Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 4, 2008

Without a Clue or a Care

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As has been noted on numerous occasions on this website, Holy Mother Church has always used great caution when proceeding with the cause for canonization of a pope or a bishop. The standard of a pope or a bishop's Particular Judgment is higher than that of others. A pope, for example, has on his immortal soul the responsibility to see to it that the Church is governed well, that the bishops he appoints are men who will discharge their own duties in behalf of the salvation of souls well, and that he, the particular pope, has done everything imaginable to spread the Catholic Faith as one and only foundation of personal and social order. A bishop, especially one who has been a diocesan ordinary, has the solemn responsibility to supervise the priests and consecrated religious under care, making sure as well that the Gospel is preached to non-Catholics, that no effort be spared to win the conversion of non-Catholics to the Faith.

To this end, of course, a pope or a bishop must foster personal holiness in his own life and to encourage that holiness among the clergy and the consecrated religious and the lay faithful. Holiness of life is more than a matter of saying one's prayers with promptness and participating in public acts of piety and devotion. Holiness of life involves a deep and dread detestation of the horror of sin, which was responsible for causing the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost to suffer unspeakable horrors during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother to have Seven Swords of Sorrow thrust through and through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. It is one thing to sin and to be sorry, seeking out the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacrament of Penance. It is one thing to have genuine compassion on a fellow erring sinner, understanding the weaknesses to which our fallen natures subject us and the degree to which Our Lord desires to manifest forth His ineffable Mercy upon us sinful creatures. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly in one's own life and/or to reaffirm, either by acts of omission or commission, others in lives of unrepentant sins, far worse yet to look the other way as sinful actions are justified and glorified.

No pope and no bishop has discharged his responsibilities before God well if he countenances the commission of grave sins, no less continues to be complicit in their commission by continuing to appoint and/or promote those who are guilty of them or who are, at the very least, indifferent to their public promotion by those in official ecclesiastical positions. No deceased pope or bishop who is indifferent to or in the least supportive of the horror of sins of one kind or another is a worthy candidate for canonization. Indeed, such a pope or a bishop would be in need of many prayers for the repose of his immortal soul. He would not be held up as a "model" for the faithful to imitate, no less one who has gone to Heaven and can be invoked with confidence as an intercessor before the very throne of the Most Blessed Trinity.

The horror of personal sin matters little to the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, sad to say. None other than the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger said in a Zenit interview on October 1, 2001, that he had "nothing against" those who to go what purports to Mass in the conciliar structures but once a year:

I have nothing against people who, though they never enter a church during the year, go to Christmas midnight Mass, or go the occasion of some other celebration, because this is also a way of coming close to the light. Therefore, there must be different forms of involvement and participation. ("On the Future of Christianity," Zenit, October 1, 2001.)


There is not only no sense of horror of the objectively Mortal Sins committed by those who miss Mass deliberately on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation to be found in this statement of the then "Cardinal" Ratzinger. The then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the [Conciliar] Faith demonstrated once again that he possesses no understanding of the honor and glory due to God Himself. The worship of God is the chief duty of man. Even the pagans of antiquity understood this fact. Ratzinger, however, demonstrates himself to be quite sanguine about a violation of the Third Commandment and the first of the six precepts of the Catholic Church. This is, of course, quite consistent with his rejection of the immutable nature of dogmatic truth. His own very well-documented belief in an Hegelian notion of truth (that it is "anchored" in one place for a time prior to undergoing a transformation in light of the changing circumstances of "modern man," causing it to be "anchored" in another place for a time) demonstrates that he does not really believe in the very nature and essence of God as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through His true Church. One who disbelieves in the immutability of doctrinal truths (that they must be understood in exactly the same way as they have been taught by Holy Mother Church without any shadow of change or contradiction) will not recoil at the thought of the horror of just one personal sin, such as the deliberate missing of Holy Mass by a baptized Catholic on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

This lack of understanding of the nature of God and the horror of personal sin is what makes it possible for a man who gave great offenses to God throughout his priesthood, including the twenty-five years of his false "pontificate," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, to be considered as a "candidate" for "canonization" by the nonexistent authority of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Karol Wojtyla presided over numerous travesties (sacrilegious "Masses" with "rock" music and pagan rituals and overt immodesty and indecency) and abominations (inter-religious prayer meetings) that offended God greatly and scandalized the faithful considerably. Wojtyla further countenanced the protection of "bishops" who promoted one abject evil after another in their dioceses, men who presided over the systematic corruption of the young by means of approving explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining go the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and who went out of their way to protect "priests" whose lives of perversity victimized countless numbers of souls and drove countless numbers of Catholics into the waiting arms of various Protestant sects or into the world of abyss of agnosticism.

