of Saint Joseph, the Chaste Spouse of Our Lady and the Patron of the Universal Church:

First of all I thank my Brother Andrew [Bartholomew I] very much for what he said. Thank you very much! Thank you!

It is a cause for particular joy to meet today with you, delegates of the Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches and ecclesial communities of the West. Thank you for having wanted to take part in the celebration that has marked the beginning of my Ministry as Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter.

Yesterday morning, during Holy Mass, through your persons I recognized as spiritually present the communities that you represent. In this manifestation of faith, I seemed to experience in an even more urgent way the prayer for unity among believers in Christ and together to see somehow foreshadowed that full realization, which depends on the plan of God and on our loyal collaboration.

I begin my Apostolic Ministry in this year which my venerable predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, with truly inspired insight, proclaimed the Year of Faith for the Catholic Church. With this initiative, which I want to continue and hope is a stimulus for the faith journey of all, he wished to mark the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, proposing a sort of pilgrimage towards that which is most essential for every Christian: the personal and transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, Son of God, who died and rose for our salvation. The heart of the Council's message resides precisely in the desire to announce this perennially valid treasure of faith to the men of our time.

Together with you I cannot forget how much that Council has meant for the road of ecumenism. I would like to recall the words of Blessed John XXIII, the 50th anniversary of whose death we will soon commemorate, which he pronounced in his memorable inauguration speech: "the Catholic Church considers it her duty to actively seek to fulfill the great mystery of that unity which Jesus Christ with most ardent prayers beseeched the Heavenly Father in the imminence of his sacrifice; It enjoys delightful peace, knowing itself to be intimately United with Christ in those prayers» (AAS 54 [1962], 793). This is Pope John.

Yes, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, let us all feel intimately united to the prayer of our Savior in the Last Supper, to his invocation: ut unum sint. Let us ask the merciful Father to live in fullness that faith that we received as a gift on the day of our baptism, and to be able to bear free, courageous and joyful testimony to it. This will be our best service to the cause of unity among Christians, a service of hope to a world still marked by divisions, by contrast and rivalry. The more we are faithful to His will, in our thoughts, words and deeds, the more we will actually and substantially walk towards unity.

For my part, I wish to assure you, in the wake of my predecessors, of my determination to continue on the path of ecumenical dialogue and I would like to thank in advance the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for the help that it will continue to offer, in my name, for this noble cause. I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, to bring my cordial greeting and the assurance of my remembrance in the Lord Jesus to the churches and Christian communities here represented, and request of you the charity of a special prayer for my person, to be a pastor according to the heart of Christ. (Address to Representative of the Schismatic and Heretical Orthodox Churches, Protesant sects, Talmudists, Mohammedans and Other Infidels, Masons and Pantheists.)

"Christian unity" is not something for which to "search" or "work." It exists solely in the Catholic Church as part of her Divine Constitution. She is the one and only Church of Christ:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Pope Leo XIII also sought with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the true Faith, addressing the Orthodox as follows in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894:

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)

Let those who have the eyes to see recognize once and for all that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic who hath not the Catholic Faith and cannot be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

To the third excerpt:

Tornielli: You have met with seriously ill children on more than one occasion. What do you have to say about this innocent suffering?

Bergoglio: “One man who has been a life mentor for me is Dostoevskij and his explicit and implicit question “Why do children suffer?” has always gone round in my heart. There is no explanation. This image comes to mind: at a particular point of his or her life, a child “wakes up”, doesn’t understand much and feels threatened, he or she starts asking their mum or dad questions. This is the “why” age. But when the child asks a question, he or she doesn’t wait to hear the full answer, they immediately start bombarding you with more “whys”. What they are really looking for, more than an explanation, is a reassuring look on their parent’s face. When I come across a suffering child, the only prayer that comes to mind is the “why” prayer. Why Lord? He doesn’t explain anything to me. But I can feel Him looking at me. So I can say: You know why, I don’t and You won’t tell me, but You’re looking at me and I trust You, Lord, I trust your gaze.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not "answer" you, Jorge, as a man who supposes himself to be one who possesses the fullness of the Holy Priesthood is supposed to understand that suffering is the human lot as a result of Original Sin. Suffering is the only path to Heaven. There is no other path to Heaven than that of the Holy Cross.

