Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 May 23, 2009

Respect Those Who Break The First Commandment?

Respect Those Who Break The Fifth Commandment

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The spirit of the toleration of error as something that is not offensive to God and immediately injurious to souls that has spread throughout the veins and arteries of most Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism did not begin overnight.

Although we know that all human problems have their Remote Cause in Original Sin and are aided proximately by our own Actual Sins, for which we must do penance to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, there are other Proximate Causes for the problems of Modernity, ushered in with various aspects of the Renaissance and aided along its way by the Protestant Revolt against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church as he ordered his life socially in light of his Last End and institutionalized by means of the naturalistic philosophies of the "enlightenment" and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. There are also other Proximate Causes for the spread of Modernism in the minds and hearts of so many Catholics.

One of those Proximate Causes for the spread of Modernism--and for the spirit of the toleration of theological and philosophical errors that are offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the holy Cross--can be found in the Opening Address that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII delivered to the Fathers of the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962:

In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.

Contemporary Repudiation Of Godlessness

Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.

A Loving Mother

The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children. To the human race oppressed by so many difficulties, she says what Peter once said to the poor man who begged an alms: "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, that I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk." In other words it is not corruptible wealth, nor the promise of earthly happiness, that the Church offers the world today, but the gifts of divine grace which, since they raise men up to the dignity of being sons of God, are powerful assistance and support for the living of a more fully human life. She unseals the fountains of her life-giving doctrine, so that men, illumined by the light of Christ, will understand their true nature and dignity and purpose. Everywhere, through her children, she extends the frontiers of Christian love, the most powerful means of eradicating the seeds of discord, the most effective means of promoting concord, peace with justice, and universal brotherhood. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII 's Opening Address)


"But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord"? Behold the proliferation of error and confusion and ambiguity and uncertainty that has taken place as a result of this benign view of error that was expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who was under suspicion of heresy during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.

This proliferation of error is so pronounced and so widespread in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the average Catholic, noting, of course, exceptions here and there, has become so very accustomed to apostasy that he is incapable of recognizing that is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, for a Catholic to enter into a place of false worship and then to praise that place of diabolical rites as "sacred" and to praise the "values" held by the adherents of that false religion.

Very few Catholics have expressed any sense of outrage for the honor and majesty and glory of God in the wake of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's calling a mosque in Jordan as a "jewel" that stands out on "the face of the earth" and in the wake of his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, taking off his shoes to enter the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and calling this place that is hideous in the sight of God as "sacred." These Catholics have come to accept such acts of apostasy and sacrilege as "natural" and "normal," if not actual "obligations" required of Christian charity so as to demonstrate to all men of "good will" that a "loving God" does not make distinctions between people who have different beliefs about Him. I know of only a handful of Catholics who expressed publicly any outrage at all for the honor and majesty and glory of God after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008.

The man who believes himself to be, albeit falsely, the Vicar of Christ, on earth, has long been tolerant of theological and philosophical errors. This has been one of the hallmarks of his entire intellectual life, indicating clearly that he truly does not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is very blithe, very sanguine about theological and philosophical errors, although he is very concerned about "errors" on matters of secular history, as he made clear in his prompt and repeated denunciations of Bishop Richard Williamson, who has himself learned how to tolerate "papal" apostasies as the leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X commence their "negotiations" about how to view the conciliar ethos "in light of Tradition," as early as his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, "general audience" address of Wednesday,  January 28, 2009.

Ratzinger/Benedict's blithe, sanguine approach to theological and philosophical error and heresy was summarized very succinctly in an article in Si, Si, No, No, that was quoted in One Sentence Says It All and is worth repeating once again now:

Up to the very end of his conference, Card. Ratzinger resolutely continues on this road of agnosticism and now logically comes to the most disastrous of conclusions. He writes:

In conclusion, as we contemplate our present-day religious situation, of which I have tried to throw some light on some of its elements, we may well marvel at the fact that, after all, people still continue believing in a Christian manner, not only according to Hick's, Knitter's as well as others' substitute ways or forms, but also according to that full and joyous Faith found in the New Testament of the Church of all time.

