Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
February 25, 2010

Union of Americanists

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Francis "Cardinal" George made a pilgrimage to Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, on Tuesday, February 23, 2010, to address members of the diabolical sect known as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," known popularly as the Mormons. Did Francis "Cardinal" George go to Provo, Utah, to convert the Mormons, to urge them to abandon their false religion  that can in no way serve as a means of personal sanctification and salvation? Of course not. That would be apostasy in the minds of conciliarists. He went to embrace his fellow Americanists in the false sect founded by the Masonic confidence man, Joseph Smith

SALT LAKE CITY 23 February 2010 Catholics and Latter-day Saints are important partners in the defense of religious freedom in the public square. That was the message His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. delivered today at Brigham Young University to thousands of students, faculty and others tuning in by satellite and on the Internet. Two apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Quentin L. Cook, were present for the address, as was Bishop John C. Wester of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

In his address, Cardinal George explained that religious freedom cannot be reduced to just freedom of worship or even freedom of private conscience, but that individual and religious groups must have the right to exercise their influence in the public square.

“The lesson of American history is that churches and other religious bodies prosper in a nation and a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that civil government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practices of its citizens and Almighty God,” he said.

Speaking of the partnership Catholics and Mormons have in defending religious freedom, Cardinal George acknowledged that “sometimes our common advocacy will make one of us the target of retribution by intolerant elements” but emphasized that such actions should not deter religions from making their voices heard. “In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and religious institutions could become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality.”

Cardinal George pointed out that “society is based not on individuals but on families, on mothers and fathers with duties and obligations to their children, on children who learn how to be human, in the school of love, which is the family, which tells us we are not the center of the world individually.”

He also lauded the growing relationship between the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their joint efforts, such as providing aid to the poor and needy and combating pornography.

“I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country,” he said.

“Our churches have different histories and systems of belief and practice, although we acknowledge a common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Cardinal George is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the first Chicago native to become archbishop of Chicago. He presides over 2.3 million Catholics in the Chicago Archdiocese.

While in Utah to deliver an address at Brigham Young University, Cardinal George toured the Family History Library and Temple Square and met briefly with the First Presidency and later with other senior Church leaders at Church headquarters.

“It was a pleasure to host Cardinal George at Church headquarters and BYU,” said Elder M. Russell Ballard of The Quorum of Twelve Apostles. “He is a man of great faith and capacity and I enjoyed the opportunity to talk with him about our shared values and interests.” (Cardinal George Addresses Religious Freedom in Speech at BYU; for a brief synopsis of the penultimate Americanist religion that is Mormonism, please see Pure, Unadulterated Americanism.)


True to his own false religion, conciliarism, Francis "Cardinal" George, a man who enabled a serial child molester in his presbyterate (Cardinal tried to spring abuser, changed view) and who protected the corrupt former conciliar "ordinary" of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Daniel Leo Ryan (see Sick From Head to Toe), and who has endorsed a truly bizarre tabernacle (F.O.B. (Friends of Baal)) and who continues to enable the radical leftist and supporter of pro-abortion politicians named "Father" Michael Pfleger, has gone to Utah not to convert the Mormons but to praise the falsehood of "religious freedom" that is near and dear to their own Americanist hearts and to exhort them to explain to them that "interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and religious institutions could become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality."

Excuse me, "Cardinal" George, there is only one bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality, Catholicism. And nothing else

That "government and society" have reduced "religion to a purely private reality" is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the inter-related forces of Judeo-Masonry, of which Mormonism is an essential constituent element. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its own "reconciliation" to the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the modern civil state, including the United States of America, was founded and continues to operate. The true religion is not enhanced in her efforts to oppose the evils of the day which, proximately speaking, have arisen from the proliferation of false religions and the constant mutation of their errors into means of repressing articles contained in the Deposit of Faith and have resulted in the triumph of statism as the sterile, perverse replacement for the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church.

It won't take much time to dissect the multiple errors inherent in Francis "Cardinal" George's address to the Mormons at Brigham Young University two days ago, especially in light of two recent articles on this site that have sought to deal fairly comprehensively with the same issues (see Not A Mention of Christ the King and A Manifesto For Christ the King).