Yes, even a small child may be chosen as a victim-soul so that he, if of the age of reason, may offer up his suffering to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. If not of the age of reason, a child's suffering can be explained to him by showing him a crucifix and explaining in simple terms how much they are loved by Our Lord, Who wants them to endure their sufferings for love of Him and His Holy Church, that His Most Blessed Mother consoles them in their suffering as she did Him as our sins nailed Him to the infamous gibbet of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, the very reason for which He entered time and became Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb.

A believing Catholic parent would teach this lesson to his children from their tenderest years, and such a parent would understand that he is being given an opportunity keep watch during his child's suffering the way that Our Lady did for her Divine Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, during His fearful Passion and Death.

Although difficult, to be sure, a believing Catholic parent would understand that to have a child chosen to suffer at an early age is a gift given them to God to purify his own soul and to trust totally in the will of God as he maintains prayers to relieve his beloved child's suffering, accepting this cross as having been fitted for both of them from all eternity by His loving hand.

Father Frederick Faber wrote the following about suffering in The Precious Blood:

There are saints in heaven. They are the heights of the Church of Christ. There are newly-converted sinners upon earth. These are the lowest depths in the happy land of redeeming grace. But the light upon those mountain-tops is the glory of the Precious Blood, and the sunshine in those valleys is the kindness of the selfsame Blood. There are sufferers in purgatory, dwelling in a mysterious region of pain and quietude, of patience and of love. They live beneath the earth, yet are upon their road to heaven. Their land is vast and populous. It is a territory won from hell by the Precious Blood, and its pain made uneternal. It is a detention, not an exile--a detention which is a marvellous artifice of mercy, one of the many compassionate devices of the Precious Blood. There are sufferings on earth, sufferings by which hearts are cleansed, sins swiftly expiated, merits rapidly accumulated: sufferings in which grace comes, sufferings which are likenesses of Jesus, sufferings which are secret loves of God. These earthly sufferings also the Precious Blood alleviates, illuminates, sanctifies, crowns, glorifies, and knows how to render delectable that they who have drunk deep of the Precious Blood get a strange new nature, and thirst for more suffering still. Thus both these extremities of suffering, beneath the earth and on it, belong to the empire of the Precious Blood. If we look outside ourselves, we see everywhere the empire of the Precious Blood stretching away in interminable vista. The whole Church is its legitimate inheritance. The priesthood its army of officials. The catholic hierarchy is its venerable administration. The loft tiara, that most sovereign thing on earth, gleams with it like the polar star of nations. The Blessed Sacrament, multiplied a hundred thousand times, is its own adorable self, its Heart-fountain, and its Five Free Wells, worshipful in union with the Godhead, the beautiful amazing Created Life of the Uncreated Word. If we look within ourselves, there is still the self-same empire of the Precious Blood. There is the character of Baptism, its still inexhuasted grace, its title unforfeited or re-conferred, its infused habits, its heroic Spirit-gifts. There are the footprints of so many Absolutions, the abiding fragrance of such reiterated Communions, perhaps the character of Order and its fearful powers, perhaps the mysterious traces of Extreme Unction, certainly the signet of the Holy Ghost in Confirmation, and nameless graces, nameless vestiges where Divine Feet have gone, and where Divine Virtue still resides. There also is that most innermost sanctuary of the soul, which so few reach on this side of the grave, the secret cabinet where the Holy Trinity dwells blessedly, in the very centre of our nature, up from whose secret recesses joys shall one day break and flow, such as we never dreamed of, such as would look to us now far beyond the possibilities of our nature. All this, outside us or within us, is the empire of the Precious Blood.

But it is only in heaven that its supremacy is tranquil and complete. We must mount thither in spirit, where we hope one day to mount in all the jubilee of an incredible reality, if we would see in its full grandeur the royalty of the Precious Blood. Countless saints are there, various in the splendors of their holiness. They are all kings now, who once were serfs, but were redeemed by the Precious Blood. They are the children of many generations, the natives of many lands. They were of all degrees on earth, and in their fortunes the diversity was endless. But they were all bought by the same Blood, and all own the lordship of that Blood in heaven. Whey they sing their songs of praise, songs of a human sweetness which the angels greatly love, they sing of the Lamb slain and of the triumphs of his Blood. When their potent intercessions win hourly graces for their clients who are still struggling upon earth, it is their desire to spread the empire of the Precious Blood, which throws such loyal intensity into their powers. Shall they forget their Ransom, whose freedom is their endless joy? (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in England in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, p. 124.)

