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

                  August 9, 2013


Recruited by Antichrist To Be His Apologists

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

If any man can be regarded as the Father of the American Church, it is John Carroll of Maryland. Bearer of a respected American name, ordained in a Society which had planted the faith on the shores of the Chesapeake, he took charge of the infant Church as naturally and firmly as a man bringing order to his own household. To the handful of ex-Jesuits demoralized by the suppression of their order he brought inspiration and direction, while guiding the Church from the Penal Age and into the sunlight of religious freedom. John Carroll organized the American Church. Under him, its diverse and disparate elements were unified, and by his establishment of a seminary and schools, its future was assured.

Although his administrative ability was indeed great, coming at a time when it was most needed, his insights into the American character may have been even of more value to the Church. He realized that in the matter of religion the genius of the new American political system was the separation of church and state. His writings and his speeches are full of encomiums not on behalf of toleration, for that presumes an established church, but for complete religious freedom. It may be that, like the Calverts before him, this attitude was born of expediency; that Catholicism had more to gain from religious freedom than any other American creed. True enough, but so also did the Founding Fathers of the United States have the most to gain from independence.

So it was John Carroll who gave the American Church, this congeries of European races forever in conflict over tastes and customs, yet joined together in the unity of the One Faith, its peculiar American stamp. Most astonishing, he foresaw its future, "To dissipate justice," he said in 1785, "time will be our best aid, as also will divine Providence and the experience of our fellow citizens in our devotion to our country and its independence." (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday and Company, pp. 88-89.)


There is a lot of truth contained in the three paragraphs cited above from the late Robert Leckie's American and Catholic, but not that intended by Mr. Leckie or by the man he praised so much, Archbishop John Carroll, who became the first bishop of the United States of America when he was consecrated on August 15, 1790, by Bishop Charles Walmseley, O.S.B., in Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England. There is, I should say (apologies to Ralph McPherson Kiner for using this phrase that he repeated so much in the early days of broadcasting games for the New York Mets in the 1960s), a lot of unintended truth in the three paragraphs cited above.

Archbishop John Carroll did assure the future of the Catholic Church in the United States of America by his embrace of "religious freedom." Carroll's embrace of "religious freedom" in the belief that the civil rights of individual Catholics and the institutional rights of Holy Mother Church was erroneous as "religious freedom" for one is "religious freedom" for all. Lacking an ultimate arbiter ordained by God to resolve disputes between Church and State that were bound to emerge over the course of time as such disputes occurred frequently even during the period of Christendom itself.

Carroll, presaging the giddy optimism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII concerning the need for an "opening to the world" (Roncalli/John XXIII's much vaunted "updating" or, in Italian, aggiornamento) that is being promoted anew by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Franci, could not foresee areas of conflict between Church and State in the framework of the "genius" of Constitution of the United States of America. Archbishop Carroll truly believed that the Catholic Church, though she might have suffer persecution from individual Protestants and unbelievers and in states where the roots of "religious liberty" had not yet taken root, would be respected by officials of the Federal government to carry out her apostolic duties without interference.

Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution that the current administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus has been waging against what he thinks are the true officials and institutions and agencies of the Catholic Church, who have, for all intents and purposes, simply giving up the fight against this persecution.

After all, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes that he must transmit a "positive" message rather than speak about the daily slaughter of the innocent by chemical and surgical means that takes place throughout the world as the Catholic Church has "already spoken" on this sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Bergoglio/Francis has sent a clear signal that there is some kind of dichotomy between that exists between dogmatic/moral theology and "service to the poor," which is why he is both officially and personally friendly to pro-abortion public officials as their governments, he believes, are indeed serving the "needs" of the poor by means of statist programs designed to enslave the poor and impoverish the affluent and the middle class.

As was noted a few days ago in Francis Says ˇViva la Revolución!, part four, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis chose not to say a word about the legalization of a "pathway," shall we say, for surgical baby-killing-on-demand" during the seven days he spent in Brazil for the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, aesthetic  and pastoral abomination that was World Youth Day 2013.

How did Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a sixty-five year-old Marxist who fought with various Marxist guerilla groups in her youth, reward Bergoglio/Francis for his discreet "silence" on this "delicate" issue about which the conciliar "bishops" in Brazil said next to nothing and did even less than that?

See for yourselves:

August 1, 2013, became a day of mourning in Brazil’s history. On this date, reneging on the pledge she made during the presidential campaign, President Dilma Rousseff sanctioned the law opening the gate for the “killing of the innocents.”

