Unhappy Is The "Happy" "Bishop"
by Thomas A. Droleskey
I aim to be a happy bishop, sharing joys and laughs with you. So you will see me at the St. Patrick's parade, and at the new Yankee Stadium, and at processions and feast days and barbecues across our almost 400 parishes. Being Catholic is not a heavy burden, snuffing the joy out of life; rather our faith in Jesus and His Church gives meaning, purpose and joy to life. I love being a Catholic, I love being a priest, and I fully intend to love being archbishop of New York while loving all of you in the Church in New York. (Timothy Dolan, New Archbishop talks to News.)
This is what, as I noted in Making Everyone Happy Except God nearly seven months ago now, New York's new conciliar "archbishop," Timothy Dolan, told the New York Daily News prior to his installation on April 15, 2009, as the successor the glum and dour Edward "Cardinal" Egan, who had succeeded the glad-handling John Joseph O'Connor on June 19, 2000. Well, the "happy" "bishop" who is not really a bishop of the Catholic Church at all, Timothy Dolan, is very unhappy these days, using an entry in his personal blog to complain about Catholic bashing in, of all places, mind you, the pages of The New York Times. Anyone who is just now discovering that The New York Times has an agenda against the Catholic Faith has been out of touch with reality for quite some time.
It would appear at first blush, of course, that "Archbishop" Dolan is to be congratulated for taking on the anti-Catholic titans at The New York Times. Many have offered their congratulations on what they consider to be a job "well done." A closer examination of the non-archbishop's remarks, however, indicate that the relatively new conciliar "archbishop" of New York is conflating legitimate concerns about anti-Catholic bias in the pages of The New York Times with a desire to see news stories that have reported the egregious modus operandi of the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism concerning the treatment of the members of the laity who have brought their concerns to men they have believed to be their pastors suppressed or downplayed.
Let me be as clear as I can after driving around five hundred miles yesterday (and looking at another three to four hundred miles today to get to a legitimate offering of Holy Mass on this First Friday): Catholic bashing does, of course, exist in the "mainstream" media. This is a given, and this is simply not news. Not at all.
I mean, come on, "Archbishop" Dolan, if you don't know by now that New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, a baptized Catholic who, as far as I know, remains in perfectly good standing in the structures of your counterfeit church of conciliarism, has no understanding of the Catholic Faith, I suggest that the outrage you express about her columns be directed at you for your ignorance of her long record of promoting heterodoxy and moral evil while no conciliar official has lifted a finger to discipline her for her support of various moral evils, including baby-killing and perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
And how is it in concert with concilairism's embrace of "pluralism" for you, "Archbishop" Dolan, to criticize a columnist for acting in accord with her deformed conscience to use her unfettered "right" of "freedom of the press" to publish what she wants? Could it be, "Archbishop" Dolan, that Pope Gregory XVI had it quite right when he condemned Modernity's concept of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832?
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?
The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine."We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.
"Archbishop" Dolan, how can you take umbrage at Maureen Dowd's multiple defections from the Catholic Faith when the conciliar "popes," including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI have endorsed a subjectivist notion of the "primacy of conscience" as they have also heralded the great glories of the pluralist paradigm that is premised upon a diversity of religious and philosophical "beliefs" co-existing peacefully in the same nation? You yourself have validated the false religion of Talmudic Judaism, which has the power to save no one, time and time again, spitting in the face of the doctrine of the Catholic Church and spitting in the face of Pope Saint Pius X's simple reaffirmation of Catholic truth to the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl:
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].
POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.
HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]
POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.
HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.
POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?
HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.
POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.
[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.
HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?
POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you. (Marvin Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodore Herzl.)
Why should you, "Archbishop" Dolan, be surprised that a newspaper known to be sympathetic to those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ publishes articles critical of the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Ah, you see, what really galls the conciliar "bishops" is the fact that the "mainstream" media in the United States of America got hold of the facts of their own abuse of clerical power that was used to protect themselves and priest/presbyter perverts and published those facts for all to see after about fifteen years of reporting in a few Catholic newspapers, including such disparate outlets as The Wanderer and The National Catholic Distorter (er, Reporter). There was a lot of media-bashing in 2002 when the files of the Archdiocese of Boston were made public as reporters were blamed for publishing the facts as to how the now disgraced Bernard "Cardinal" Law and auxiliary "bishops" Thomas Daily and Robert Banks and Richard Lennon and William Murphy protected the likes of Father Paul Shanley, the founder of an organization whose title is so sickeningly disgusting that it will not be published here.
Among the matters discussed in "Archbishop" Dolan's "Foul Ball" entry in his blog on October 29, 2009, was the reporting done in The New York Times on the case of a Franciscan priest who was involved in a scandal with a married woman. The reporting in this case was eminently fair. The behavior of the priest involved in this scandal remains egregious. The behavior of the Franciscan officials yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism was and remains egregious. Yes, my very few readers, "Archbishop" Dolan's complaints about Catholic-bashing, which, as noted before, does indeed exist in the "mainstream media," has much more to do with the lingering resentment felt in the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America over their being "singled out" for how they have abused their authority in protecting themselves and their cronies from all consequences for their nefarious actions in behalf of perversity.
