"Give Us Caiphas!" "Give Us Caiphas!"

But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. (John 11: 49-51) 

The high priest Caiphas spoke the words above, recorded for posterity in the Gospel according to Saint John, to indicate that he had a "strategy" for dealing with the Roman occupiers as his party of Pharisees maintained their privileged places in the Roman occupation of the provinces of Palestine, including Judea and Galilee. Caiphas may have suspected that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was God in the very Flesh, that He was indeed the Messiah who had been prophesied in Sacred Scripture. Caiphas did not care about the truth of the matter. It was more "expedient" for Caiphas and his party of Pharisees that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be put to death so as to protect their own places in the Roman order of things. The Pharisees had made their "accommodations" to the Roman occupation of Palestine, and they would not let the Zealot party, or any self-professed Son of God upset their status with the people who they held under their thumbs.

Ever eager to appease today’s Talmudists, who are not, at least for the most part, descended from the Abrahamic Jews of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s time here on the face of this earth as He effected our redemption at the price of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America have appealed cried out “Give us Caiphas! Give us Caiphas” to “educate” those within the conciliar structures that the “Jewish people are not reject or cursed, as this view followed from Scripture.”

Here is the relevant part of a “liturgical note” that the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have mandated to be inserted into the missalettes that are used in the pews of Catholic churches within the structures of the conciliar religion to combat any possible feelings of “antisemitism” that might be engendered by the reading of the Passion according to Saint John the Evangelist on Good Friday:

“The passion narratives are proclaimed in full so that all see vividly the love of Christ for each person. In light of this, the crimes during the Passion of Christ cannot be attributed, in either preaching or catechesis, indiscriminately to all Jews of that time, nor to Jews today. The Jewish people should not be referred to as though rejected or cursed, as if this view followed from Scripture. The Church ever keeps in mind that Jesus, his mother Mary, and the apostles all were Jewish. As the Church has always held, Christ freely suffered his passion and death because of the sins of all, that all might be saved.” (The USCCB’s Good Friday pastoral note.)

There are several aspects to this “pastoral note” to be discussed in this brief commentary.

First, as has been mentioned on this website repeatedly, the Jews who demanded the death of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, though certainly motivated with fierce hatred of Him, were acting as the agents of our sins having transcended time. Nonetheless, however, the Jews who did cry out “Give us Barrabas! Give us Barabbas! We have not king but Caesar” bore responsibility for their actions.  

Our Lord warned the Jewish leaders of His time the fate that awaited them if they persisted in their blindness and hatred:

Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.  32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.  33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?  34 Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:  35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

At that time, Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, Therefore, behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from town to town; that upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the just unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! you who kill the prophets, and stone those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, you shall not see Me henceforth until you shall say, Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! (Matthew 23:34-39.)

Our Lord did indeed forgive His executioners, namely, us, on Good Friday, but those who persist in unbelief, neigh well make warfare upon Him by denying His Sacred Divinity and making warfare upon His Holy Church, stand condemned by His own very words.

Second, Biblical Judaism was superseded by Catholicism as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ took His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and as the earth shook, causing the curtain in the temple to be torn in two from top to bottom to signify the transfer of the Kingdom of God from the Temple to Holy Mother Church:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Judaism is a dead religion in which no one can have any hope of pleasing the true God of Divine Revelation or of saving his immortal soul. It has been rejected and superseded and belongs to the kingdom of the adversary, something that, among others, Pope Saint Pius X, William Thomas Walsh, and Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton noted with great clarity:

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise.The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

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.)

From the later words and acts of Simon bar Jonas, it is plain that his conception of the Messiah, as he advanced toward manhood, was that of the vast majority of the Jewish people. Few could imagine the Holy One coming to suffer in atonement for the sins of the world, much less for the sins of Israel. Everyone knew that Moses had been punished for disobedience, that the Babylonian captivity had been the penalty for connivance with idolatry. Yet the old sense of sinfulness had yielded to a certain proud complacency, born in part, no doubt, of an awareness of very real virtues. The Jewish leaders forgot that they were a Chosen People not through any special excellence of their own, but through God's favor to Abraham. This sort of smugness easily takes possession of classes long established in wealth and power.

The doctrine of original sin in particular had been almost wholly forgotten in Israel. True, it still stood boldly forth on the first pages of the Book of Genesis. This makes it all the more astonishing that no one preached it, and hardly any believed it. Perhaps their recent sorrows had made the Jews forget the primal tragedy which was the beginning of human history. Perhaps the vision of towering wheat fields had little by little come to blot out of their minds the memory of the tree of knowledge, the locked garden, the flaming sword. A future woven out of hopeful dreams had become more real than a past as aching and tangible as the rocks of Judea.