In addition to this moving and inspirational exhortation to embrace suffering, Father Faber happened to work in a reference to the Papal Tiara as the "most sovereign thing on earth" that "gleams with it like the polar star of nations." It is no accident that Giovanni Montini/Paul the Sick (too tired to add the link again!) took off the tiara and that no conciliar "pope" after him chose to be crowned with him. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI removed the tiara from his own "papal" coat of arms, replacing it with a miter. This is, if you think about it, one of the devil's many ways of boasting that he's had his boys dressed in white as pretenders to the Papal Throne since the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Judge.

One final word on suffering, one that has been oft-repeated on this site: Nothing that we suffer in this mortal vale of tears is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, to suffer during His fearful Passion and Death.

To the fourth excerpt:

Tornielli: Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?

Bergoglio: “The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Brief Comment:

Andrea Tornielli was referring to the criticism that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh directed at Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Das Kapital, excuse me, Evangelii Gaudium at some point last week.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that Marxists are "good people"?

This prompts me to ask whether Jorge Mario Begoglio has ever met any "restortationists" "who are good people"?

Leaving aside the important distinction, made already on the Novus Ordo Wire analysis of this interview, that only God Himself is good, Bergoglio wants us to believe that Marxists, who subscribe to an atheistic ideology that reduces human beings to the level of but mere matter and who deny the Natural Law right to private property, are living "good lives" because of their alleged care for "the poor" and their commitment to a supposedly equitable distribution of income by the brute force of the civil state, acting by means of the powers it derives from the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Then again, why should an ecclesiastical Stalinist have any problem with an ideology that he says he condemns while refusing to seek with urgency the conversion of those who are committed to its implementation, replete with of all the atrocities that Communism require to be committed in order for there to be the establishment of the "classless" and thus "just" society where wealth is distributed according to Karl Marx's own maxim: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Why should Jorge Mario Bergoglio bother himself with Pope Pius XI's firm condemnation about any kind of association and cooperation with Communism?

See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

This condemnation of any kind of cooperation with Communism was reinterred by the Holy Office on July 1, 1949, the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, under the pontificate of our last true pope, Pope Pius XII:

This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:


1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favour them;
2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;
3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;
4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ; to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici); to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed; to 4. in the affirmative.

And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949. (As found at Decree Against Communism.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not even know that this decree exists, and he would not care about it came to learn about. After all, he has met some Marxists who are "good people." Atheists are, after all, able to save their souls by having an upright conscience, right? Wrong!

Indeed, although I do not know whether it is still the case, The Wanderer used to feature the following citation from the final fourteen words of the passage from Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, next to its masthead in every issue:

We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. . . .

120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

To the fifth excerpt:

Tornielli: The most striking part of the Exhortation was where it refers to an economy that “kills”…

Bergoglio: “There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the “trickle-down theories” which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Brief Comment:

Although part five of my series on Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, covered this matter pretty thoroughly, a few points are in order by way of response to the false "pontiff's" answer to Andrea Tornielli.

First, what about the killing that nations under Communist tyranny have done in the past and still continue to this very day in Red China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and a few other places?

Here is a list of the victims of Communist murder:


(Source: Murder by Communism. Also see the Article upon which the table above is linked: MURDER BY COMMUNISM.)

It is most likely the case that the actual figures are closer to the 260,000,000 figure as opposed to the 40,472,000 figure. Nevertheless, however, even that represents a whole of Marxist-sponsored killing, and it does not even include the millions upon millions more killed by the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn babies in Communist nations.

Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a mass murderer of souls by feeding them a steady diet of revolutionary propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with the authentic Catholic Faith. His false church is responsible for the eternal loss of the souls of countless numbers of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Insofar as Bergoglio's Evangelii Gaudium being consonant with Catholic Social Teaching, let us turn to the next except, which is taken from a later part of his interview with Vatican Insider's Andrea Tornielli:

Tornielli: What is the right relationship between the Church and politics?

