Modernists In Love With Old-Fashioned Clericalism
Thomas A. Droleskey
A former friend of mine in the conciliar presbyterate, whose identity and location will not be disclosed, told me in the 1980s that a priest-psychologist who taught him in seminary in the early-1970s said that in a class lecture that perversity was a problem of epidemic proportions what he considered to be (and was, at least to a very large extent at the time) the Catholic priesthood and that the problem would explode within twenty years if the bishops (many of whom at the time were indeed true bishops) did not deal with the matter forthrightly. This priest, I was told, said that an explosion of this sort would shake the faith of many, many Catholics, causing some to lose the Faith altogether.
The "bishops," of course, did not deal with the matter forthrightly. Indeed, a scandal of massive proportions arose that mirrored the scandals caused by the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, and the apostasies and blasphemies sponsored by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops."
The problem of perversity in the Catholic priesthood predates the dawning of the age of conciliarism, although it has certainly increased exponentially in the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council and the appointment of one pervert-friendly "bishop" after another during the false "pontificates" of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It can be argued rather convincingly that the Novus Ordo itself was an effort, at least in part, to assuage the consciences of those steeped in unrepentant acts of perversity by removal most references in its prayers and propers to a God who judges us at death and the need to do penance for our sins. There is a correlation between the rise of liturgy that deemphasizes the horrors of personal sin and the concomitant institutionalization of perversity in the life of the clergy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, especially in the older communities of religious men. It is no accident at all that attendance at the Novus Ordo has dwindled and that most baptized Catholics live as utter pagans since the liturgical revolution was let loose in full force (after eighteen years of careful preparation) without much, if any, sense of the horror of personal sin (see
Having No Regard for the Horror of Personal Sin).
A common thread does, however, connect the American bishops of the Catholic Church in the preconciliar years and their imposter "successors" in the counterfeit church of concilairism: the use of what could be called the "clericalism card" to attempt to browbeat and intimidate anyone and everyone who sought to bring abuses against themselves or others to the attention of their shepherds. Simple, ordinary Catholics approached their shepherds time and time again in the belief that they would be treated with dignity and respect by men who presented themselves, whether validly or not, as Successors of the Apostles. Time and time again, however, these simple, ordinary Catholics were turned away and even lambasted, sometimes publicly, for daring to accuse a particular bishop's trusted priests or other appointees of actual moral misconduct or of condoning that misconduct in others. Indeed, it was time and time and time again that most of the preconciliar bishops of the Catholic Church and their imposter "successors" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism lorded it over the laity who brought their concerns to them as those bishops believed that they had to stand firm in defense of the men who they trusted, that to admit a mistake publicly would ruin their clerical reputations and possibly any chances for "promotion" to another, more prestigious episcopal see.
I know this from first-hand experience, my friends, both as a "conservative" Catholic "trench fighter" at the parish and diocesan levels in the 1970s and 1980s and as a reporter/commentator in the 1990s during my indulterer days.
One conciliar "bishop" who I visited eighteen years ago told me that he was disgusted by the all of the careerist talk that went on in the meetings of the then named National Conference of Catholic Bishops. He told me that most of the talk outside of the conference's formal meetings revolved around who was getting promoted and/or who was going to be appointed to vacant sees. Another conciliar "bishop" told me that most of his confreres cared not one whit about the protection of the laity from predator priests, that what mattered to his brother "bishops" was maintaining their power at all costs, especially by never admitting that they or their appointees could make any mistakes that had to be corrected or for which they had to issue a public apology. It would be a sign of weakness, I was told by the "bishop" critiquing the attitudes of his confreres, to admit that they had made a mistake on this or that matter of administrative decisions and/or pastoral judgments.
Modernists known how to exercise old-fashioned clericalism over the laity when they want to, using their "powers" to seek to make warfare against those attached to the structures of their false church who are intent on defending the Faith as best they can, who complain about liturgical "abuses" in the liturgical abuse, the Novus Ordo, who complain about dissenting theologians and pro-abortion Catholic politicians, who protest graphic classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as a precondition for their children to receive the faux conciliar sacraments, or who bring to their attention the aforementioned cases of predatory priests. Oh, yes, the "bishops" who do not punish pro-aborts and those who promote women's ordination or contraception and various Scriptural and dogmatic errors find their clerical nerve to discipline those who dare to think that they should be concerned about protecting the integrity of the Faith and the bodily and spiritual welfare of their children, acting as imperiously as any of the old Irish-American bishops in the late-Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries who made possible the schism that brought about the creation of schismatic and now heretical Polish National Catholic Church and/or who made immigrants from southern and eastern Europe most uncomfortable in their dioceses and parishes.