Leaving aside the fact that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and that the men thought to be members of her hierarchy are no more "bishops" of the Catholic Church than the "bishops" of the Anglican and Episcopalian sects, it is not "Catholic bashing" to report how the men thought, albeit erroneously, to be "bishops" of the Catholic Church have browbeaten "whistle-blower" priests and presbyters and members of the laity who have complained to them about their arrogant abuse of powers to protect themselves from any and all criticism of their standard operating practices.
It is not "Catholic bashing" or any display of anti-clericalism whatsoever to call the shepherds, whether real or counterfeit, to account for their abuse of power and for their belief that they can do or say whatever they can to assassinate the character of their critics, never once accepting responsibility for their own actions, never once admitting that they are even capable of being wrong in their pastoral judgments, always confident that they can pull the wool over the eyes of most of the members of the laity in order to tar their critics while wrapping themselves up in a garment of sanctimonious righteousness as they, the conciliar "hierarchy," have attempted time and time again to portray themselves as the victims of those who brought legitimate concerns to them only to be rebuffed with disdain and gangster-type threats in many instances.
To wit, I had a reputation as a "bishop" "basher" when I wrote investigative news stories for The Wanderer from 1992 to 2000. True priests and men I now recognize to be presbyters and members of the laity brought to me their concerns about how they had been manhandled and browbeaten and subjected to all manner of intimidation when seeking redress longstanding wrongs with officials in the conciliar hierarchy.
Time and time again, however, the arrogant clericalists in chancery offices, mostly composed of men who were in the vanguard of the liturgical and doctrinal revolutions of conciliarism, discovered how to use the "obedience card" to attempt to defend themselves as their sought refuge in one slogan after another to dismiss any criticisms as unjustified, going so far sometimes to disparage the mental stability of their critics. It was not infrequently the case in the investigations that I conducted to find that the whistle-blowing priests/presbyters who went public with their concerns were brought before clerical tribunals and subjected to an inquisitorial gauntlet designed to force these priests/presbyters to remain silent lest they be "exposed" as the source of a diocese's or parish's problems.
Although Wanderer reporter Paul Likoudis did around ninety-five percent of the reporting of this abuse of "episcopal" power in the 1990s, my own experiences in dealing with the officials of chancery officials in conciliar captivity led me in that decade to believe that there would come a day when the laity, fed up with stonewalling and lies and half-truths and self-justifications, would go to secular reporters, who would jump at the opportunity to seek to discredit what they believed to be the Catholic Church. That day arrived in January of 2002, and the American conciliar "bishops" have never gotten over the fact that that the masquerade is over, that they have been exposed as double-dealing gangsters and charlatans who refused to address real problems that were brought to their attention decades ago.
All it would have taken, at least in some instances, for the conciliar officials to defuse explosive situations that wound up scandalizing so many Catholics and non-Catholics alike and that has caused so many to lose their Faith entirely was to have shown a bit of humility right from the outset, to recognize that neither they nor their trusted lieutenants of many years, if not decades, are not infallible, that they can and must be criticized when decisions that they have made cause grave injustices that cannot be swept under the rug forever, that are bound to be brought into the light of public view long before they are brought to light in full view of everyone who has ever lived at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. Sadly, however, the conciliar "officials" believed that they could "tough it out," that they could show "strength" in the face of adversity, that they could go on blaming whistle-blowing priests/presbyters and their lay critics interminably, ad nauseam, ad infinitum without too many people catching on to their tired act of sanctimonious self-righteousness.
There is indeed Catholic-bashing in the "mainstream media," which is one of the reasons that those who believe themselves to be officials of the Catholic Church ought to take careful measures to prevent causing scandal to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's little ones. The conciliar "bishops" invite a comparison with the late President Richard Nixon, who believed that it was a sign of "personal strength" to remain steadfast in his denials of involvement in the cover-up of the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, District of Columbia, on Saturday evening, June 17, 1972. Nixon lived to regret his lies and his deceit and his abuse of power, telling David Frost the following in 1977:
I gave 'em a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish. And I guess if I had been in their position, I'd have done the same thing. (Frost Nixon Interview Clip 6 of 6.)
The American conciliar "bishops" have yet to learn that they and they alone are responsible for giving the anti-Catholic "mainstream media" in the United States of America the sword that has been stuck in them with relish. And thus it must always be for those who think that anyone who attempts to correct longstanding patterns of abuse of power is an "enemy" who must be denounced publicly and whose reputation must be destroyed as fiercely as possible.