Bergoglio: “The relationship needs to be parallel and convergent at the same time. Parallel because each of us has his or her own path to take and his or her different tasks. Convergent only in helping others. When relationships converge first, without the people, or without taking the people into account, that is when the bond with political power is formed, leading the Church to rot: business, compromises… The relationship needs to proceed in a parallel way, each with its own method, tasks and vocation, converging only in the common good. Politics is noble; it is one of the highest forms of charity, as Paul VI used to say. We sully it when we mix it with business. The relationship between the Church and political power can also be corrupted if common good is not the only converging point.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Brief Comment:


The civil state has an obligation to foster those conditions in which its citizens can better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. While Holy Mother Church and the civil state do have autonomous spheres of operation, the former must subordinate itself to the latter in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Furthermore, Holy Mother Church has the Divinely-appointed right duty to impose sanctions upon those in positions of civil governance who proposed to do things--or who done them as a matter of fact--contrary to the good of souls after she has discharged her Indirect Power of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ by means of teaching, preaching and exhortation.

As early as 494 A.D., Pope Gelasius made the proper distinctions between the ecclesiastical and civil realms that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI claims have come to the fore in "recent" times.

Pope Gelasius had indeed spoken of the "two powers" that govern man, indicating that those who hold ecclesiastical office should not hold civil office. Pope Gelasius did not teach, however, that a State must not favor the Catholic Faith, a little fact overlooked by apologists of the conciliar embrace of the separation of Church and State. Indeed, Pope Gelasius wrote Emperor Anastasius in the year 494 A.D. to remind him of the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal, keeping in mind that even in the exercise of purely temporal power the Last End of man must be kept in mind:

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.

If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger m the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain - which God forbid -when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church.  (Letter to Emperor Anastasius)

Pope Saint Pius X merely reiterated the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church when he wrote the following 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." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio endorses the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic notion of "separation of Church and State."

Pope Saint Pius X noted that "the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State."

Evangelii Gaudium is consistent with the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church?

The documentation has been provided.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a liar and a deceiver.

To the final two excerpts for this part of my commentary, placed out of order as there is a point to be made by doing so:

Tornielli: May I ask you if the Church will have women cardinals in the future?

Bergoglio: “I don’t know where this idea sprang from. Women in the Church must be valued not “clericalised”. Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Tornielli: In the Apostolic Exhortation you called for prudent and bold pastoral choices regarding the sacraments. What were you referring to?

Bergoglio: “When I speak of prudence I do not think of it in terms of an attitude that paralyses but as the virtue of a leader. Prudence is a virtue of government. So is boldness. One must govern with boldness and prudence. I spoke about baptism and communion as spiritual food that helps one to go on; it is to be considered a remedy not a prize. Some immediately thought about the sacraments for remarried divorcees, but I did not refer to any specific cases; I simply wanted to point out a principle. We must try to facilitate people’s faith, rather than control it. Last year in Argentina I condemned the attitude of some priests who did not baptise the children of unmarried mothers. This is a sick mentality.”

Tornielli: And what about remarried divorcees?

Bergoglio: “The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a sanction. It is important to remember this. But I didn’t talk about this in the Exhortation.”

Tornielli: Will this issue be dealt with at the next Synod of Bishops?

Bergoglio: “The synodality of the Church is important: we will discuss marriage as a whole at the Consistory meetings in February. The issues will also be addressed at the Extraordinary Synod in October 2014 and again at the Ordinary Synod the following year. Many elements will be examined in more detail and clarified during these sessions.”

(Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Brief Comment on the first passage above:

Before defenders of all things conciliar lose their minds once again to claim that Bergoglio's "holding the line" on female "cardinals" represents some kind of firm defense of the Catholic Faith, it is important to remember that nothing is stable in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, not even its own false doctrine, hideous liturgy and condemned pastoral practices that reaffirm unrepentant sinners in their lives of debauchery.

"Holding the line" on female "cardinals" represents a firm defense of the Catholic Faith?

Why no word from defenders of all things conciliar on Jorge Mario Bergoglio's absolutely heretical contention in Evangelii Gaudium that God had never revoked the Old Covenant He made with Moses?


Because they do not want those of their readership who know nothing about the true teaching of the Catholic Church to be "scandalized" enough to find out what this heresy represents insofar as the nonexistent legitimacy of the false teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its false "popes."

Moreover, what is considered a "closed" matter in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose "pontiffs" have believed in variations of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned Modernist proposition of the evolution of doctrine, whether under the ages if a supposedly "living tradition" or by means of the "hermeneutic of continuity," that subject the determinations and statements by the conciliar "popes" themselves to reexamination or rejection by one of their predecessors.