Stonewalling, however, does not make truth go away. What the authentic Catholic bishops and their conciliar "successors" forgot to remember is that everything that we do is going to be revealed on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. The overweening pride that caused many of these true or faux shepherds to stonewall and browbeat good people who had been victimized--or who were defending those who had been victimized--by predator priests will be revealed on the Last Day. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself told us that there is nothing covered that will not be revealed:
Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. (Matthew 10: 26)
This should give each of us pause for concern when we make our Nightly Examination of Conscience on our knees before we go to sleep.
However, shepherds, true or faux, have a higher standard of judgment on their immortal souls than do those of us in the laity. They are responsible for caring for their sheep, and no amount of lying, obfuscation or minimizing the harm of various doctrinal and/or moral offenses can make the truth and the gravity of those offenses go away. Standing "firm" in the midst of justified criticism on matters that do not pertain to the integrity of the Holy Faith but refer instead to one's administrative decisions is nothing other than an escape from having to humble oneself in admitting publicly that mistakes have been made and that personnel trusted in key positions have been placed there wrongly and must be removed posthaste. Those who have brought complaints to shepherds, whether true or faux, ought to have been thanked publicly rather than to have been browbeaten or intimidated by lawyers for insurance companies or expelled in a summary and arbitrary fashion from their parishes for daring to bring their concerns forward.
Instead, of course, the scandals that some of us investigated and reported about in the 1990s broke into full view in the year 2002 when the files of the Archdiocese of Boston were made public, fulfilling the prophetic words of that priest-psychologist spoken in a seminary class in the early-1970s.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has found a Hegelian means to deconstruct the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church to try to make it compatible with the apostasies of conciliarism, personally presided over the protection of many of the "bishops" and the "priests" whose moral crimes become a matter of the public record in the early part of this decade, the first of the Third Millennium. This should not surprise us as Ratzinger/Benedict thinks nothing of blaspheming the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity as he esteems the symbols of false religions and calls their places of false worship as "sacred." Why should a man who violates the First and Second Commandments regularly and most openly be in the least concerned about holding "bishops" and "priests" to account for their moral crimes. The laity had no recourse but to file the lawsuits whose depositions and affidavits and other documents came into full view nearly eight years ago now.
This cesspool of moral corruption, which is, of course, reflective of the doctrinal and liturgical corruption of conciliarism itself, is worldwide in scope, and it is beginning to swallow up the likes of
the six hundred million dollar man, Roger "Cardinal" Mahony, who is under Federal investigation for obstruction of justice in these cases:
The former vicar of clergy for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles testified this week under oath that Cardinal Roger Mahony ordered him in 2000 not to contact police about allegations of sexual abuse by a priest.
In deposition papers filed Friday as part of a civil case, Msgr. Richard Loomis also testified that Mahony ordered him not to inform parishes of allegations against the now defrocked Rev. Michael Baker.
In 2007, Baker was sent to state prison for 10 years after his conviction on molestation charges. He has been called before a federal grand jury investigating how the archdiocese handled priest abuse cases.
Loomis is on leave from the archdiocese after also being accused of sexual abuse.
Tod M. Tamberg, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said church officials had not seen the deposition and therefore could not comment.
Under questioning by John Manly, an attorney for one of Baker's victims, Loomis testified that after learning Baker had performed three baptisms, despite orders to discontinue ministry, he told Mahony in a memo that the archdiocese should tell police.
Mahony "wrote on the memo and initially his response was to proceed but then through the general counsel's office I was told . . . that we were going to wait," Loomis said.
The 2000 discussions about Baker arose after an attorney for two brothers told the archdiocese that Baker molested them until 1999.
The archdiocese and Baker settled the matter out of court for $1.3 million.