It is a curious fact that this sort of idealizing is sometimes the very stuff of which materialists are made. It is because they love this world, its satisfactions and its power, that they turn away from its imperfections to an imaginary world in which they want those gratifications to be fully realized – but in the flesh, in the here and now. Only a mystery of grace could turn such mundane aspirations into a spiritual hope. (William Thomas Walsh, Saint Peter the Apostle, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948, pp. 24-25.)

It is highly important to understand that this process is quite complex. The terminus a quo, the undesirable condition, from which men are removed in the process of salvation is basically sin, the status of aversion from almighty God. A man is said to be saved, absolutely and simply, when he is taken out of the condition of original or mortal sin and brought into the status of the eternal and supernatural life of grace. Ultimately that process in achieved and perfected when the person saved comes to possess the life of grace eternally and inamissibly, in the everlasting glory of the Beatific Vision. There is genuine salvation, however, when the man who has hitherto been in the state of original or mortal sin is brought into the life of sanctifying grace, even in this world, when that life of grace can be lost through the man's own fault.

There is, however, a definitely social aspect to the process of salvation. In the merciful designs of God's providence, the man who is transferred from the state of original or mortal sin into the state of grace is brought in some way “within” a social unit, the supernatural kingdom of the living God. In heaven that community is the Church triumphant, the company of the elect enjoying the Beatific Vision. On earth it is the Church militant. Under the conditions of the new or the Christian dispensation, that community is the organized or visible religious society which is the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth.

We must not lose sight of the fact that people in the condition of aversion from God, in the state of original or mortal sin, belong in some way to a kingdom or an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, the moving spirit among the spiritual enemies of God. Hence the process of salvation involves necessarily the transfer of an individual from one social unit or community to another, from the kingdom Satan to the true and supernatural kingdom of the living God. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 134-135.)

This is important to emphasize as anyone who is unbaptized, a condition that applies to Jews and Mohammedans and pagans, belongs to an ecclesia under the leadership of Satan, which predisposes them to a hatred of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His Holy Cross and His Holy Church and predisposes them as well to wage wafare against all to do with Our Lord, His Church, His Divine Revelation and even the binding precepts of the Natural Law. Amorality must be the result of such hatred.

Monsignor Fenton explained that the Jewish ecclesia had ceased to exist with Our Lord's death on the wood of the Holy Cross, and that Saint Peter, our first pope, sought to bring them out their adherence to false beliefs that could only wind up damning them for all eternity:

This intrinsically social aspect of salvation is brought out in the account, in the Acts of the Apostles, of the end of St. Peter's sermon on the first Christian Pentecost and of the results of that sermon.

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their hearts and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

They therefore that receive his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers. [Acts, 2: 37-42]

According to the inspired word of God in the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter exhorted the men who listened to him of that first Christian Pentecost to “save themselves from this perverse generation.” Furthermore, we are told that the individuals who “received his word” received the sacrament of baptism, and that they were “added” to the number of the disciples of Christ who had been with St. Peter and the other disciples before he delivered his sermon. The society of the disciples of Jesus Christ, the organization which we know now as the Catholic Church, continued with this great number of new members, to do exactly what it had been doing since the day of Our Lord's ascension into heaven.

We read that the group, composed as it was of these new converts who had come into the Church as a result of St. Peter's Pentecost sermon and of the disciples who had entered the group during Our Lord's public life, was “persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.” And we read the same sort of account of the activity of the original band of disciples that returned to Jerusalem immediately after the Ascension.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

And when they were come in they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Batholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James.

All these were persevering with one mind in prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [Acts 1. 12-14]

Both the text and the context of the Acts of the Apostles assure us that the people who heeded St. Peter's injunction to save themselves from this perverse generation entered the true Church of God, the kingdom of God on earth. They entered the Catholic Church.

Now, if St. Peter's words on this occasion meant anything at all, they signified that the individuals to whom he was speaking were in a situation which would lead them to eternal ruin if they continued in it. They were described as belonging to a “perverse generation.” They were told to save themselves by getting out of it. The institution into which they would enter by the very fact of leaving “this perverse generation” was none other that the society of Our Lord's disciples, the Catholic Church itself.

The clear implication of St. Peter's statement is that the Church, the kingdom of God, was the only institution or social unit of salvation. Not to be within this society was to be in the perverse generation within which a man was faced with eternal and entire spiritual ruin. To leave the perverse generation was to enter the Church.