Ah, this takes me now to the second passage from the ones cited just above.

Yes, you see, the matter of administering what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service who are divorced and civilly remarried without even the benefit of a dime store conciliar decree of nullity, which is simply part of the teaching of the Catholic Church that she has received from her Divine Founder, Mystical Spouse and Invisible Head, was supposed to have been "settled" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II when he wrote the following in Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, the Feast of Saint Cecilia November 22, 1981.

It was also in this "post-synodal exhortation" that the Polish "pope" reiterated the binding precepts of the Sixth Commandment against the use of what he called artificial contraception, although he did support so-called "natural family planning," which was one of Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick's revolutionary program contained within Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968 (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change).

Although Familiaris Consortio was couched in conciliarspeak by its reference to "values" rather than the moral law and relied upon sociological research to speak of the situations that faced families at that time, it did nevertheless contain a few passages that some of us "conservatives" saw as a "sign" that the days of "dissenting" over the use of contraception were over.

Little did I understand, two days away from my thirtieth birthday and hopeful that the dark days of Paul the Sick had gone forever, that Wojtyla/John Paul II was a revolutionary, a man who phrased what appeared to be reaffirmations of Catholic teaching in the context of his own "personalist" philosophy, which he shared with the principal drafter of Familiaris Consortio's text, Dr. Wanda Poltawska:

The "supernatural sense of faith" however does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful. Following Christ, the Church seeks the truth, which is not always the same as the majority opinion. She listens to conscience and not to power, and in this way she defends the poor and the downtrodden. The Church values sociological and statistical research, when it proves helpful in understanding the historical context in which pastoral action has to be developed and when it leads to a better understanding of the truth. Such research alone, however, is not to be considered in itself an expression of the sense of faith.

Because it is the task of the apostolic ministry to ensure that the Church remains in the truth of Christ and to lead her ever more deeply into that truth, the Pastors must promote the sense of the faith in all the faithful, examine and authoritatively judge the genuineness of its expressions, and educate the faithful in an ever more mature evangelical discernment. . . .

The situation in which the family finds itself presents positive and negative aspects: the first are a sign of the salvation of Christ operating in the world; the second, a sign of the refusal that man gives to the love of God.

On the one hand, in fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, to promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society. On the other hand, however, signs are not lacking of a disturbing degradation of some fundamental values: a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other; serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality.

Living in such a world, under the pressures coming above all from the mass media, the faithful do not always remain immune from the obscuring of certain fundamental values, nor set themselves up as the critical conscience of family culture and as active agents in the building of an authentic family humanism.

Among the more troubling signs of this phenomenon, the Synod Fathers stressed the following, in particular: the spread of divorce and of recourse to a new union, even on the part of the faithful; the acceptance of purely civil marriage in contradiction to the vocation of the baptized to "be married in the Lord", the celebration of the marriage sacrament without living faith, but for other motives; the rejection of the moral norms that guide and promote the human and Christian exercise of sexuality in marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981.)

Many of us were "results-oriented" at the time. All that mattered to us was that the "dissenters" were not rewarded. We hung our hats collectively on pegs that themselves were rotten, composed of such synthetic materials as "human values," "responsible parenthood," "authentic family humanism" and, among others, "moral norms" rather than on the clear teaching found in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law. We permitted ourselves to be deceived, self-deluded into disbelieving the plain evidence before our eyes that our "pope" of the "restoration" was using his personalist brand of Modernism to undermine the entire language of the Catholic Church concerning marriage and the family.

Thus it is that those who continued to cling to Familiaris Consortio do not realize that their "pope's" "post-synodal exhortation" is on "life support" now, open to be "discussed" the "extraordinary synod of 'bishops'" that Bergoglio has convened to take place next year.

What's to discuss? Everything that the conciliar revolutionaries want to change in the name of "pastoral developments" and false charity. Everything. (See Always Asking All The Wrong Questions, part one and Always Asking All the Wrong Questions, part two.)

Finally (hey, I promised to this brief, which means under one hundred pages or so, right?), where did the idea of female "cardinals" originate?