The deposition contains a comment by Donald H. Steier, an attorney for Baker, that by 2000 the individuals who alleged that they had been sexually abused were adults.
Because of that, he said, "there is no legal requirement to make reports."
Manly said in an interview Friday that, "because of Cardinal Mahony, they never called the police until 2002."
In a 2002 interview, Baker told The Times that he had informed Mahony in the 1980s that he had sexually abused children.
"I told Mahony I had a problem," Baker said.
Mahony allowed Baker to remain active in the archdiocese and sent him to a New Mexico treatment center.
Later, Baker was assigned to other parishes and, according to court records and interviews, abused other boys.
Mahony said in a 2002 interview with The Times that no one at the archdiocese reported Baker to the authorities in 2000 because "it was just our expectation that the two brothers had gone to police because they were so angry at him."
In late March 2002, Mahony authorized an attorney to notify police about Baker. Until then, according to a confidential e-mail from an archdiocesan lawyer, Mahony had been "reluctant" to tell authorities.
In May 2002, Mahony formally apologized for having allowed Baker to continue in the ministry. (Abuse cover-up by L.A. Archdiocese is alleged -- latimes.com.)
Roger Mahony has no sense of the horror of personal sin. The only "sins" for Roger Mahony is failing to support his version of "immigration reform" and Barack Hussein Obama's statist take-over of the health-care industry and, of course, placing into question any of the historical details of of the crimes committed by agents of the Third Reich against adherents of the Talmud and others (see
Yes, Sir, Master Scribe). Mahony does not see the inherent evil represented by perverse actions in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, and he has acted accordingly, costing the people of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, who were unfortunate enough to have to shell out over $200 million for the Taj Mahony on the Hollywood Freeway, over a billion dollars of their weekly parish offerings. I guess that it is pretty easy to be sanguine about moral evils when one is playing with the money of others.
A similar scenario is playing out 2905.42 miles away in Springfield, Massachusetts (and is being played out throughout the Republic of Italy and in the Republic of Ireland):
Friday, Sept. 18 WILLIAMSTOWN - A 38-year-old Williamstown man is suing two former bishops of the Diocese of Springfield and another church administrator for allegedly allowing him to be sexually abused by a priest who had a known history of molesting other boys.
Andrew "Drew" Nicastro, owner of Isabella's Restaurant on State Road, announced his lawsuit from the steps of the Hampshire Superior Court in Northampton on Thursday, naming the former Rev. Alfred Graves as his abuser.
"These are the men directly in charge of the man who abused me," Nicastro said in a private interview with the Transcript on Thursday.
"They new what he was and they could have prevented this from happening, but they consciously chose to do nothing. Graves has no way to pay for what was forcibly taken from me. For me this is about accountability."
Graves, who has been named in numerous other sex abuse cases brought against the diocese, was barred from presenting himself as a priest during the 1990s and defrocked by the Vatican in 2006. He said Graves sexually abused him between 1982 and 1984, while pastor of St. Patrick's Church. Nicastro was age 11 to 13 years old at the time.
The suit lodges charges of neglect against the Most Rev. Joseph McGuire, who was bishop of the Diocese of Springfield at the time the allegations took place; the Most Rev. Thomas L. Dupre, who was chancellor and third in command at the time; and Richard S. Sneizyk, who was vicar for priests.
According to Nicastro's attorney, John Sobierski of Greenfield, the diocese was fully aware of Grave's abuse of at least one other boy in Springfield before he was transferred to Williamstown.
"From what we have learned, Bishop McGuire told him not to do it again," said Sobierski, who represented former Berkshire County Commissioner Paul Babeu during his sex abuse suit against the diocese, said in a telephone interview Thursday afternoon.
Although abused as a child, Nicastro chose not to come forward with his allegations of abuse until October 2008 at the urging of a friend.