Not only are her hands red with blood, but also the hands of those who favored the veiled and hasty way this law was approved by the two houses of the Congress. Particularly to blame are Minister of Health Alexandre Padilha and PT (Workers Party) House representative Iara Bernardi. But also culpable are the members of both Houses who voted for the bill, alleging that the word “abortion” had not been used in the text. . . .

Petitions with thousands of signatures were delivered to the Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro requesting the Bishops to ask Pope Francis to say a word against the law of abortion during his stay in Rio, and to exhort President Dilma to veto it. I don’t know if the Bishops transmitted the request. What I do know is that Pope Francis did not say a word against the abortion law in his multiple public appearances. If he had done so, I believe Rousseff would not have sanctioned the law.

The Brazilian Conference of Bishops, in its turn, did very little. Millions were expecting it to pressure the President to veto the project. Instead of asking for a total veto, it only requested a partial veto. It received nothing.

The Conference of Bishops in Brazil has been a voice that lulls to sleep the good reactions of pro-life Catholics and the hand that extinguishes the flame of their enthusiasm.

The indignation of millions of Catholics did not find an echo in the voice of the religious authorities. One word from the Pontiff in his long, spectacular stay in Brazil would have sufficed to save the lives of millions of voiceless innocents.

The Pope, who has spoken so much about protecting the poor, in this case forgot to say a word to save millions of poor innocents from a criminal death. This omission occurred at the very moment when the situation was ideal for him to act - he was the center of attention of the country and the world. This omission took place during his visit to the country with largest number of Catholics in the world…  (Doors Open for Abortion in the World’s Largest Catholic Country.)


What the writer of this article does not understand or accept is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not "Pope" Francis and that, save for any Eastern rite bishops who are members of the conciliar "episcopal" conference in Brazil, the men posing as ordinaries of dioceses in Brazil are not true bishops and are one with Bergoglio in having placed themselves outside of the Catholic Church by virtue of their adherence to one condemned proposition after another (see Mr. John Lane's Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism, Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty and Why SSPX Priest Fr. Raphael Trytek became a Sedevacantist.)

It is clear that Antipope Francis has cleared his own kind of "pathway" that will indemnify his "bishops" worldwide, including right here in the United States of America, who prefer his false concept of "love" and "charity" to use of prophetic warnings that Successors of the Apostles must give to those in public life who support grave evils that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Consider the case of Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley, O.F.M., Cap., who is wrapping himself up in Bergoglio/Francis's sanctimony over "service to the poor" in the name of building up the Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's mythical, Judeo-Masonic "civilization of love":

SAN ANTONIO — A U.S. cardinal who is an adviser to Pope Francis is responding to concerns among some Roman Catholics that the pope hasn’t spoken out enough against abortion.

In a speech Tuesday to the Knights of Columbus, Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley said Francis emphasizes love and mercy to show what underpins church teaching. Francis does so to “open hearts” in an increasingly secular world, the cardinal said.

“We oppose abortion, not because we are mean or old-fashioned, but because we love people. And that is what we must show the world,” O’Malley said. “We must love all people, even those who advocate abortion. It is only if we love them that we will be able to help them discover the sacredness of the life of an unborn child.”

Francis has made few direct remarks about abortion, marriage and other contentious social issues since his election five months ago. Many Catholics have welcomed the shift in focus as rejuvenating for the church, while others worry that the pope isn’t doing enough to combat abortion. Francis’ immediate predecessors as pope, Benedict XVI and John Paul II, made the abortion issue a priority in their pontificates.

O’Malley spoke in San Antonio at the annual meeting of the Catholic men’s organization. He is one of eight cardinals the pope has appointed to advise him on governing the church and reforming the scandal-plagued Vatican bureaucracy.

“The Holy Father is showing us very clearly that our struggle is not just a political battle or a legal problem, but that we must evangelize and humanize the culture, then the world will be safe for the unborn, the elderly and the unproductive,” O’Malley said. “If we are going to get a hearing in today’s world, it will be because people recognize that authenticity of our lives and our dedication to building a civilization of love." (Boston cardinal: Antipope talks about love more than abortion.)


Sean O'Malley, who is one of Bergoglio/Francis's Commissars, remains what he and his fellow conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis have been, namely, a fool, a man who falls perfectly in the following description that Pope Saint Pius X, quoting Pope Gregory IX, used to describe Modernists:


The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Catholics oppose each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, Sean O'Malley, because we love God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church. We oppose abortion because the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

We show forth a true love for others only if we will their good, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church only if we first love God and are willing to defend His Commandments as they have been entrusted to and explicated by Holy Mother Church without fear of the consequences.