Let me inform Jorge of some recent speculation, including from a fellow Jesuit, "Father" James Keenan, and none other than Timothy Michael Dolan himself:

A noted U.S. Jesuit priest and theologian has taken to Facebook to propose a key change in the structure of the Catholic church: the naming of women to the College of Cardinals, the elite church body responsible for electing the pope.

Posting Tuesday on his personal Facebook page, Jesuit Fr. James Keenan asked his friends and associates to propose names of women around the world who should be considered as possible cardinal candidates.

"I have been getting lots of likes from all over when I said that I think making a woman a cardinal is a very easy matter, why?" asks Keenan, who holds the founders professorship in theology at Boston College. "Because there are so many good candidates!"

"Should we not use social networking to put some names out there?" he asks, suggesting people mention women not from their own country that might make good cardinals.

Cardinals, sometimes known as the "princes of the church" and for their wearing of red vestments, are personally named by the pope. They are usually senior Catholic prelates who serve either as archbishops in the world's largest dioceses' or in the Vatican's central bureaucracy.

After a pope's death or renunciation of the papal office, cardinals are also responsible for governing the church until they meet together in a secret conclave to elect the next pontiff.

As cardinals are not ordained into their ministry, some have suggested that it would be possible for the church to name women as cardinals without changing the church's teaching regarding the ordination of only men to the priesthood.

While canon law currently specifies that a cardinal must either be a priest or a bishop, some have also wondered whether the appointment of female cardinals might be a reform Pope Francis is considering.

If that were to happen, women among those on Keenan's list are: Linda Hogan, a professor of ecumenics at Trinity College Dublin; Holy Child Jesus Sr. Teresa Okure, a theology professor at the Catholic Institute of West Africa in Nigeria; and Maryanne Loughry, the associate director of the Jesuit Refugee Service in Australia.

At least one prominent current cardinal has already suggested the naming of female cardinals could be possible.

According to U.S Catholic, New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan said in an interview last year it was "theoretically" possible for the pope to name female cardinals.

"I’ve heard it from more than one person that one time somebody said to Blessed John Paul II, ‘You should make Mother Teresa of Calcutta a cardinal,’" Dolan, who also heads the U.S. bishops' conference, states in the interview. 

"The pope said, ‘I asked her, she doesn’t want to be one.,'" Dolan said. (See also: Jesuit suggests female cardinals, asks for names. Cardinal Dolan: Women Can Be Created Cardinals of the Church.)

Well, there you have it.

So much for Bergoglio's rhetorical question, "I don't know where this idea sprang from?"

The soon-to-be "canonized" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II asked Mother Teresa to a "cardinal."

Those of you who think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has "held the line" on female "cardinals" should come to realize that this pronouncement, made in an "unofficial" interview, is as "binding" as Wojtyla/John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. And it is thus that I stand by the assessment, made in Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven, that Bergoglio's own agenda will lead sooner or later to female "cardinals" if God has more chastisement for his children to do prior to the restoration of a properly crowned, true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to the Papal Throne.

Enough for now. It is now approaching 4:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. Enough.

Take heart, however.

Yes, take heart with the courage and love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is a privilege, yes, verily a privilege, I tell you, to live in these challenging times as this is time that God has ordained from all eternity for us to be alive. This means that there is work, important work, for each and every one of us to do as we seek to sanctify and save our souls during this time of apostasy and betrayal. We must plant seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.

No, we may not live long enough to see this restoration. Moses was permitted to see the Promised Land of Canaan but he was not permitted by God to enter because of the infidelity of the Jewish people he had led out of the desert following their liberation from captivity to the Pharaoh, himself an image of he devil. We may not live enough to see the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world because of our own infidelities, which is we should and must embrace with gratitude each and every chastisement that comes our way, especially those that bring us low, very low, before our fellow men. Everything is revealed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead. Why not accept the chastisement that comes from recognizing the stupidity and madness of the counterfeit church of concilairism and of those who think that they "resist" and "sift through" the words and actions of a true pope.

Every Rosary we pray will help us console the good God as we seek to make reparation to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for all sins and those of our whole word, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Be cheerful in this time of apostasy and betrayal. There is work to do as we plant seeds for Christ the King through Mary our Immaculate Queen.

What are waiting for?

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Eusebius, pray for us.


If you want to see this work continue for the next thirty-eight days, please do join the very few of those who support us to make its work possible by means of a non-tax-deductible financial gift. Thank you!



© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.