"The first place I went was to the diocese, not to a lawyer," he said. "I went to them at the urging of friend, who happens to be a Jesuit priest." (Lawsuit alleges church sex abuse - Berkshire Eagle Online)
There is little accountability for those possessed with the spirit of clericalism, that is, the belief that the due respect we in the laity must have for our shepherds who are true Successors of the Apostles can be exploited by claiming that any criticism of a bishop's administrative or pastoral decisions that have proven to be detrimental to the spiritual and physical welfare of the faithful is, in se, anticlerical and must be opposed with prideful vigor and righteousness as the "evil" complainers and "trouble-makers" and "tale-bearers" are slapped down and browbeaten or simply thrown out of their parishes, told never to come back as long as they are possessed of the silly, "anticlerical" belief that their clergy or their appointees could ever make any kind of mistakes that place souls in physical or, more importantly, eternal jeopardy.
Not to be outdone in the business of indemnifying those members of the conciliar clergy with a track record of predatory behavior is Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, the conciliar "bishop" of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, who is providing protection to the corrupt Society of Saint John, whose activities in the United States of America were shut down in 2004 by the conciliar "bishop" of Scranton, Joseph Martino, who was forced to resign his see last month, largely because he tried to defend the integrity of the Catholic Faith as best he could in the conciliar structures just like a real bishop is supposed to do. "Bishop" Martino's predecessor, Joseph Clifford Timlin, was unbent as he stood "tall" in the face of every single documented complaint made against the Society of Saint John. He has company in the person of Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano, who is also standing "tall" in the face of the actual facts about the moral corruption of this outfit.
This press release from Mrs. Randy Engel, the President of the United States Coalition for Life, attests to the disregard for truth that exists throughout the conciliar structures, including in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay:
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, “The relocation and restoration in South America of the formerly suppressed, U.S.-based scandal-ridden Society of Saint John (SSJ) is one of the most outrageous examples of ecclesiastical malfeasance facing the Catholic Church today,” charges Randy Engel, Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life.
“Disbanded and forbidden from representing itself as ‘a recognized ecclesial entity of the Roman Catholic Church’ by Bishop Joseph Martino, of the Diocese of Scranton in November 2004, after years of credible accusations of moral turpitude and gross financial fraud, the disgraced Society of St. John has found protection and solace in the arms of Bishop Rogelio Ricardo Livieres Plano of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay,” says Engel.
“At the heart of the controversy is Bishop Livieres’ incardination of SSJ founder Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity into the Diocese of Ciudad del Este,” says Engel. “The incardination took place despite repeated warnings from Bishop Martino to Livieres that Urrutigoity’s unchastity, disobedience and outright rebellion, and financial extravagance made him “unfit for ministry,” and despite assurances made in March 2006 by Archbishop Orlando Antonini, the Apostolic Nuncio of Paraguay, that Urrutigoity (and his accomplice and rapist Fr. Eric Ensey) were temporarily in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, but had been sent away by Bishop Livieres. “… It seems that it does not remain any trace of this Society in Paraguay,” reported Archbishop Antonini. “That turned out not to be the case,” says the Coalition director.
“In his public letter of November 17, 2008, in defense of the SSJ and Urrutigoity,” says Engel, “Bishop Livieres states that Urrutigoity stands innocent of the charges against him; that there have never been any “serious and credible charges” against him; and that the “campaign of defamation” against him “was “orchestrated by one source.” “I believe that the record will show that the bishop’s assertions are incorrect on every count,” says Engel.
“From his earliest days as a seminarian at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Seminary of Our Lady of Co-Redemptrix in La Reja, Argentina, Urrutigoity was accused of maintaining particular friendships, and of homosexual tendencies and acts against his fellow seminarians and layman living at the seminary,” says Engel.
“Later, after a brief stay at the priory of Cordoba (Argentina), Urrutigoity was shipped out of Argentina to the SSPX’ St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minn. where he was ordained in 1989 and given a teaching position,” says Engel.
“In 1997, shortly after Urrutigoity was expelled from St. Thomas for ‘subversive activities,’ that is, secretly plotting a new religious order, he sexually molested a seminarian who had left with him – an action prosecutable under both canon law and civil law,” says Engel. “Unfortunately,” says Engel, by the time the incident was reported to SSPX authorities, two years had passed, and Urrutigoity and his followers had found safe haven in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania headed by Bishop James Timlin.”
“It was Timlin who gave the newly formed pederast Society of St. John its canonical standing as a ‘clerical association of the faithful’; lent his financial assistance to the building of the Society’s “City of God,” a project which attracted more than $5 million in donations but never materialized; and appointed the SSJ members as chaplains at St. Gregory’s Academy, a Catholic boys’ prep school operated by the Fraternity of St. Peter,” says Engel.