So, there it is: For Card. Ratzinger, "Hick, Knitter, and others" who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His Church, His sacraments, and, in short, all of Christianity, continue "despite everything" "believing in a Christian manner," even though they do so using "substitute forms of belief"! Here, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith leaves us wondering indeed, just what it is he means by "believing in a Christian manner."

Moreover, once the "preambula fidei" have been eliminated, that "full and joyous Faith of the Church of all time" which seems [for Card. Ratzinger] to be no different from modern-day apostasies other than by its style and total character, is utterly lacking in any rational credibility in comparison with and in relation to what he refers to as "substitute ways or forms" of faith. "How is it," Card. Ratzinger wonders, "in fact, that the Faith [the one of all time] still has a chance of success?" Answer:

I would say that it is because it finds a correspondence in man's nature…..There is, in man, an insatiable desire for the infinite. None of the answers we have sought is sufficient [but must we take his own word for it, or must we go through the exercise of experiencing all religions?]. God alone [but Whom, according to Card. Ratzinger, human reason cannot prove to be truly God], Who made Himself finite in order to shatter the bonds of our own finitude and bring us to the dimension of His infinity [...and not to redeem us from the slavery of sin?] is able to meet all the needs of our human existence.

According to this, it is therefore not objective motives based on history and reason, and thus the truth of Christianity, but only a subjective appreciation which brings us to "see" that it [Christianity] is able to satisfy the profound needs of human nature and which would explain the "success" [modernists would say the "vitality"] of the "faith" ["of all time" or in its "substitute forms," it is of but little importance]. Such, however, is not at all Catholic doctrine: this is simply modernist apologetics (cf. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi), based on their affirmed impossibility of grasping metaphysical knowledge (or agnosticism or skepticism), which Card. Ratzinger seemed to want to shun in the first part of his address.

Now we are in a position to better understand why Card. Ratzinger has such a wide-open concept of "theology" and of "faith" that he includes everything: theology as well as heresies, faith and apostasy. On that road of denial of the human reason's ability of attaining metaphysical knowledge, a road which he continues to follow, he lacks the "means of discerning the difference between faith and non-faith" (R. Amerio, op. cit., p.340) and, consequently, theology from pseudo-theology, truth from heresy:

All theologies are nullified, because all are regarded as equivalent; the heart or kernel of religion is located in feelings or experiences, as the Modernists held at the beginning of this century (Amerio, op. cit., p.542).

We cannot see how this position of Card. Ratzinger can escape that solemn condemnation proclaimed at Vatican I: "If anyone says...that men must be brought to the Faith solely by their own personal interior experience...let him be anathema" (DB 1812). (Cardinal Ratzinger)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has such a blithe, sanguine spirit of toleration of error and heresy because he is himself steeped in one Modernist error and heresy after another. He has himself committed grave acts of apostasy publicly. He has gravely offended the honor and glory and majesty of God without hardly a peep of protest from anyone connected to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Ratzinger/Benedict has even remained silent now for forty-two days after "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch denied publicly that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. The man has no concept of how God hates error and to see it corrected.

Each of the conciliar "pontiffs" has demonstrated this broad, liberal sense of toleration of error, at least to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the particular issues of Faith involved. This includes Albino Luciani/John Paul I:

John Paul I is often portrayed as a humble, saintly prelate of the Church. His doctrinal stand was very questionable as evidence by his pastoral letter of 1967 in which he advised his clergy to "see, if instead of uprooting and throwing down [error], it might be possible to trim and prune it patiently, bringing to light the core of goodness and truth which is not often lacking even in erroneous opinions" [Reference 839: Our Sunday Visitor, September 28, 2003, "Celebrating the Smiling Pope," by Lori Pieper.] This is like a doctor telling his patient: "I won't take out all the cancer; it might be good for you. (Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times,  page 530.)