Who exactly promoted Bernard "Cardinal" Law, the discredited former "archbishop" of Boston, to be the Archpriest of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore? Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Who has kept Law in that position? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Who retained or appointed and/or promoted "bishops" known to be sympathetic to the agenda of perversity (Roger Mahony, George Niederauer, William Levada, Robert Brom, Theodore McCarrick, Joseph Bernardin, J. Keith Symons, Daniel Ryan, Joseph Imesch, Patrick Ziemann, Rembert G. Weakland, Howard Hubbard, Tod Brown, Lawrence Soens, Joseph Hart, Andrew O'Connell, Francis Mugavero, John Raymond McGann, Thomas Daily, William Murphy, Donald Wuerl, et al.)? Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Who has kept Mahony in power while promoting the likes of Levada and Niederauer and Wuerl? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. And, mind you, this is is to say nothing about how Wojtyla's appointees as conciliar "ordinaries" permitted various apostasies, both those "approved" by conciliarism and those that exceed even those rather liberal bounds, to be taught in the "official" quarters of various Catholic institutions of education under conciliar control.

No, none of that means anything to an assessment of the life of the "servant of God John Paul II." The fact that he lived through the "terrible tragedies of the 20th century" and that he had "discovered" that these evils could be stopped by the "love of God" qualifies a Modernist and a blasphemer and an enabler of major crimes against souls to be considered as a serious candidate for "canonization" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Never mind the fact that Wojtyla rejected the path to peace found in the Social Reign of Christ the King and that he did not believe that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. No, Karol Wojtyla is, according to his "successor" as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a "courageous servant" who has left behind an "inestimable spiritual heritage."

"The Servant of God John Paul II had known and personally lived the terrible tragedies of the 20th century, and he asked himself during a long time what could stop the advance of evil," the German Pontiff recalled. "The answer could only be found in the love of God. Only divine mercy, in fact, is capable of putting limits on evil; only the omnipotent love of God can topple the dominance of the evil ones and the destructive power of egotism and hate. For this reason, during his last visit to Poland, upon returning to his native land, he said, 'Apart from the mercy of God there is no other source of hope for mankind.'"

"Let us give thanks to God because he has given the Church this faithful and courageous servant," the Pope concluded. "And while we are offering for his chosen soul the redeeming Sacrifice, we ask him to continue interceding from heaven for each one of us, for me in a special way, who Providence has called to take up his inestimable spiritual heritage.

"May the Church, following his teaching and example, faithfully continue its evangelizing mission without compromises, spreading tirelessly the merciful love of Christ, fount of true peace for the entire world." Pope Recalls John Paul II's Testimony


The teaching of Karol Wojtyla? How about his "teaching" on how false religions actually please God?

In Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Religion of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, the Second Vatican Council teaches that 'the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although different in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often a ray of that truth that enlightens all men.'

...The 'seeds of truth' present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God...

...It must be first kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, andin the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial openness to God. At their origin we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, and rites and precepts of the various religions.

..The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. 'The Spirit's presence and activity,' as I wrote in the encyclical letter Redemptoris Missio, 'affect no only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions.'

..."May the Spirit of truth and love, in view of the third millennium now close at hand, guide us on the paths of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and of the dialogue of peace and brotherhood with the followers of all religions! (The Pope Speaks, May/June 1999, "'Seeds of Truth' in the World Religions," pp. 147-149, quoted in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times, p. 548.)


The example of Karol Wojtyla? How about his kissing the Koran? How about his praising the voodoo witch doctor?

"You have a strong attachment to the traditions handed on by your ancestors. It is legitimate to be grateful to your forbears who passed on this sense of the sacred, belief in a single God who is good, a sense of celebration, esteem for the moral life and for harmony in society." (quoted in John Kenneth Weitskittel's Voodoo You Trust?, an excellent and scholarly review of the false "pope's" trip to Benin in 1993--and Wojtyla's apostasies were defended by some traditionally-minded Catholics at the time!)