“Among the many warnings concerning Urrutigoity that Timlin received but ignored,” says Engel, “was a confidential letter dated February 10, 1999, from the SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay confirming the charges of sexual abuse against Urrutigoity stated above, and citing earlier charges made at the La Reja Seminary.”
Referring back to Bishop Livieres’ letter of November 2008, Engel notes that “while in 2001 the Scranton Independent Review Board reported that there were no explicit allegations of sex while Urrutigoity was sleeping with students at St. Gregory’s, the bishop failed to report the Board’s final recommendation made on March 21, 2002 which stated ‘In view of the credible allegation from the seminarian, his admitted practice of sleeping with boys and young men, and the troubling evaluation by The Southdown Institute, Father Carlos Urrutigoity should be removed from active ministry; his faculties should be revoked; and he should be asked to live privately (emphasis added).’”
Engel reports that “Even after the Scranton Diocese in 2002 was named as a co-defendant in a $1million plus sex abuse lawsuit brought by “John Doe,” a former student at St. Gregory’s Academy, who charged Urrutigoity and another SSJ priest, Eric Ensey with sexual assault,” says Engel, “and the case had been settled in the plaintiff’s favor for $454,550, Timlin continued to praise and support the SSJ just as Bishop Livieres is doing today.”
“There is no doubt that there is a ‘cult of personality’ that has developed around the charismatic and charming Urrutigoity,” says Engel, “and it is well-known that he has powerful familial, financial and ecclesiastical connections in Argentina and Rome, which explains the extraordinary degree of protection and immunity he has enjoyed over the span of more than two decades.” “But our concern is, and always has been, for the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of the vulnerable and innocent children and youth who will fall into Urrutigoity’s path as a result of his appointment to the diocese by Bishop Livieres,” says Engel
“I believe the Catholics of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este have every right to demand that plans for the canonical erection of the Society of St. John by Bishop Livieres be terminated and canonical procedures begun to return Fr. Urrutigoity to the lay state,” says Engel. “If Bishop Livieres refuses to take action in this matter, then the task falls to the Holy See and ultimately the Holy Father,” she says.
“The U.S. Coalition for Life pledges its assistance to the people of Ciudad del Este by freely providing to Catholic organizations and members of the media throughout Paraguay and South America all the documentation necessary to back up the Coalition’s charges against Fr. Urrutigoity and the Society of St. John,” Engel says.
“We also plan to challenge the Society’s IRS tax-deductible tax status which currently enables the Society to raise funds from clueless Catholics in the United States for shipment to Paraguay,” she says.
“Neither Urrutigoity nor any other member of the Society of St. John is going to bugger his way through any youth or seminarian in Paraguay or anywhere else if we can help it,” says the Director of the USCL, “but we can’t do it without the help of the Catholic laity and clergy of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este.”
Mrs. Engel reported to me in an e-mail that the press release above had been translated into Spanish and sent to all twenty-six conciliar "bishops" without a word of response. There has been no reaction in the secular press in Paraguay. This is not at all surprising to me. Why should the conciliar "bishops" of Paraguay or the faithful there or the secular media be concerned about the documented moral corruption of the Society of Saint John when the conciliar "pope," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, can enter into synagogues and mosques and treat false religions as worthy of our respect and of having validity and merit in the eyes of the Most Blessed Trinity? If people, especially those in the Motu communities who should know better, are not going to rise as one to defend the honor and glory and majesty of the true God of Revelation as their "pope" calls mosques and synagogues as "sacred" places, we shouldn't be at all surprised that they are mute about the moral corruption in the conciliar structures that is simply reflective of the corruption represented by the very ethos of conciliarism itself.
Who has the power to tell "Bishop" Ricardo Rogelio Livieres Plano to abide by "Bishop" Martino's disbanding of the corrupt Society of Saint John? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. Who refuses to do so? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. Remember, Bernard "Cardinal" Law, who had to resign in disgrace as the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts, on December 13, 2002, was appointed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II as the Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore on May 27, 2004, despite all that he had done to protect one priest-predator after another, including Father Paul Shanley, one of the co-founders of an organization whose name and mission is so vile and repulsive that it will not be repeated here.