The conciliar spirit of the toleration of error was condemned prophetically by many true popes, including Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864,

Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1950:


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


This is far, far removed the false spirit of the toleration of error under the guise of "mercy" and "patience" expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in his Opening Address at the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962. Error does not simply "go away." It needs to be opposed.

Pope Leo XIII's Custodi di Quella Fede rejects outright the Masonic "respect for all religions" and "universal tolerance" that is at the heart of the conciliar spirit:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)


Yet it is that the Undersecretary Undersecretary for Relations with States, "Monsignor" Pietro Parolin, repeated Ratzinger/Benedict's own oft-expressed view, reiterated forcefully and frequently during his pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel that ended on Friday, May 15, 2009, that "religions" can help to "build" peace:

What fruits do you expect to see from the Holy Father’s visit to the Holy Land?

We have to let the seed to grow. We need to give it time, but I think the visit was very positive. This is the general assessment of the Holy Father. I think the Holy Father said to everyone what he wanted to say and it was a message of hope, looking to the future, and building trust between the parties. From that we can start a new process of delivering peace. Then one can say the visit was successful. We need time to see. I think the message the Pope gave is that we are a people of faith — Christian, Muslim and Jews. Faith is a resource to build peace, and we have to use these resources which are inside each faith to build peace.

And also have religions more directly involved in the peace process?

Yes, to take new resources, motivation and emphases on building peace from the convictions of faith among the different religions. (Vatican Clarifies Obama Stance.)


"Building peace from the convictions of faith among the different religions," "Monsignor" Parolin? Your apostasy stands condemned by, among other popes, Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1950, and by Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)


Catholicism, "Monsignor" Parolin, is the one and only foundation for personal and social order, not the false religion of conciliarism's toleration of errors and the praise its "pontiffs" and "bishops" and "cardinals" and "monsignori" and presbyters render to other false religions by daring to associate the Catholic Church with their own blasphemous expressions of "respect" and "admiration" for places that are "sacred" only to the devil himself.

Alas, respect those who violate the First Commandment by partaking of the worship of false religions, thus showing a blithe and most sanguine "toleration" of that which offends God most grievously, and one will show great "respect" and toleration for those who break the Fifth Commandment's injunction against the direct, intentional taking of any innocent life, whether before or after birth, for any reason at all time or under any circumstance.

Consider this remarkable display of "respect" for the pro-abortion President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (there will be a separate commentary at some point next week on the issues raised by his constitutional eligibility to serve in this office), who supports a woman's "right" to choose to kill, whether by chemical or surgical means, her preborn child, by the editor-in-chief of the Vatican's semi-official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano:

Rome, Italy, May 20, 2009 / 06:24 pm (CNA).- The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano explained today to Paulo Rodari, a Vatican analyst for the daily “Il Riformista,” that President Barack Obama’s speech to graduates of Notre Dame was very respectful and that he “is not a pro-abortion president.”

In the interview with Rodari, Editor-in-chief Gian Maria Vian discussed his thoughts on President Obama at the University of Notre Dame. “Obama has not upset the world,” he said. “His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality.’ To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.”

Vian continued, “Let me be clear, L’Osservatore stands where the American bishops are: we consider abortion a disaster. We must promote, always and at every level a ‘culture of life’.”

“What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president,” he told Rodari.

Continuing the interview, Rodari stressed that L' Osservatore Romano ran two different stories on the same issue, one positive about Obama's speech at Notre Dame, the other extremely critical about his embryonic stem cell research position which quoted the concerns of the USCCB.

Vian answered: “This is our policy, the way we inform. If a national bishops’ conference says something, we report it.” However, he continued, it is “appropriate to present other perspectives” to the readers so they can accurately judge "international information."

According to Rodari, "the words of Vian are important. Because they speak about a confrontation between Obama and the Catholic Church which for now seems to be limited mainly among part of the American episcopate. A confrontation that the Holy See neither approves nor disapproves. Simply observes."