Catholics are not dedicated to a "building a civilization of love."

Pope Saint Pius X explained that we must endeavor to restore the Catholic City, not some Judeo-Masonic "civilization of love" wherein we are supposed to contend there is a dichotomy between showing "love" for others while opposing with vigor all unjust laws, no matter how pointless it may appear to do so:


But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Catholics dp not seek to "humanize" the culture. We seek to Catholicize it.

Sean O'Malley, who gave us the travesty recounted nearly four months ago in Antichrist's Liturgical Presiders and oohed and ahhhed all over the late Edward Moore Kennedy after this egregious pro-abort and pro-pervert died on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (see Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions?). is not interested in this at all. Neither, of course, is Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Pope Leo XIII used very strong language to condemn those who do not condemn unjust laws without any degree of hesitation or reservation:


10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Hey, Sean O'Malley, step right up and meet Pope Pius XI, will ya, fella?


Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Most of those who saw Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ multiply the loaves and the fishes to feed the multitude recoiled and left Him when He preached the doctrine of His Most Holy Eucharist:


[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. (John 6: 51-65.)

That the conciliar revolutionaries are afraid of preaching hard sayings for fear of offending the tender sensibilities of the multitudes, preferring instead to tickle their itching ears with all manner of sweet nothings, is just another of many signs of how far they are from holding to the immutable Catholic Faith that they contradict so boldly and with such "papal" approbation.

By what stretch of logic can one expect the likes of Sean O'Malley or Timothy Michael Dolan, no less Jorge "Social Work First, Social Work Last, Social Work Only" Bergoglio, to oppose the involvements of supposed Catholic agencies such as Catholic Relief Services and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development with various pro-abortion and/pro-sodomite organizations?

Here is an example of such an involvement:


In the last couple weeks, LifeSiteNews has published a series of reports highlighting grave concerns at Catholic Relief Services, the U.S. Bishops’ billion-dollar foreign relief agency. This week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came to their defense, so we’d like to offer some thoughts in response.

First, a brief summary of what we’ve found. On July 10th, we revealed that CRS had given a $13.8 million grant to the pro-abortion group CARE. Then on July 18th, we reported that they were in the midst of giving a $2.7 million grant to Population Services International, an organization founded for the purpose of population control that openly markets abortion drugs in numerous developing countries.

After that we began a series of articles based on reports from the Population Research Institute alleging that CRS had themselves actually distributed contraceptives and abortifacients as part of a USAID project in Madagascar. PRI spent a month in the African country, conducting taped interviews with USAID and CRS employees/contractors, as well as two Archbishops and numerous clergy.

“Even in my own diocese!  Without my knowledge,...they [CRS] were working on an artificial contraception project here,” Archbishop Désiré Tsarahazana of Toamasina told the pro-life organization in November 2012.

Unfortunately, LifeSiteNews’ reporting on CRS has been called into doubt by some in recent days after the USCCB released two statements that, on the face of them at least, appear to disprove PRI’s claims about CRS’ work in Madagascar.

After PRI published the quotes critical of CRS by Archbishop Tsarahazana and Archbishop Odon Razanakolona of Antananarivo, the USCCB called the archbishops and released a statement about each conversation.

On August 2nd, they issued a statement saying that Archbishop Tsarahazana “expresses strong support” of CRS. The statement appears to indicate that the Archbishop has backtracked from his allegation that CRS distributed contraceptives. It reads:



During the open and constructive conversation, Archbishop Tsarahazana stated that in the past there had been some confusion in his archdiocese that was quickly resolved, and that CRS is acting in accord with Catholic teaching and does not provide or facilitate access to contraception or abortion.

Notice that the statement never actually says that the Archbishop backtracked. Rather, we are told there was “some confusion” that was “quickly resolved.” Unfortunately, we are left to guess at what that means.

We’re told that CRS is not currently distributing contraceptives, but there’s no denial that they did so in the past. In fact, PRI has pointed out that the program in which CRS was allegedly distributing contraceptives ended on July 24th, which would certainly be consistent with the USCCB statement.

What we can be sure of, however, is that if the archbishop had actually said PRI misquoted him, CRS and the USCCB would have said it explicitly. They did not.

Sadly, the USCCB gave us no quotes from Archbishop Tsarahazana, so there is no way of knowing what he specifically said.