How about Assisi 1986 and Assisi 2002?

No doubt the height of the fever engendered by the virus of dialogue was the World Day of Peace at Assisi in October 1986. In the plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, the "representatives of the world's great religions" stepped forward one by one to offer their prayers for peace. These "prayers" included the chanting of American Indian shamans. The Pope was photographed standing in a line of "religious leaders," including rabbis, muftis, Buddhist monks, and assorted Protestant ministers, all of them holding potted olive plants. The official Vatican publication ont he World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, entitled "World Day of Pray for Peace," pays tribute to the "world's great religions by setting forth their prayers, including an Animist prayer to the Great Thumb. The world's great religions" are honored by the Vatican in alphabetical order: the Buddhist prayer for peace; the Hindu prayer for peace; the Jainist prayer for peace; the Muslim prayer for peace; the Shinto prayer for peace; the Sikh prayer for peace; the Traditionalist African prayer for peace (to "The Great Thumb"); the Traditionalist Amerindian prayer for peace; the Zoroastrian prayer for peace. In a glaring symptom of the end result of ecumenism. and dialogue in the Church, the only prayer not included in the official book is a Catholic prayer for peace. There is only a Christian prayer for peace, which appears after the prayers of the "world's great religions"--and after the Jewish prayer. Catholicism has been subsumed into a generic Christianity.

At the beginning of the list of prayers of the world's religions, there is an amazing statement by Cardinal Roger Etchergary, president of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue. According to Etchergary, "Each of the religions we profess has inner peace, and peace among individuals and nations, as one of its aims. Each one pursues this aim in its own distinctive and irreplaceable way." The notion that there is anything "irreplaceable" about the false religions of the world seems difficult to square with the de fide Catholic teaching that God's revelation to His Church is complete and all-sufficient for the spiritual needs of men. Our Lord came among us--so Catholics were always taught--precisely to replace false religions with His religion, with even the Old Covenant undergoing this divinely appointed substitution. Yet the members of all "the world's great religions" were invited to Assisi and asked for their "irreplaceable" prayers for world peace--the "irreplaceable" prayers of false shepherds who preach abortion, contraception, divorce, polygamy, the treatment of women like dogs, the reincarnation of human beings as animals, a holy war against infidel Christians and countless other lies, superstitions and abominations in the sight of God. . . .

[Italian journalist Vittorio] Messori was merely observing the obvious when he stated that the Assisi 2002 implied that the doctrine of every religion is acceptable to God. For example, the invited representative of Voodoo (spelled Vodou by its native practitioners), Chief Amadou Gasseto from Benin, was allowed to sermonize on world peace from a wooden pulpit suitable for a cathedral set up in the lower plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis. The Chief declared to the Vicar of Christ and the assembled cardinals and Catholic guests: "The invocation to take prayer in the Prayer for Peace at Assisi is a great honour for me, and it is an honour for all the followers of Avelekete Vodou whose high priest I am." The high priest of Avelekete Vodou then give the Pope and all the Catholic faithful the Vodou prescription for world peace, which included, "asking forgiveness of the protecting spirits of regions affected by violence" and "carrying out sacrifices of reparation and purification, and thus restoring peace." This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves, and pigeons and draining their blood from the carotid arteries according to a precise ritual prescription. In other words, the Pope invited a witch doctor to give a sermon to Catholics on world peace.

Among other "representatives of the various religions" who came to the pulpit was one Didi Talwakar, the representative of Hinduism. Talwakar declared that the "divinization of human beings gives us a sense of the worth of life. Not only am I divine in essence, but also everyone else is equally divine in essence...." Talwakar went on to exclaim: "My divine brothers and sisters, from whom much above the station of life where I am, I dare to appeal to humanity, from this august forum, in the blessed presence of His Holiness the Pope...." While Talwakar acknowledges that the Pope is a holy man, he is only one of many such holy men who lead the various religions. Didi prefers to follow another holy man: the Reverend Pandung Shastri Athawale, who heads something called the Swadyaya parivari, which teaches "the idea of acceptance of all religious traditions" and the need to "free the idea of religion from dogmatism, insularity and injunctions," Just the thing Catholics of the postconciliar period need to hear.