In other words, the clear teaching of this section of the Acts of the Apostles is precisely that given by Pope Leo XIII in the opening passages of his encyclical Humanum genus. The central point of this teaching is that the entire human race is divided between the kingdom of God, the ecclesia, and the kingdom of Satan. To be saved from the kingdom of Satan is to enter the kingdom of God. In this context it is not difficult to see how, by God's institution, the Catholic Church, the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, is presented as a necessary means for the attainment of salvation. By God's institution the process of salvation itself involves a passage from the kingdom of Satan into the ecclesia.

Now, for the proper understanding of this doctrine, especially in view of the teaching on this subject contained in some recent books and articles, it is imperative to understand the religious condition of the people to whom St. Peter delivered his sermon on that first Christian Pentecost. Again, the Acts of the Apostles contains essentially important information.

This book describes them in general with the statement that “there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven.” The homelands of these men are enumerated in the statement attributed to the multitude itself.

And they were all amazed and wondered saying: Behold, are not all these that speak, Galileans?

And how have we heard, every man, our own tongue wherein we were born?

Parthinians and Medes and Elamites and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,

Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers from Rome,

Jews also and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. [Acts 2: 7-11.]

According to the text of the Acts, a great many of these people were pilgrims, men and women who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the great Jewish feast of Pentecost. Our Lord had died on the Cross only a little over seven weeks before St. Peter delivered that sermon, and many of the people who listened to St. Peter must have been on their way to Jerusalem at the very time Our Lord died. They had begun their pilgrimage as an act of worship in the Jewish religion at the very time when the Jewish religion was the one approved especially by God and when the Jewish politico-religious commonwealth was actually the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia of the Old Testament.

These people as individuals probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution and the murder of the Incarnate Word of God. They had started on their journey as members of God's chosen people, the people of His covenant. Their journey to Jerusalem was made precisely in order to worship and honor God. They were truly devout individuals.

Yes, seven weeks before, the religious body to which they belonged had ceased to be God's ecclesia. The Jewish politico-religious social unit had definitively rejected Our Lord, the Messias promised in the Old Testament. This company had hitherto enjoyed its position as God's ecclesias or His congregatio fidelium by virtue of the fact this it had accepted and professed its acceptance of the divine message about the promised Redeemer. In rejecting the Redeemer Himself, this social unit had automatically rejected the teaching God had given about Him. The rejection of this message constituted an abandonment of the divine faith itself. By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan.

While the great Jewish social unit was rejecting Our Lord and thus repudiating its acceptance of the divinely revealed message about Him, the little company of the disciples, organized by Our Lord around Himself, retained its faith. It continued to accept and to obey Our Lord and to believe the divinely revealed that centered around Him. Thus at the moment of Our Lord's death on Calvary, the moment when the old dispensation was ended and the Jewish religious association ceased to be the supernatural kingdom of God on earth, this recently organized society of Our Lord's disciples began to exist as the ecclesia or the kingdom.

This society was the true continuation of Israel. The men who were within it were the true sons of Abraham, in that they had the genuine faith of Abraham. This society was the new association of the chosen people. Its members were, as St. Paul called them, the elect or the chosen of God.

It must be understood, incidentally, that this society was actually God's supernatural kingdom on earth in a much more complete and perfect sense than the old Jewish commonwealth had ever been. The old Israel had constituted the pople of the covenant. According to God's unfailing promise, the Redeemer was to be born within that company. Yet conditions had never been such that a man had to be within this company in order to attain to eternal salvation. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, pp, 136-139.)

It cannot get any clearer than the following sentence in the selection from Monsignor Fenton's masterpiece of Catholic theology just quoted:

By manifesting this rejection of the faith, the Jewish religious unit fell from its position as the company of the chosen people. It was no longer God's ecclesia, His supernatural kingdom on earth. It became part of the kingdom of Satan. (Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In Light of the Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, published in 1958 and reprinted in 2006 by Seminary Press, Round Top, New York, p. 139.)

Obviously, the conciliar “popes,” each of whom has been a Judaizer, do not accept such clear reiterations of Catholic truth. Conciliarism is a corrupt misrepresentation of the Catholic Faith. It is really that simple.

Third, following the example of the conciliar “popes,” starting with Antipope John XIIII, the American “bishops” have deliberately conflated opposition to Judaism as a manifestation of antisemitism. Time and time again have been the occasion when one conciliar “bishop” after another has rush to a Talmudic synagogue to make “reparation” for this or that “offense” that the Talmudists have taken to an action undertaken by the conciliar Vatican. The most strident instance of this that comes to mind is how the corrupt Roger “Cardinal” Mahony and Sean “Cardinal” O’Malley denounced Bishop Richard Williamson, then of the Society of Saint Pius X, in 2009 following an interview he gave to Swedish television that was aired one day before Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lifted Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “excommunication” upon the four priests of the Society who had been consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988.