First, although, as I noted endlessly on this site, the Catholic Church can adapt herself to any legitimate form of government, including the specific institutional arrangements found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and admitting a well that she will adapt herself to the concrete circumstances in which she finds herself to continue her work of teaching and preaching and sanctification, she does insist that the civil state recognize her as the true religion and that those in civil authority yield to her in matters pertaining to the good of souls. Pope after pope made this clear in encyclical letters in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries that bind our consciences today just as much as when they were written (see The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching), including Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. " (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)


Second, the civil state in the United States of America is not exempted from this obligation, no matter how many times conciliarists, inebriated with the breath of Americanism, assert that it is. Pope Leo XIII made this clear in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895:

For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)


The late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, France, put the matter as follows in the Nineteenth Century:

Neither in His Person," Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction, "nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: 'He is our peace, Who hat made both one." (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: 'every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world' (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7). "So then, Card. Pie continues, "when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., 'Separation of Church and State,' for one, and the enigmatic axiom 'A free Church in a free State,' for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist." (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, pp. 21-23.)


Yes, indeed, beware the Antichrist, for it is only the spirit of Antichrist that seeks to have Catholics make their peace with the falsehoods of separation of Church and State and religious liberty, something that Pope Leo XIII explained in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

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.)

Third, therefore, Francis "Cardinal" George's exaltation of the glories of "religious freedom" stand condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. The true God of Divine Revelation does not want theological and philosophical errors being promoted with impunity under cover of the civil law. As Saint Augustine, quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, "But the death of the soul is worse than the freedom of error." Not in the mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and not in the mind of Francis "Cardinal" George, both of whom believe that it is "good enough" for Catholics to work for the common temporal good with other "believers" in the "public square." It is not "good enough" with God, however:

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

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. Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, of March 10, 1791, in Recueil des Allocutions, Paris: Adrien Leclere, 1865, pp. 53-55. (Religious Liberty, a 'Monstrous Right'.)

For We had hoped, affairs having so happily changed, not only that all impediments organized against the Catholic religion in France would be removed with the utmost speed (as We have unceasingly demanded), but also that, as the opportunity presented itself, provision would also be made for her splendour and ornament. We saw at once that a deep silence was preserved in the constitution concerning this, and that there was not even any mention made of Almighty God, by whom kings reign and princes command. You will find it easy, Venerable Brother, to convince yourself of how grave, how bitter and how painful this matter was to Us, to whom has been committed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Our Lord, the whole of Christendom. 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."

But We ought no less to wonder at and grieve over the freedom of printing guaranteed and permitted by Article 23 of the constitution; by which indeed the experience of past times itself teaches, if anyone could doubt it, what great perils and what certain poisoning of faith and morals are encouraged. For it is quite clear that it is principally by this means that, first, the morals of people were depraved, then their faith corrupted and overthrown, and finally seditions, riots and rebellions stirred up among them. Given the present state of great corruption of mankind, these most grave evils would still be an object of fear if - which may God prevent - the free power were permitted to anyone of publishing whatever he pleased. Nor indeed are We without other causes of grief in this new constitution of the kingdom, especially in articles 6, 24 and 25. We shall forbear to expound these to you individually since We do not doubt that your Fraternity will easily perceive in what direction these articles tend. Indeed in such great and so just perturbation of Our soul We are comforted by the hope that the king-designate does not subscribe to the articles of the proposed constitution which We have mentioned; indeed We promise ourselves this most certainly, on account of the ancestral piety and zeal for religion with which We have no doubt that he is enkindled. But since, if We were silent during the peril of faith and of souls, We should most certainly betray Our ministry, We have decided meanwhile to send this letter to you, Venerable Brother, whose faith and priestly strength have been so persuasively demonstrated to Us, not only so that it may be thoroughly known that We most vehemently reject those things which We have hitherto expounded to you, and whatever may perchance be proposed contrary to the Catholic religion, but also so that, having conferred also with the other bishops of the French churches, you would apply yourself to the counsels and studies which We have enjoined upon you in order that the grave evils which, unless they be most swiftly driven away, threaten the Church in France, should be averted, and that those laws and decrees and other sanctions of government concerning which, as you well know, We have never ceased to lament in recent years, and which are still flourishing, should be removed. (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.)


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.)\

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

No one is morally free to propagate error under cover of law. While Holy Mother Church does recognize, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas, June 20, 1888, that the civil state might have to tolerate the private holding of erroneous beliefs and the private practice of the rites of false religious sects, it is a grave and fundamental error to hold that those who adhere to false beliefs, whether religious or philosophically, have a "right" from God to propagate them openly in civil society. They do not. Such, however, is of the essence of the American founding that has been praised so lavishly by Joseph Ratzinger in his days before becoming "Benedict XVI," a praise he lavished in his December 22, 2005, curial address as follows:

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution.