In their second statement, published August 5th, the USCCB and CRS indicated that Archbishop Razanakolona also “expresses strong support” for CRS, and that he “repudiated” the claim that CRS was distributing contraceptives and abortifacients.

But PRI has responded to this second release by pointing out that Archbishop Razanakolona had not told them anything of the sort, and they never said he had. The allegations about contraceptive distribution came from Archbishop Tsarahazana and clergy in his Archdiocese.

“Archbishops [Razanakolona]'s complaints about CRS, which he shared with us in a taped, on-the-record interview, lay elsewhere,” PRI wrote in a release Tuesday.

So, in the end, we are left to compare Archbishop Tsarahazana’s clear quotes, provided by PRI, with the confusing paraphrases attributed to him by the USCCB and CRS.

LifeSiteNews asked John Rivera, CRS’ communications director, if CRS had a statement from Archbishop Tsarahazana himself, but Rivera did not respond.

The Archbishop’s quotes, combined with the quotes of clergy in his diocese and aid workers on the ground, ought to raise serious alarm bells. As far as we’re concerned, until CRS offers a more forthright statement, PRI’s reports stand.

Even apart from PRI’s reports, however, Catholic Relief Services should be facing intense scrutiny over its multi-million dollar grants to CARE and PSI – the latter especially.

When LifeSiteNews raised concerns about its grant to CARE in 2012, CRS indicated they were willing to fund a pro-abortion group for moral projects, but that it depended on the “preponderance” of work the group did in violation of Catholic teaching. “We would never partner with Planned Parenthood,” said Rivera.

But once they were questioned on their grant to PSI, they fell back even further. Whether the “preponderance” of the group’s work violates Catholic teaching no longer matters, it seems, only that the specific project they are funding does not offend Catholic morality.

We have questioned CRS repeatedly about how they can defend their grant to PSI when, by their own funding principles, they would not fund Planned Parenthood. Sadly they have ignored the question every time. (Parsing the USCCB’s defense of Catholic Relief Services. For other examples, please see Randy Engel on Catholic Relief Services and Alinsky's Sheen.)

As noted a few days ago on this site, Bergoglio/Francis has no problem with any of this as any assistance that is given to "the poor" must be supported no matter the "imperfections" of organizations that are the beneficiaries of monies donated to them by supposedly Catholic agencies under the control of the conciliar "bishops." The false "pontiff" can remain friendly with the likes of Dilma Rousseff and Evo Morales, the pro-abortion, Hugo Chavez-style President of Boliva--and a former conciliar "bishop" as well-- see Another Country Kicks Out Christ the King--and will probably say not one word in criticism of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro as he believes that "service to the poor" wipes away a multitude of other sins to such an extent as to make criticism of pro-deat public officials to be "uncharitable" and Pharisaical.

Also running with the Bergoglio/Francis conciliar love-fest is the conciliar "archbishop" of San Francisco, California, Salvatore Cordileone, who echoed his false "pope's" call for greater "respect" to be shown towards "gay people" (see Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three) by calling for what he thinks is the Catholic Church to be more "welcoming" to those steeped in disordered inclinations and/or lives of unrepentant sins of perversity:

The whole Church owes a debt of gratitude to Pope Francis for reiterating the Church’s love and welcome to all people, especially those who experience same-sex attraction, who often feel alienated from the Church. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, these brothers and sisters of ours “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons in 1986 that stated this principle even more strongly: “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action.  Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.  It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society.  The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.” It is, indeed, a sign of a weakening of civilization when it is deemed acceptable to treat any segment of the population with anything less than the love and respect all deserve as children of God.


Of course the Church must be a place of welcome for people who experience same-sex attraction. The Church must be a safe place where they can feel secure and loved in revealing their orientation to others. No one has ever denied this, but we need to do a better job at making this known and following through on it. The Church must also be a community that assists her members in responding to the call to holiness. This is why the Church has support groups for people who can benefit from such help in living virtuously in their relationships. While the Church does not judge individuals, the Church does judge actions, for we know that some acts violate human dignity while others make us more truly human according to the image in which God originally made us. With regard to sexual acts, the Church has always faithfully taught, and always will, the teaching she has received from her Lord, namely, that they find their proper order and purpose within the marital union of husband and wife, and outside of the bond of marriage they are sinful. Both natural and revealed law teach us this truth. While everyone struggles with this to some degree, healthy societies encourage and support people to live in accordance with it. (Statement of Convicted DUI Salvatore Cordileone.)

Query, probationer Cordileone.

How much more "welcoming" can the Archdiocese of San Francisco in conciliar captivity get?