I turn your attention to the long-since retired and disgraced Roger “Cardinal” Mahony, February, 2009:

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Cardinal Roger Mahony on Tuesday took the unusual step of banning Holocaust-denying British Bishop Richard Williamson from any Roman Catholic church, school or other facility in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

"Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not — and may never become — a member," said a commentary signed jointly by Mahony, head of the nation's largest archdiocese, and two officials of the American Jewish Committee.

"The cardinal wishes to send a clear signal to the Jewish community that Williamson is not a member or even welcome in the Catholic Church until he renounces his views," said Tod Tamberg, spokesman for the archdiocese.

"The cardinal also wanted to signal that he is in full agreement with the Vatican that Williamson must apologize for and distance himself from his views," he added.

Mahony's measure is the latest repudiation of Williamson since January, when the Vatican announced that his excommunication was being lifted. That same day, Swedish television aired a previously taped interview in which Williamson denied that gas chambers existed and said that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews, not 6 million, perished in Nazi concentration camps.

The ensuing outrage caused Pope Benedict XVI to suspend lifting the excommunication, saying Williamson could only be reconciled with the church if he publicly retracts and apologizes for his Holocaust denial.

The government of Argentina, where Williamson had headed a seminary since 2003, ordered him expelled and prosecutors in Germany, where the interview was taped and where Holocaust denial is a crime, launched a criminal investigation.

Williamson, who is one of four excommunicated members of an ultra-traditionalist Catholic group, the Society of St. Pius X, apologized for offending people, but did not indicate that he had changed his views.

Mahony's ban was contained in a commentary published in the online edition of The Tidings, the archdiocese's newspaper. The cardinal stated that the ban would remain "until he and his group comply fully and unequivocally with the Vatican's directives regarding the Holocaust."

The commentary was also signed by Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, U.S. director of interreligious affairs of the American Jewish Committee, and Seth Brysk, the committee's Los Angeles executive director.

There is no indication that Williamson, who is currently living in Britain, is planning to visit Los Angeles, but the commentary noted that "many religious and civic leaders have used his situation to acknowledge the Holocaust and to affirm its unique and terrible place in history."

The ban resulted from Mahony's meeting two weeks ago with Greenebaum and Brysk.

Greenebaum said he requested the meeting to discuss the Vatican's flip-flopping position on Williamson.

The cardinal took him aback by suggesting the ban, Greenebaum said.

"It took me by surprise a little bit," he said. "It's a very strong, very welcome statement."

Religion experts said Mahony's ban is largely symbolic, but believed to be unprecedented.

"I don't know how it would be enforced," said Philip A. Cunningham, director of the Jewish-Catholic Institute at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "But having positive relations with the Jewish community is important to the cardinal."

Mahony said he plans to visit the Yad Vashem Memorial in Jerusalem this year. (Cardinal Mahony bans Holocaust-denier from L.A. archdiocese). 

Here is the "joint statement" that the "courageous" Roger Mahony, protector of perverted priests, molester of the Catholic Faith, and friend of pro-abortion politicians, issued with adherents of the blasphemous Talmud:

In January, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of four bishops of a small ultra-traditionalist group that broke from the Catholic Church over the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. The pope's action might have passed largely unnoticed had not one of the bishops, Richard Williamson, questioned the historicity of the Holocaust in a previously-taped television interview that was broadcast the very day his excommunication was lifted.

Williamson's outrageous comments set off alarm bells among Jews and Catholics alike. Jews wondered whether the lifting of Williamson's excommunication suggested that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial would be seen as acceptable positions for those within the Catholic Church. Both Jews and Catholics questioned why the Vatican apparently had not thoroughly investigated Williamson, an unrepentant Holocaust denier and open anti-Semite, prior to the lifting of his excommunication.

Subsequent statements by the Vatican and the pope reiterated the Catholic Church's deep respect and esteem for the Jewish people, while sharply rebuking Williamson and other Holocaust deniers. In a mid-February meeting with American Jewish leaders at the Vatican, Pope Benedict said that denying or minimizing the Holocaust "is intolerable and altogether unacceptable." He added, "This terrible chapter in our history must never be forgotten."

Also reassuring to Catholics and Jews was the Vatican's declaration that the Society of St. Pius X, the group to which Williamson belongs, must fully recognize the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of all the popes from Pope John XXIII to Benedict XVI before it can rejoin the Catholic Church. The Vatican also singled out Williamson, saying that before he can be reconciled with the Catholic Church he must distance himself in an "absolutely unequivocal and public way" from his positions regarding the Holocaust.