Alas, the American Revolution and the French Revolution are but two aspects of the same anti-Incarnational coin, manifesting its beliefs in the supremacy of the "rights of man" in different ways. The American Revolution paid obeisance to a generic concept of God and to man's fallen nature, relying upon the Roman concept of "civic virtue" to build the pluralist state of which the conciliarists, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, are so enamored. The French Revolution posited the pantheistic deification of man. They differ only in details and in methodology. Both are united at the hip concerning the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King. It is not for nothing that Joseph Ratzinger wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982 that the "Second" Vatican Council represented the "Church's official reconciliation with the principles of the new era inaugurated in 1789."


The "market place of ideas" concept as a foundation of social order is patently false. The Catholic Church does not seek a "peaceful coexistence" (thank you, Nikita Khrushchev!), with false religions in perpetuity. The Catholic Church seeks the unconditional conversion of all men and all nations to the true Faith. If this is not so, then the work begun by Saint Peter and the other Apostles on Pentecost Sunday was for naught, as was the missionary work of the likes of Saint Patrick, Saint Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Saint Martin of Tours, Saint Dominic, Saint Hyacinth, Saint Vincent Ferrer, Saint Francis Xavier, Saint Francis Solano, Saint Josaphat, Saint Peter Chrysologus, Saint Francis de Sales, the North American Martyrs and countless thousands upon thousands of others. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. God does not want the First Commandment violated by the contention that the social order can be indifferent to the true Faith. Anyone who contends that this is so is a heretic and a blasphemer who is an enemy of God and of His true Faith.

Fourth, Francis "Cardinal" George's belief in "inter-religious" cooperation flies in the face of the simple fact that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, something that pope after pope made abundantly clear. Pope Saint Pius X put this in the most succinct terms possible:

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.

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Conciliarists, starting with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his absurd "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," keep telling us that that such a teaching has become "obsolete." This is quite false on a number of accounts, starting with the simple truth that what was absolutely false in 1910 cannot become absolutely true a century later. If something is absolute false, you see, it is absolutely false of its very nature. Was Pope Saint Pius X in error? Did he get it wrong? Were each of the popes who simply reiterated the falsehood of the separation of the Church and State and who condemned religious liberty mistaken? If they were, the true sedevacantists are the conciliarists as their denial of the binding nature of the Catholic Church's immutable Social Teaching must mean that God the Holy Ghost failed the Church and her true popes as they explicated this teaching cum una voce, that is, with one voice, something that the late Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, writing a somewhat veiled rejoinder to the Americanist Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., explained in Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion, 1954:

These principles are firm and unchanging. They were valid in the days of Innocent III and Boniface VIII. They are valid in the days of Leo XIII and Pius XII, who has reaffirmed them in more than one of his documents. That is why, with unyielding firmness, he has also recalled Rulers to their duties, by appealing to the warning of the Holy Ghost, a warning which applies to all times. In the Encyclical Letter, , , Mystici Corporis, the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius XII, speaks as follows: "We must implore God that all those who rule over people may love wisdom, so that upon them may never fall that fearful judgment of the Holy Spirit: ‘The Most High will examine your works and search out your thoughts; because being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the will of God. Horribly and speedily will he appear to you; for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. For to him that is little mercy is granted; but the mighty shall be mightily tormented. For God will not except any man's person, neither will he stand in awe of any man's greatness: for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all.' "

Referring back, then, to what I have said above concerning the agreement of the Encyclicals that have been called in question, I am certain that no one can prove that there has been any change whatever, in regard to these principles, between the Encyclical Letter, Summi Pontificatus, of Pius XII, and the Encyclicals of Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris against Communism, Mil brennender Sorge against Nazism, and Non abbiamo bisogno against the State-monopoly of Fascism, on the one hand; and the earlier Encyclicals of Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, Libertas and Sapientiae Christianae, on the other.

"The ultimate and supreme norms of society, those which are its foundation stone," declares the August Pontiff in his Radio-message of Christmas, 1942, "cannot be impaired or weakened by the intervention of human minds. They may be denied, ignored, despised, transgressed, but they can never be abrogated in a manner juridically efficacious.