The spectacle of Assisi 2002 staggers the Catholic mind, and human language fails in its attempt to adequately describe the unparalleled ecclesial situation in which we now find ourselves--a situation even the Arian heretics of the fourth century would find incredible. Yet, true to form, the neo-Catholic press organs reported the event as if it were a triumph for the Catholic faith--while carefully avoiding any of the shocking images and words that would give scandal to any Catholic who has not been spiritually lobotomized by the postconciliar changes in the Church. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 83-85; 213-215).


Ah, yes, the teaching and the example of John Paul II. Too bad for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that that teaching and example reaffirmed millions in false religions and helped to drive many millions more out of the Church as things that are repugnant to God and harmful to souls were promoted time and time again by Wojtyla himself and his thousands upon thousands of appointees (who suborned the same in their own hundreds of thousands of appointees and subordinates).

Who, for example, appointed Christoph Schonborn as the conciliar"archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, in September 14, 1995? Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Who is a close friend and mentor to Christoph Schonborn? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has said nothing as his protege, "Cardinal" Schonborn, remains silent in the face of this particular outrage to souls that is taking place on archdiocesan grounds in Vienna:

VIENNA, March 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Dommuseum in Vienna, the art gallery attached to the historic Catholic cathedral of St. Stephen, is running an exhibition of works by a self-avowed Marxist atheist, titled "Religion, Flesh and Power", that includes depictions of explicit [perverted actions] in "religious" themed art. Prominent among the works is a rendition of the Last Supper with Christ and His Apostles depicted as homosexuals engaged in an orgy. Another work depicts Christ on the cross without a face but with uncovered genitals. The Last Supper rendition is displayed in a prominent place near the entrance to the exhibition.

Vienna sculptor and painter Alfred Hrdlicka is said to be very pleased that his works are being displayed in a museum associated with the Church.

The director of the Dommuseum, Mr. Bernhard Böhler, said that visitors have asked "in a more or less emotional way," why the Apostles are depicted copulating. According to the director, the artist responded, "There were no women around".

Gloria Television made a short video of the works that shows Hrdlicka's depiction of the flagellation of Christ with a nude Roman soldier performing a lewd act on the Lord's body. The video relates that one visitor to the exhibition said, "Our country can do without scribblers and agitators like Hrdlicka."

Vienna's Cathedral and Diocesan Museum was founded in 1933, and describes itself as "one of the exquisite gems amongst the many museums in Vienna". It is located adjacent to the Archbishop's Palace of Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, O.P.

The church museum boasts on the website that it offers special tours for school children saying they "learned a lot" about the Cathedral patron St. Stephen and the Christian faith. Vienna cathedral museum exhibits lewd, blasphemous homosexual 'religious' art; Dommuseum Wien, official website of the Dommuseum. (Links found at Novus Ordo Watch: Exposing the new pseudo-Catholic Church of Vatican II.)


How can any legitimate Catholic "archbishop" sit by and let such a perverse exhibit be displayed within the confines of his own archdiocesan boundaries, no less than on the property of his own cathedral? A truly Catholic archbishop or bishop would run the risk of arrest for leading acts of reparation on the grounds of any secular institution displaying such sacrilegious abominations. An "archbishop" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism permits such a display to take place on his own grounds, demonstrating an utter lack of understanding of the necessity of defending the honor and majesty of God and the necessity of shielding from the eyes of men anything that is gravely sinful in itself and an occasion of sin, if not an actual enticement to commit sin, for those who view such sinful displays under the aegis of what purports to be the Catholic Church. It is this same lack of understanding of the honor due to God Himself and of the horror of sin that causes so many "Catholic" educational leaders to support, if not actually encourage, the presentation of various plays (a particular with a title so vulgar has been "performed" on numerous "Catholic" college campuses, including that of my own Master's alma mater, the University of Notre Dame) that are scatological and deal in lewdities and profanities.

These are spiritual and moral crimes of monstrous proportions. And there will be not one word of criticism or concern from the man, Joseph Ratzinger, who is promoting the "canonization" of a man, Karol Wojtyla, guilty of grave spiritual and moral crimes against Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Gone from the consciousness of these apostates and perverts is this simple reiteration of Catholic truth about the fact that no one has the right to to bring sinful things before the eye of man as found in Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

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.