Williamson's recent "apologies" fall far short of satisfying the letter or the spirit of the Vatican's directives. Yet while Williamson seems unwilling or unable to reject his odious positions, many religious and civic leaders have used his situation to acknowledge the Holocaust and to affirm its unique and terrible place in history.

We are heartened by the many leaders around the world who have rejected Williamson's views. In particular, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Argentine Minister of the Interior Florencio Randazzo, whose country recently expelled Williamson, not to mention nearly 50 Catholic members of the U.S. Congress who wrote to the Vatican to express their concerns.

In the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Williamson is hereby banned from entering any Catholic church, school or other facility, until he and his group comply fully and unequivocally with the Vatican's directives regarding the Holocaust. Later this year, I, Cardinal Mahony, will visit Israel and pay my respects to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust at the Yad Vashem Memorial in Jerusalem.

Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not --- and may never become --- a member. In rejecting the Second Vatican Council, the Society of St. Pius X and Williamson also reject Nostra Aetate ("In Our Time"), one of the most remarkable documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council. Published in 1965, the document changed forever the Catholic Church's fundamental understanding of other religions, including Jews and Judaism.

In Nostra Aetate, the Church explicitly rejects the charge of deicide against the Jews, and affirms the kinship between the Catholic and Jewish faiths. "The Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

Let us remember that the American Jewish Committee worked closely with the Vatican at the time of the Council toward the creation of Nostra Aetate. The horror of the Holocaust, which took place a mere 20 years before, certainly was fresh in the minds of Catholic leaders as they composed the document.

Admittedly, the past two months have been difficult for Jews and Catholics. However, we can take heart that Catholic-Jewish relations in Southern California remain strong. Our commitment to this relationship is exemplified in the many initiatives that bring us together, like the annual InterSem Retreat for seminarians from various denominations; Model Seders that teach Catholic school students about this important Jewish ritual; and, the Catholic-Jewish Educational Enrichment Program, which educates our children and future leaders in each other's traditions.

For our part, as Catholic and Jewish leaders in Los Angeles, we recognize that only by working together with renewed vigilance will we be able to keep anti-Semitism at bay and prevent its reassertion as a legitimate expression.

Cardinal Roger Mahony is Archbishop of Los Angeles; Gary Greenebaum is U.S. Director of Interreligious Affairs of the American Jewish Committee; and Seth Brysk is Los Angeles Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee. A report on InterSem will appear in The Tidings' March 13 issue. (Catholic-Jewish relations: Resilient in face of Williamson episode) 

This is what I wrote a little over fifteen years ago:

Yes, this is the same Roger Mahony, whose archdiocese has had to pay out close to $1,000,000,000 to victims of his spiritual and legal malfeasance (see The Six Hundred Million Dollar Man and His Friends).

This is the same Roger Mahony who, as the conciliar "bishop" of Stockton, California, protected Father Oliver O'Grady despite receiving reports his abusing children:

A documentary film featuring an extraordinarily candid interview with a former priest convicted of molesting children has heightened interest among law enforcement officials here in considering a criminal case against Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, says a prosecutor who has been investigating sexual abuse cases involving priests.

In the documentary, “Deliver Us From Evil,” the former priest, Oliver O’Grady, describes how he abused young boys and girls across central California over 20 years, including a period in the 1980’s when Cardinal Mahony was his superior as the bishop in Stockton.

The former priest, who lives in Ireland, said he was able to continue abusing children in part because of actions by Cardinal Mahony, who now heads the country’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese, here in Los Angeles, and is among the church’s most influential American leaders. Mr. O’Grady says in the film that as bishop in Stockton, the cardinal moved him from parish to parish in the face of abuse accusations.

“The film does certainly charge the atmosphere here in Los Angeles,” said William Hodgman, the top deputy of the target crimes division of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, who coordinated prosecutions of priests in Los Angeles.

The film also “will fuel ongoing consideration as to whether Cardinal Mahony and others engaged in criminal activity,” Mr. Hodgman added.

Joe Scott, a spokesman for the district attorney, Steve Cooley, confirmed that characterization.

The lawyer for the Los Angeles archdiocese, Michael Hennigan, said Friday, “If Mr. Hodgman is suggesting in any way that the cardinal is the subject of a criminal investigation, he is being irresponsible and in our judgment is committing prosecutorial misconduct.”

Mr. O’Grady, who confessed to abusing boys and girls as young as 9 months old and also adult women, said in the documentary that “I should have been removed” from the priesthood by Cardinal Mahony. In 1993, he was convicted on four counts of “lewd and lascivious” acts with two preteen brothers and served seven years in prison.