Does this perceived “soft line” on the president given in L’Osservatore Romano emanate from Secretary of State officials who, perhaps, want to see Obama visit the Pope in July?

“Any talk about a supposedly soft line in the Vatican newspaper is only a reconstruction by those who have an interest in dividing Catholics, those who imagine the Holy See is opposed to American bishops. Our task is to inform and form opinions. We publish with the cooperation and understanding of the Secretary of State, that is clear, but we have never wanted to, nor intended to, substitute their work.” (L'Osservatore Editor Defends)


Before note is taken on how Gian Maria Vian was more or less forced to "walk back" his remarks yesterday, it is nevertheless a telling commentary on the state of confusion in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the editor of the the Vatican's semi-official newspaper could even initially, before having, it appears, his head taken off for his published remarks in Il Riformista, say that Caesar Obamus is not a "pro-abortion president" and that he, Obama, "tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality."

Obama is not a pro-abortion president? What does it take to be pro-abortion? Barack Hussein Obama supports the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. He has signed an Executive Order to restore full funding for the surgical assassination of children under all conditions by means of international "family planning" agencies outside of the United States of America with American taxpayers' dollars. Little babies have been killed as a result of that Executive Order. Barack Hussein Obama is not pro-abortion? No rational, sane Catholic can make such a statement, no less one who has been chosen by conciliar officials to be the editor of their semi-official newspaper.

Obama "tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality'"? What debate? There is no debate about the Fifth Commandment. Then again, it is not difficult for one who is steeped in conciliarism's respect for false religions and its practice of false ecumenism can come to see such fundamental matters as adherence to the Fifth Commandment as something that is open to legitimate "debate" in a "free and open" society.

As I noted five days ago in No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error, Barack Hussein Obama spoke about pregnancy as a "heart-wrenching decision" to be made. There is no such "decision" to be made, a point I noted five days ago:

An expectant mother has no "decision" to make when she discovers that she is carrying a child in her womb. She has a baby to nurture unto birth and then to bring to the Baptismal font to be made a spiritual child by adoption of the Most Blessed Trinity, Whose very inner life is flooded into that baby's soul as the Original Sin and that soul's captivity to the devil is flooded out of it. There is no "decision" to be made. There is no "choice" to be made. There is God's Holy Will to fulfill with love and with perfection, made possible by the supernatural helps won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of all Graces.

Although I have written (and taught) this repeatedly throughout the course of my professional life as a college professor and speaker and writer, let me reiterate this simple truth once again: Every abortion in an attack mystically on the preborn Baby Jesus in the person of an innocent preborn baby in his mother's womb. No one--and I mean no one--can say that he "loves" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and support as a matter of public law and/or participate in actively the act of dismembering  or burning or poisoning Him mystically in the persons of innocent preborn children by chemical or surgical means.

It is that simple. There is "common ground" to be found. There is only God's Law to be obeyed. Period. (No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error.)


Obama is not to be considered "pro-abortion" because he has said that the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" is not a high priority for him? The "Freedom of Choice Act" has always been--and remains now--an emotional red herring to generate funds for various advocacy groups whose leaders know full well, as I pointed very clearly five months ago in Only Themselves to Blame and four months ago in From Luther to Bush to Obama and nearly three months ago in Dialectical Americanism, had no chance whatsoever of passage in the Congress of the United States of America. Obama, who is surrounded by clever political strategists, knew this all along. Yet we are to believe that Obama is not "pro-abortion" because the "Freedom of Choice Act" that he knows has no chance of passage by Congress is not a "high priority" for him?

L'Osservatore Romano wants to give "both sides" of the "debate" about Obama? Both sides? This is the Americanist concept of "freedom of the press" condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

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?