All of this, my friends, is demonstrative of an abject loss of the Catholic Faith. No one who thinks supernaturally can make the appointments that have been made by the conciliar "pontiffs" or participate in the spectacles of inter-religious prayer services (the subject of Always Defying God posted today with this article) or remain utterly diffident in the face of the promotion of evils by those who are the official representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. And this is precisely the problem, you see: to deny the nature of truth, as Ratzinger and his fellow conciliarists do, is to attack the very nature of God. To attack the very nature of God means that one is thoroughly "open" to the "opinions" of others, leading to the primacy of subjectivism over the objective nature of God's Divine Revelation and the authority He has given to His Holy Catholic Church to "Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4: 2).

Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger's lifelong warfare against the nature of truth, something that is beyond an argument at all, is at the foundation of why he is so blithe in the midst of the horror of personal sins, although he will rail against "environmental sins," such as "global warming," during his April 18, 2008, address to the Masonic Nations organization in the City of New York. Dale Vree, the editor of New Oxford Review, assessed Ratzinger's subjectivist view of the "primacy of conscience," full of mutually contradictory statements as befits a disciple of Georg Hegel by way of Hans Urs von Balthasar, in November of 2007:


In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. ... Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!

Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.

Ratzinger says, “The relativists ...[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom ...” Huh?

So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality.... Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. ... The Church remains outside’ the State. ... The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth ...”

Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” A Contradictory Definition of Relativism (See also: Cardinal Ratzinger's Subjectivism.)


This is why, you see, that there can be no talk from Joseph Ratzinger about the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Individual citizens must choose amongst themselves how to be governed and to find the "common ethical ground" by which they can pursue justice in the concrete circumstances of any given moment. An ultimate authority, namely, the Catholic Church, to state clearly that there are limits found in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law beyond which the civil state may not go legitimately? That the civil state has the obligation to help to foster those conditions in which its citizens can better sanctify and thus save their souls as members of the Catholic Church? "Truth" is now "anchored" in a different place. Those days of Catholic "hegemony" are gone. No reference at all must be made to such clear statements of Catholic truth as found in Pope Saint Pius X's 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. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."


Injustice to God? The thought does not enter into the mind of the conciliarists, especially the Hegelian and the Modernist subjectivist named Joseph Ratzinger. He is without a clue or a care about how his "predecessor" offended God in so many ways. He is without a clue or a care about he offends God in so many ways, including by remaining mute as gross spectacles that offend God and harms the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross are countenanced with the "authority" of the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Very importantly, of course, is the fact that we must never countenance conciliarism in any way at all nor lend any credibility to the nonexsitent legitimacy of the apostates who head the structures of its counterfeit church, the men who have no concept of the honor and glory due to the Most Blessed Trinity and are absolutely clueless about the horror of personal sins. As one who has escaped from a world of confusion and contradiction, a world where it is believed that the Catholic Church can give us defective, if not invalid, liturgies and where it is possible for "popes" to contradict the defined teaching of the Catholic Church as they defy the anathemas of the past, I can only state my gratitude to those shepherds who have remained firm against any sense of being "una cum" (one with) the apostates who do not believe in God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church and who have been agents of doing incalculable harm for the souls for whom He gave up His very life on the wood of the Holy Cross. I can only pray that more and more Catholics will come to recognize that we must send a clear signal to our children: there is no mixture of truth and error in the teaching, pastoral practice or liturgical life of Catholic Church.

Although we are in the season of Easter, a time of great rejoicing, it is always, of course, a time to do penance for our own sins, which wounded Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ once in time and wound the Church Militant on earth at present, and those of the whole world, offering to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus all of our prayers and sufferings and humiliations and penances and mortifications through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother, offering as many Rosaries each day as our states in life permit us to pray with great fervor of spirit.

Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. May it be our privilege to serve as soldiers in the Militia of the Immaculata, planting a few seeds for the conversion of souls to the true Faith and for the restoration of the Social Reign of her Divine Son, Christ the King, and of His Holy Church.

What are we waiting for?


Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

Saint Isidore of Seville, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2008, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.