I mean, have you been to Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro District of San Francisco lately

There is no such thing a "orientation."

Human beings are not to be treated with "respect" on the basis of their self-identification as inclined to and/or actually participants in disordered, perverted acts that are repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity and harmful to the eternal and temporal good of men and their nations.

Then again, I supposed that Salvatore Cordileone, who is five years my junior and is neither a priest or a bishop, did get around to reading Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three as of yet.

We are eyewitnesses to the degeneration that must place in nations when Catholics, having accepted the lie upon which the "religious liberty" so favored by Archbishop John Carroll two hundred twenty-two years ago when it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, are recruited by Antichrist himself to become apologists in his behalf.

Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution that the current administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus is waging against what he thinks are the true officials and institutions and agencies of the Catholic Church. Carroll's naive trust and full-throated endorsement of these twin errors came despite the fact that it was within his own lifetime that the first two of the papal condemnations of them were pronounced. Those pronouncements did not matter to him. The United States of America was "different." It was "special." It was "exceptional." The "good" and "tolerant" Protestants and Freemasons and others who just wanted to "live together" as Americans would never seek to the double-edged sword of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" against the Catholic Church, right?


"Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").

The Catholic Church: For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)


Yes, the false currents of the Potomac River really did flow into the Tiber River to sweep away the assembled bishops at the "Second" Vatican Council into supporting Dignitatis Humanae, which was approved in a vote taken on December 7, 1965, the last full day of the council's deliberations before Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick closed it officially the next day on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You, see my few readers I am not the one who has made up anything about the influences of Americanism on the "Second" Vatican Council. The Americanists keep telling us this in their own words. Americanism is one the fundamental building blocks of conciliarism. And it simply does not matter how many people get tired of reading this. Truth is truth.

Consider once again these words from the mouth of the arch-Americanist named John Ireland:


The times are solemn. In no epoch of history, since the beginning of the Christian era, did changes so profound and so far-reaching occur. There is in the physical sphere of human activity a complete revolution. Discoveries and inventions have opened to us a new material world. Social and political conditions have been transformed. Intellectual curiosity is intense and peers with keenest eye into the recesses of sky and earth. Intellectual ambition, maddened by wondrous successes in many fields, puts on daring pinions and challenges all limitations of knowledge. The human heart is emboldened to the strangest dreams and frets itself into desperate efforts in presence of all barriers to the completion of its desires. Let things be new, is the watchword of the present humanity, and to make things new is its strong resolve. To this end are pledged its most fierce activities, which, in whatever part of man’s realm they are exercised, have their illustration in the stream and electricity of the new material creation.

In the midst of these times the Catholic Church moves and works, professing, as her charter obliges her, to conquer minds and hearts, individuals and society. Her mission to the world is what it was for long centuries: but the world wears a new aspect. The Church sails upon the waters of the same ocean upon whose bosom she has glided since her first departure from Palestine: but the new winds trouble those waters and toss them into unusual billows. No long argument is needed to show that there ought to be new movements of the helm in the Ship of State and new unfurlings of canvas from her masts.

Now is the opportunity for great and singular men among the sons of God’s Church. To-day old-time routine is fatal; to-day the common is worn-out senility. The crisis demands the new, the extraordinary, and with it the Catholic Church will score the grandest of her victories in the grandest of history’s ages
. (Archbishop John Ireland, full text found in The Voice of the Church, a book published by the Bishops of the United States of America in 1899.)

Behold the diabolical triumph of the "new, the extraordinary" that was enshrined universally by the counterfeit church of conciliarism and has been used as a bludgeon against the eternal and temporal good of men and their nations ever since.

Our refuge in this time of chastisement, which is so very similar to that which befell France one hundred years after the refusal of King Louis XIV and the French bishops to consecrated the entirety of France to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus according to the express command of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He made it manifest to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, must be our total consecration to Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We need our Blessed Mother's help. Only she can help us, and to this end we need to organize more and more public Rosary processions in honor of her Fatima Message and to make reparation for our own sins and those of our nation as we pray for the conversion of the nation and as we take seriously these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)


Yes, we must the more loudly proclaim His Kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm His rights?

To this end, my friends, we protect ourselves with the Brown Scapular and the Miraculous Medal as we pray as many Rosaries each day as possible in our homes that are enthroned to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must not see the fruits in our own lifetimes. We may even have to suffer greatly. The reward is Heavenly.

What are we waiting for?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Lawrence the Deacon, pray for us.

Saint Romanus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


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