Although Gian Maria Vian was forced to "walk back" his published comments in Il Riformista, the fact that he had initially praised Caesar Obamus's first one hundred days (see Urbanely Accepting Evil) and dared to say that he is not "pro-abortion" speaks volumes about how the poisons of conciliarism cloud one's judgment and easy, urbane acceptance of a public official who supports at least two of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (willful murder and sin of Sodom).

Gian Maria Vian was singing a different tune later yesterday when he was interviewed by a reporter from the National Catholic Register, a wholly owned entity of the Legionaries of Christ, whose corrupt founder, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, was defended by the Register until the proof of his unrepentant corruption was impossible to refute:

Gian Maria Vian, editor of L’Osservatore Romano, commented to the Register about the controversy (detailed here) surrounding the paper’s coverage of President Obama.

Is L’Osservatore Romano in agreement with those bishops of the United States who were opposed to Obama being honored by the University of Notre Dame?

L’Osservatore Romano always stands by different episcopates, and on this point, naturally, in our reports on international religious news, we support the positions of United States’ bishops. This is much more the case when it concerns serious and sensitive issues such as abortion, which the Second Vatican Council in “Gaudium et Spes” (No. 51) has defined as an abominable crime.”

You said that Obama is not pro-abortion, yet he has already passed legislation that will fund abortions throughout the world. What is your response to accusations of being “in the dark” about the U.S. abortion issue, and that you do not understand that many bishops and Catholics see this issue differently in the United States compared to Europe?

“As I said in an interview with the Italian newspaper il Riformista, the Vatican newspaper is fully behind the bishops of the United States, and then I expressed my personal hope that the radical statements expressed before his election won’t be confirmed. But I don’t sense that L’Osservatore Romano is expressing views different from those of the Holy See, views which are opposed to any policy in favor of abortion, at a national and international level.”

Does this perceived “soft line” on the president given in L’Osservatore Romano emanate from Secretary of State officials who, perhaps, want to see Obama visit the Pope in July?

“Any talk about a supposedly soft line in the Vatican newspaper is only a reconstruction by those who have an interest in dividing Catholics, those who imagine the Holy See is opposed to American bishops. Our task is to inform and form opinions. We publish with the cooperation and understanding of the Secretary of State, that is clear, but we have never wanted to, nor intended to, substitute their work.” (L'Osservatore Editor Defends.)


One will note that Mr. Vian did not retract his statement that Barack Hussein Obama is not "pro-abortion," stating only that he had expressed "his personal hope that the radical statements expressed before his election won't be confirmed," an answer that ignores the simple fact, evidently unknown to Mr. Vian, that Barack Hussein Obama, like his predecessor, George Walker Bush, who permitted various "exceptions" to the Fifth Commandment to his own "international family" policy known as the Mexico City policy (see Foggy Bottom's Bloody Tradition), which permitted, of course, the chemical assassination of children by means of abortifacient contraceptives, has the blood of the innocent on his hands. Barack Hussein Obama is "not a pro-abortion president. Mr. Vian, you are a disgrace to the service of truth that a supposedly Catholic newspaper has an obligation to defend, not to obfuscate by means of rank misrepresentations of the truth.

As is usually the case with "clarifications" issued by the conciliar Vatican, however, the aforementioned "Monsignor" Pietro Parolin stuck his own foot in his apostate mouth when he said the following in an interview with a reporter from National Catholic Register:

“It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue.”

Those are the words of Msgr. Pietro Parolin, the Holy See’s Undersecretary for Relations with States and one of the Vatican’s leading diplomats.

Here is the complete text of my interview yesterday with Msgr. Parolin, in which he also discusses Pope Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the Holy Land. The interview will be published in the next issue of the Register.

There’s been some confusion about the mixed signals coming out of the Vatican regarding President Obama — that while U.S. bishops have strongly criticized his position on life issues, L’Osservatore Romano, for example, has been offering comparatively positive assessments of the administration. Why is this?

Msgr. Pietro Parolin: It’s very simple. It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue. So this — in a few words — is the policy of the Holy See.