Obviously, the principal reason scandal has to be avoided is that it is a command of Our Lord Himself. We must strive to please God before men as we seek to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. And while, yes, each of us is a sinner and while, yes, far too many of us have indeed caused scandal to others in our own lives, it is one thing to recognize that one is a stinker and that he must repent of his sins as he seeks to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for them. It is quite another thing to remain arrogantly steadfast in the promotion of scandal, almost defying critics to go to take their case to the general public, which is precisely what the conciliar "bishops" did as they treated the victims of perverted priests/presbyters with contempt and as they used all manner of verbal and legal intimidation to seek to keep suppressed that which will indeed be revealed for all to do see at that General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day.
A conciliar "bishop" was told long ago by a man he, the conciliar "bishop," to be a "whistle-blower" priest that it was necessary for him to read the life of Saint John of the Cross, whose feast day is November 24 (a most interesting date, I will have you know, who suffered mightily at the hands of his Carmelite brethren for his efforts to undertake a reform of this venerable religious community. The "whistle-blower" explained that he was simply one of many who had attempted to follow the path of Saint John of the Cross in seeking to reform what needed to be reformed, that the arrogant rebuffs with which they had been met by this conciliar "bishop" was reminiscent of this brief description of the persecution visited upon the reformer of the Carmelites:
John retired alone to a poor and inadequate dwelling and began a new kind of life, conformed with the primitive Rules of the Order of Carmel. Shortly afterwards two companions came to join him; the reform was founded. It was not without storms that it developed, for hell seemed to rage and labor against it, and if the people venerated John as a Saint, he had to accept, from those who should have seconded him, incredible persecutions, insults, calumnies, and even prison. When Our Lord told him He was pleased with him, and asked him what reward he wished, the humble religious replied: “To suffer and to be scorned for You.” His reform, though approved by the General of the Order, was rejected by the older friars, who condemned the Saint as a fugitive and an apostate and cast him into prison, from which he only escaped, after nine months’ suffering, with the help of Heaven and at the risk of his life. He took refuge with the Carmelite nuns for a time, saying his experience in prison had been an extraordinary grace for him. Twice again, before his death, he was shamefully persecuted by his brethren, and publicly disgraced.
When he fell ill, he was given a choice of monasteries to which he might go; he chose the one governed by a religious whom he had once reprimanded and who could never pardon him for it. In effect, he was left untended most of the time, during his last illness. But at his death the room was filled with a marvelous light, and his unhappy Prior recognized his error, and that he had mistreated a Saint. After a first exhumation of his remains, they were found intact; many others followed, the last one in 1955. The body was at that time found to be entirely moist and flexible still. (Saint John of the Cross)
The conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America have long treated subordinates who have attempted to reform their modus operandi with the same sort of rage that was visited upon Saint John of the Cross by many of his confreres in the Carmelites. It is not for nothing that the messenger's head gets lopped off more often than not. Those who are unwilling to look at themselves honestly will never be able to accept recommendations for reform without becoming self-righteously angry, without seeking to castigate the putative reformers as thorns in the sides of the flesh whose motives must be distorted and misrepresented to the public.
The conciliar "bishops," you see, are fully responsible for supplying the fish, if you will, for the "feeding frenzy" of the anti-Catholic "mainstream media." The "happy" "bishop," Timothy Dolan, will remain unhappy about the media as long as he lives in concilairism's world of praising the pluralist paradigm while refusing to accept the evil consequences that flow therefrom, as long as refuses to recognize that it is conciliarism itself that must be suppressed once and for all in order for true happiness to dwell in the hearts and souls of men and thus for true order to be realized in the midst of nations.
Blinded by their own pride and convinced of the correctness of their conciliar revolution, the conciliar "bishops" will, most likely, persist in their arrogance and their modus operandi that has cost countless numbers of souls and nearly two billion dollars of the monies of hard-working Catholics who are yet attached to the conciliar structures until they are converted back to the true Faith or until they die unrepentant for the harm that they have caused as they gave their critics all of the ammunition that they needed to take pot shots at what the critics believed, albeit erroneously, to be the Catholic Church in order to demoralize souls into quitting the practice of the Faith once and for all.
We must make sure that we never fall into this trap ourselves, that we recognize that we must reform our own lives on a daily basis and that it is frequently the case that our best friends are the ones who force us to take a hard look at ourselves in order to help correct that which needs to be corrected before the moment of our own Particular Judgments. We must pray very fervently to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as clients of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially on this First Friday of the month of the Poor Souls, the month of November, that we will live long enough to make reparation for our sins and that we will be humble enough to accept the reform of our lives when the Saint Johns of the Cross that God places in our lives attempt to help us to rediscover the simple truth that we are not infallible and that we can always learn from those seeking to help us without castigating them as our enemies.
To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords o-Modernism once and for all. May our own efforts to make reparation for our sins, many though they may be, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit, help to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics, clergy and laity alike, yet attached to the false structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will make the break once and for all and receive true Sacraments from true bishops and true priests who make absolutely no concessions to conciliarism or its false shepherds at any time for any reason, men who are never afraid to speak the truth and act with complete integrity in its behalf, knowing that we never have anything to fear from the truth about the state of the Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal and, yes, more importantly, the truth about ourselves.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?