Law's fellow enablers of priests such as Shanley were also rewarded in various ways: former Boston "auxiliary" William Murphy was appointed the conciliar "bishop" of my home diocese, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, on September 5, 2001; former Boston "auxiliary" and the man who served as the diocese's "apostolic" administrator between December 13, 2002, and July 1, 2003, Richard Lennon, was appointed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to be the conciliar "bishop" of Cleveland, Ohio, on April 4, 2006. Two other former Boston "auxiliaries," Robert Banks and Thomas Daily, who played their own roles in assisting Law protect predators such as Shanley are still in good standing in the conciliar structures following their retirement as, respectively, the conciliar "ordinaries" of Green Bay and Brooklyn. Yet another former Boston "auxiliary," John Brendan McCormack, is still the conciliar "bishop" of Manchester, New Hampshire, after avoiding criminal charge by entering into a plea agreement with the then Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, Philip McLaughlin, on December 10, 2002 (see Agreement - Diocese of Manchester and State of New Hampshire 12.10.02).
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II wanted to support "his" "bishops," indemnifying them time and time again, almost impervious to any criticism of them, capable of ignoring evidence brought to him by priests and members of the laity from throughout the world about his "bishops" (and I was one of those who made trips to Rome in the 1980s and 1990s to bring evidence to the Apostolic Palace and to various conciliar curial offices). Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict indemnified the "bishops" as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and he has done so in his capacity as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Those expecting "Rome" to act on matters that have been known to conciliar officials there for a long time have not learned the simple truth that men who are themselves are war with the Holy Faith are not going to act, at least not on most occasions, against their fellow conciliar revolutionaries.
Although some disparage the apparition of Our Lady of La Salette, whose feast day was commemorated this past Ember Saturday, September 19, 2009, I, for one, find the account of the apparition approved by the Bishop Salvatore Luigi Zolla of Leece, Italy, in 1879 rather compelling. Here is just one excerpt:
In the year 1865, there will be desecrations of holy places. In convents, the flowers of the Church will decompose and the devil will make himself like the King of all hearts. May those in charge of religious communities be on their guard against the people they must receive, for the devil will resort to all his evil tricks to introduce sinners into religious orders, for disorder and the love of carnal pleasures will be spread over the earth.
We must seek to entrust our souls to true bishops and true priests, men who will defend the integrity of the Catholic Faith as they treat their sheep with the respect and dignity that has been denied them by the faux "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who spend themselves tirelessly for souls and who will always giving a receptive ear to those who are attempting to warn them of the dangers in their own midst. We are sheep. We need our shepherds to pasture us with kindness and solicitude in imitation of the Good Shepherd Himself, Who has been betrayed so dramatically and so flagrantly by the false "shepherds" of a false church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
With total trust in Our Lady, especially during this month of her Seven Sorrows, we commit ourselves each day to praying as many Rosaries as our states-in-life permit, understanding that it is our privilege, yes, our privilege, to live and to suffer in this time of apostasy and betrayal as we seek to live penitentially as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, eager, yes, truly eager, to do penance and reparation for our sins and the sins of the whole world.
Remember, God loves the conciliarists. He wants them to convert back to the true Faith as they abjure their errors and repent of their crimes. We must pray for the conciliarists with fervor every day. Our Lord shed His Most Precious Blood for them. Their souls are thus precious to Him, and they should be no less precious to us, who must be very conscious of how our sins have wounded the Church Militant on earth and thus contributed to the problems in the world-at-large.
Are we up to the task of spending more time, if this is possible, before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Are we up to the task of praying more Rosaries each day? Are we up to the task of embracing penance for the love of God as we offer Him all of the difficulties of the present moment in salvation history and in our own lives with joy and gratitude through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?
Heaven awaits us if we are faithful to the end. May we ask Our Lady each day for all of the graces that we need to become saints filled with humility and meekness of heart, praying that our pride is crushed more and more as we enfold ourselves into the tender mercies of the meekness of te Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of La Salette, 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 Beloved, 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 Thomas of Villanova, pray for us.
Saint Maurice and Companions, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't time to pray a Rosary now?