Cardinal Ottaviani also discussed the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned Modernist approach of Ratzinger/Benedict himself, that what was true once loses it binding force as circumstances change because its initial expression was conditioned by the historical circumstances that gave rise to it, which is nothing other than blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost.

Here the problem presents itself of how the Church and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.

The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.

To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.

In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus.  In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."

Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."

Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages.  For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows."


Do you see that the late Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani was condemning very specifically the idiocy of Ratzinger/Benedict's "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," which is nothing other than a repackaged and re-labeled means of recycling Modernist suppositions that were condemned by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis and The Oath Against Modernism? Understand and accept this, my friends, and you will see how the whole conciliar house of cards falls down right on top of itself, card by card.

Indeed, some, such as Francis "Cardinal" George, do not seem overly impressed when they are confronted with Pope Pius XII's simple reminder of the binding nature of what is contained in encyclical letters when the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church is reiterated within their texts. Nor do they seem overly concerned with this firm condemnation issued by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, of those who reject the perennially binding nature of Catholic Church:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.


Moreover, nations must give public honor to Mary our Immaculate Queen just as they obliged under the Divine Positive Law to acknowledge the Social Kingship of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Those who believe that they can pursue social order without Christ the King and without Mary our Immaculate Queen are fools of the first order. Fools. Fools.

Those who are ashamed of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen in the "public square," fearing to lose votes or worldly influence or prestige or income, are betrayers of the Holy Faith and show themselves to be most manifestly unpatriotic, for a true patriot wills the good of his nation, which is that it be Catholicized under the yoke of Christ the King and under the maternal care and protect of our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Rosary is the chief means, after Holy Mass itself, to order one's soul rightly to First and Last Things. Civil states have an obligation to organize Rosary processions in our of our Queen who was conceived without any stain of Original or Actual Sin, she who is our Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate.

Francis "Cardinal" George's pilgrimage to the mecca of the Americanist religion called Mormonism was a sad display of some of the leading false presuppositions of conciliarism, which owes much to the errors of the French and American revolutions. What the likes of Francis George and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do not understand is that the Mother of God is no ecumenist. She wants all of the Americas to be under the sweet yoke of her Divine Son and the sacred authority of His Holy Church as she exercises His Social Reign, discharging her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation before intervening as an absolute last resort with civil rulers who propose to do or have in fact done things contrary to the good of souls. Our Lady is no ecumenist. She is no religious indifferentist. She wants false doctrines eradicated from the face of the earth. She wants all men on the face of this earth to be members of the Catholic Church who dissent from not one iota of anything contained in the Deposit Faith, including her Divine Son's Social Teaching.

Concentrating first and foremost on our own souls and getting ourselves to Sacrament of Penance on a weekly basis, if possible, may we call upon Our Lady, Mary Immaculate, to recover by penance what we have lost by sin, seeking freely to lift high the Cross, which is the one and only standard of true human liberty, inviting all men to keep her company at the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of that same Cross in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered by true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permit.

May we make this prayer of Saint Germanus, a Sixth Century Bishop of Auxerre, France, our own on this glorious feast day and on every day of our lives as we serve Christ the King through Mary our Immaculate Queen:

Hail Mary, full of grace, more holy than the Saints,
more elevated than the heavens,
more glorious than the Angels,
and more venerable than every creature.

Hail heavenly paradise,
all fragrant and a lily
that gives off the sweetest scent,
a perfumed rose that opens up for the health of mortals.

Hail immaculate temple of the Lord,
constructed in a holy fashion,
ornament of Divine magnificence,
open to everyone,
and oasis of mystical delicacies.

Hail Mary, full of grace,
more holy than the Saints,
more elevated than the heavens,
more glorious than the Angels,
and more venerable than every creature.  

Hail mountain of shade,
grazing ground for the holy Lamb
who takes upon himself
the miseries and sins of all.

Hail sacred throne of God,
blessed dwelling,
sublime ornaments,
precious jewel,
and splendidferous heavens.

Hail urn of purest gold,
who contained the manna Christ,
the gentle sweetness of our souls.

Hail most pure Virgin Mother,
worthy of praise and veneration,
fount of gushing waters,
treasure of innocence,
and splendor of sanctity.

O Mary, lead us to the port of peace and salvation,
to the glory of Christ
who lives in eternity
with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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.

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 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.