Cardinal Mahony, who was the bishop in Stockton from 1980 to 1985, when he was appointed archbishop of Los Angeles, has disputed Mr. O’Grady’s account of events. His spokesman, Tod Tamberg, said Mr. O’Grady’s comments in the documentary were not believable.

“The film rests on the credibility of a convicted child molester who lied to his bishop, to his therapists, to the families of the young people he abused and to law enforcement,” Mr. Tamberg said. “He is the classic pedophile. He lies to conceal his activity from public view.”

But Mr. Hodgman said officials in the district attorney’s office believed that Mr. O’Grady’s revelations in the documentary, along with documents obtained from the archdiocese through subpoena, had given new evidentiary muscle in determining whether criminal acts were committed in handling pedophilic priests.

Mr. Hodgman, who appears in the documentary, declined to comment about the content of the documents, which he said his office had spent several years trying to obtain.

In a telephone interview on Thursday from Ireland, Mr. O’Grady maintained that he informed Cardinal Mahony of his “situation” while working as a priest in Stockton. “I told him I would go to counseling and he said fine,” Mr. O’Grady said. “We thought I had resolved it.”

The film was written and directed by Amy Berg, a former television producer. It features a taped deposition from 1997 stemming from a civil trial in Stockton in which the brothers in the criminal case against Mr. O’Grady brought suit against the local diocese, alleging that its bishops — including Cardinal Mahony — failed to prevent Mr. O’Grady from having contact with children in the face of evidence of his history of abuse.

In that deposition, Cardinal Mahony denied having known that Mr. O’Grady was a pedophile. The brothers’ lawyers presented a police report about Mr. O’Grady’s being accused of molestation along with a 1976 letter to one victim, an 11-year-old girl, in which Mr. O’Grady admitted molesting her.

In a 2004 deposition related to civil trials in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahony stated that expressing sexual urges toward a 9-year-old would not be automatic cause for removing a priest from duty. He also said he barely knew Mr. O’Grady, though lawyers in the cases presented warm letters exchanged between the two.

In the Stockton civil case, a jury awarded $30 million in damages to the brothers in 1998, an award reduced to $7 million in negotiations. According to news media accounts at the time, jurors said they did not find Cardinal Mahony’s testimony, that he was unaware of Mr. O’Grady’s proclivities, credible.

“I was in Stockton for that trial,” said David Clohessy, the national director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. “The jurors were crystal clear that they didn’t buy what he was saying.”

The Los Angeles district attorney’s office is currently prosecuting or investigating several criminal cases of sexual abuse by priests in Los Angeles County, where there are also more than 500 civil suits, some naming Cardinal Mahony.

In September, a man from Mexico City filed suit against the Diocese of Tehuacán, Mexico, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Cardinal Mahony and his counterpart in Tehuacán, alleging that the two of them transferred a priest to the United States in 1987 despite knowing he had molested minors in Mexico.

The district attorney has had protracted battles with the archdiocese over obtaining church records, and has long examined Cardinal Mahony’s criminal culpability in the unresolved cases, Mr. Hodgman said.

Criminal cases against church leaders are rare and extraordinarily difficult to pursue. Legal experts said prosecutors might hope Mr. O’Grady’s statements would help them establish a pattern of Cardinal Mahony responding inadequately to reports of abuse.

“What the movie does is confirm that this was a longstanding practice of covering up,” said Prof. Marci A. Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School in New York, who is an expert on church-state cases. “It corroborates evidence. But whether the movie by itself could be aired in the courtroom is another issue” (Film on Perverted Priest Revives Focus on Cardinal - New York Times.) 

Ah, yes, this is the man that has the moral fiber to denounce with such "courage" Bishop Richard Williamson with the full support of the Talmudic rabbis who deny the one and only Holocaust that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ made of Himself on the wood of the Holy Cross. That Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has kept this spiritual and moral monster in power to offend God and to deform souls after this deposition became public speaks volumes about the false "pontiff's" unwillingness to discharge what he should understand to be his duties to protect the souls from such ravenous wolves. Then again, how can a man who offends God by esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and who participates in egregious pseudo-liturgies condemn anyone else as a ravenous wolf when his own words and deeds prove him to be but a hireling in shepherds' clothing?

This is the same Roger Mahony who has enabled every pro-abortion politician in California imaginable, permitting the quintessential pro-abortion named President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton to speak from the pulpit at the now closed Saint Vibiana's Cathedral.

This is the same Roger Mahony who has urged citizens of foreign nations to break the just immigration laws of the United States of America so that they enter and stay in this country illegally while profiting from all manner of "social services" as a result.