So bishops need to focus more on these internal issues while the Vatican is more interested on international, foreign policy issues?

No, I wouldn’t say we’re not concerned about these decisions that have been taken by the administration. But this does not prevent us from having a dialogue with the administration.

Is this the reason for the generally positive comments from L’Osservatore Romano on the administration?

I don’t know because I was absent at that time, I was in Jerusalem when L’Osservatore Romano wrote that article. (Vatican Clarifies Obama Stance.)


"It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue"?

Excuse me, "Monsignor" Parolin? The conciliar Vatican does not "share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues"? Huh? The direct, intentional taking of innocent preborn life in a mother's womb, whether by surgical or chemical means, is a matter of God's Law, engraved in the human heart by means of the Natural Law and explicated clearly by Him to us in the Fifth Commandment, which, along with each of His Commandments, He has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Bioethical issues?

The madness of conciliarism, replete with its insanity of "dialogue" and respect for errors and false religions, is a long, long way from the clarity provided us by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)


This is the language of the Catholic Church, not "dialogue" and "toleration." How many more babies must be killed for the conciliar revolutionaries to realize that their own soul-killing liturgies and false doctrines have made it more possible for men such as Barack Hussein Obama to rise to political prominence and to have the enthusiastic support of large numbers of Catholics. The apostasy of the conciliar ethos does indeed have consequences.


The counterfeit church of conciliarism's spirit of toleration--and even respect--for theological and philosophical errors is displayed in many conciliar parishes as "bishops" and priests and presbyters speak whatever it is that comes to their minds and/or propagate with malice aforethought propositions that have been long condemned by the Catholic Church and that are, in many instances, even "unapproved" by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. I was an eyewitness to these assaults upon the Catholic Faith for three decades. I reported about many of them in detail in The Wanderer, hoping that the conciliar "pope," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, would "take care" of the "bad bishops" if only we found a way to "let him know" what was going on with those "bad bishops." I was a fool, as I indicated in "Connecting" with Betrayal. Wojtyla/John Paul II broke the First Commandment with regularity, as does his "successor," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Is it any wonder that so many Catholics, including those who work in the conciliar Vatican, are so confused about fundamental issues of Faith and Morals.

It is only by means of the merciful designs of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that any of us who have been so foolish as to think that the counterfeit church of conciliarism was the Catholic Church as we "stayed and fought" errors and blasphemies and apostasies and sacrileges at the "local" level that had--and continue to have, at least for the most part--approval from the conciliar Vatican have been able to cooperate with the graces sent to us by Our Lady to cleave to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.

Catholics do not embrace error. They flee from it. (See Father Frederick Faber's meditation for the Sixth Dolor of Our Lady contained in Our Mother of Sorrows.) They make reparation for it as they make reparation for their our sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as their states-in-life permit.

As I noted five days ago, we must also remember Our Lady's words to Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill near Mexico City on December 12, 1531:

Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God. . . . Here I will show and offer my love, my compassion, my help and my protection to the people. I am your merciful Mother, the Mother of all those who love me, of those who cry to me, of those who have confidence in me. Here I will hear their weeping and their sorrows and will remedy and alleviate their suffering, necessities and misfortunes. . . . Listen and let it penetrate into your heart. . . . Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. So not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else that you need?


No, dear Blessed Mother. We have you. There is nothing else we need as you pray for us to your Divine Son now, and at the hour our deaths. There is nothing else we need other than for you to pray for us to remain faithful to your Divine Son without making any concessions or compromises at all to the figures of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism or in the realm of politics and civil government. Help us to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart as the fruit of the fulfillment of your Fatima Message.


Remember to continue to pray the Novena to the God Holy Ghost, keeping Our Lady, who is the Queen of the Apostles, and the Apostles company in fervent prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and thus the vanquishing of conciliarism and its confusion and ambiguity and apostasies and sacrileges and toleration for errors of every kind once and for all.


Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady, Queen of the Apostles, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.


Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.