This is the same Roger Mahony who has enabled every dissenting Catholic theologian imaginable in the annual festival of apostasy that calls itself the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, held at the Anaheim Convention Center (which is located in the Diocese of Orange, currently  under the control of conciliar "bishop" Tod Brown, a schoolmate of Mahony's at Saint John's Seminary in Camarillo, a man who is notorious for his own brand of the protection of those who have molested the bodies and souls of countless numbers of Catholics). (See a review of the agenda of this "congress" and its association with Call to Action, Which religion is promoted at Catholic congress?)

This is the same Roger Mahony who called for the "de-Europeanization" of the liturgy in his infamous "pastoral letter" of 1997, thereafter going on the warpath after Mother Angelica, the foundress of the Eternally Wishful Television Network (EWTN), after she criticized the pastoral letter in a Mother Angelica Live presentation. To the shock of many "conservative" Catholics, the conciliar authorities under Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II sided with Mahony, not Mother Angelica.

This is the same Roger Mahony who spent $200,000,000 to build the "Taj Mahony" astride the Hollywood Freeway, US-101, in Los Angeles to enshrine his thoroughly Modernist beliefs liturgically, including an amphitheater style of seating that slopes down to the table, which is set apart from the seats by a small rise, signifying nothing other than a stage. An article I wrote for The Remnant in early-2003 was entitled "The New Puritans," thus describing Mahony's desire to eradicate any vestige of Catholicism from Catholic art, architecture, worship and the Faith itself.

This is the same Roger Mahony who took blood money from out-and-out pro-aborts, as I reported eight years ago now, some five years before I admitted publicly that those who defect form the Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately (you will thus have to pardon my references in the article below to the apostates as legitimate holders of office in the Catholic Church):

The vestigial aftereffects of both Original Sin and our own actual sins incline us to sin. The Catholic Church has long categorized seven sins as being the deadly trees from which all other sins branch out in our lives. Pride, greed, lust, envy, anger, gluttony, and covetousness are the seven deadly sins. Although they are separate and distinct from each other, it is nevertheless true that they intersect with one another.

It is no exaggeration to state that the capital or deadly sin of Pride is the queen of all sins, as it was the sin of Pride that Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden when they disobeyed God by eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ultimately, each sin we commit is related to Pride in that we place ourselves and our disordered desires above a love of God and the teaching He has deposited in Holy Mother Church. “Pride goeth before a fall.” Indeed.

Sadly, it is frequently the case that the rich and the powerful believe that they are exempt from God’s immutable laws. Usually, although not always, the rich and powerful people who believe that their money and fame exempt them from all moral truths have come by their money and power deceitfully; at the very least, they have come by it by participating in the cultural or commercial promotion of sin for their own profit and empowerment.

To wit, most of those who have made a great deal of money (and have thus acquired a good deal of fame) in the entertainment industry during the past 30 years have actively participated in undermining the objective moral truths that can be known with certainty by the use of reason and that have been revealed definitively in the person of the God-Man and taught in His Name and on His authority by Holy Mother Church. Almost all aspects of contemporary music, TV, theater, motion pictures, books, magazines, and other media outlets exist to promote the glorification of a relativistic and atheistic view of the world. Indeed, much money is made by those who promote direct attacks on the very tenets of the true Church, enabling addle-brained fallen-away Catholics to have a forum to express their contempt for the very means our Lord instituted to help them to get to Heaven.

Similarly, those who acquire political power come to believe that they are exempt from God’s laws, as I wrote in my column of February 13 [2001], “The Powerful Never Learn.” Many of our own people use their political careers to promote the nonexistent “right” of women to slaughter their unborn children. Others, such as Joseph Mondello, the Republican Party boss of Nassau County, Long Island, New York, actively recruit pro-aborts to run for office on their party’s line as pro-lifers. That was a role that Sen. Alfonse D’Amato performed quite boldly from 1990 until his self-inflicted defeat elevated Democratic Rep. Charles Schumer to the Senate in 1998. However, Mondello and D’Amato are still considered Catholics in good standing, perhaps largely because they contribute generously to their local parishes. The same is true of former Rep. Rick Lazio, who is a parishioner in good standing in his parish on Long Island even though he, like New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, supports the destruction of our Lord mystically in the persons of unborn children by means of abortion.

The phenomenon — becoming more common — of Republican Catholic pro-aborts’ trying to cover their sins with the blood money they contribute to the Church rests on the long-standing receptivity given by one parish after another to Democratic pro-aborts. Indeed, Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd’s blood-money contribution to St. Joseph’s School in North Grovernorsdale, Conn., was so important to Norwich, Conn., Bishop Daniel Hart in 1996 that the parish’s temporary administrator, Father George Parker, was told he was not in the running to be the parish’s permanent pastor after he returned Dodd’s blood-money contribution. Blood money talks. It talks loudly.

True, blood money has always talked in the Church. Fallen men have made up the human element of the Mystical Body of Christ in the Church Militant from her very beginning. Some have resisted temptation and scaled the heights of great sanctity. Others, however, have succumbed to the blandishments offered by the rich and the powerful. The Church is divinely founded and maintained. She will last until the end of time. The fact that she has survived for nearly two millennia despite the bad example given by the weak men who have composed her human element is one of the negative proofs for her indefectibility. Nothing that was merely of human origin and composition could possibly have survived the repeated efforts of those in prominent positions of ecclesiastical authority to scandalize the faithful and aggrandize themselves. And, too, each of us plays a role in the undermining of the Church. Each one of our sins wounds the Mystical Body of Christ and inclines us to sin all the more. None of us is exempt from responsibility for the state of the Church and thus of the world. That having been noted, however, those men are directly responsible for their own actions who do give bad example by succumbing to the blandishments of the rich and the powerful to pervert the Faith or elicit what is in effect a Church blessing for moral evils.

It was not so very long ago that many pastors looked the other way as their Mafioso parishioners became wealthy by plying their evil trades. Mafia chieftains were given full requiem Masses when they died. They were married with special honors. Many of their children were baptized in private baptismal ceremonies. After all, some of the pastors rationalized, they had no direct knowledge of how their parishioners made their money. Pastors of souls thus accepted blood money from blood suckers and merchants of eternal death who made money by profiting from the weakness of others and by tempting people into lives of abject evil (especially through prostitution and pornography and gambling). To his credit, the late Terence Cardinal Cooke, Archbishop of New York from 1968 to 1983, put an end to Masses of Christian Burial (as they are now called) for notorious public sinners such as Mafia chieftains.

Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy are still catering to those among the rich and the powerful who have come by their money or power illicitly. Enter Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles.

Cardinal Mahony has been very friendly to the monied forces within the Democratic Party. As should be reasonably well known by anyone familiar with my writing, I am a critic of the Republican Party, pointing out over and over again that most of its so-called pro-life officeholders are not pro-life at all. They are simply less pro-abortion than some other politicians, and they have absolutely no intention of putting their political careers on the line to try to defend the sanctity of all innocent human life without exception. However, the Democratic Party is institutionally committed to the promotion of the very thing that caused our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to suffer once in His Sacred Humanity on the wood of the Holy Cross (and which wounds His Mystical Body today) — sin — as a matter of public policy and established “constitutional rights.” How can a person say he loves our Lord and yet promote the very thing that caused Him to suffer His horrible death by Crucifixion on the wood of the Holy Cross? It is one thing to sin and to express sorrow for it in the Sacrament of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to promote it under cover of law, which is what the Democratic Party does in its national and state platforms.

Cardinal Mahony has not only looked the other way at all of that. No, he has done far more. Cardinal Roger Mahony has close friendships with powerful men in the Democratic Party, some of whom felt close enough to him to importune him to write a letter in support of the pardon application of a convicted drug dealer, Carlos Vignali, whose father, Horacio Vignali, is a major donor to the Democratic Party and to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. How interesting it is to note that a Prince of the Church does not care to recognize that those who donate to the fully pro-abortion political party have the blood of the innocent on their hands. To do their bidding in any way is to do the bidding of the Devil himself. However, modernist cathedrals and modernist catechetical conventions do not get funded with the contributions of the ordinary schnooks in the pew alone. Those thirty pieces of silver must be accepted if the destruction of reverence in worship and integrity of doctrine is to be accomplished in the desired lavish style.

Cardinal Mahony expressed shock when the full facts of the drug dealer’s pardon story became known. He was particularly incensed that former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, who is still working for the now-beleaguered 43rd president, misled him about how his letter in support of the pardon application would be used. Why the shock, your Eminence? If you lie down with pro-abortion dogs and take their money, you are going to wake up with the dirt left by their pro-abortion fleas. [2009 note: Mahony later apologized for his having written the letter, see: Los Angeles Cardinal Regrets Role in Pardon - New York Times. Mahony noted after this story broke that he acted on the basis of people he "respected," including California State Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, a Catholic pro-abort who is now the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles. Mahony "respects" pro-aborts, people who support the shedding of the blood of the innocent in this country at the present time under cover of the civil law, while he froths at the mouth about Bishop Williamson, who has killed no innocent human being and who has not justified the killing of any innocent human being.]

Cardinal Mahony was the first bishop in the United States to endorse President-elect Bill Clinton’s decision in November of 1992 to seek to change the military’s long-standing policy concerning practicing homosexuals and lesbians in the military. He had Clinton speak from the pulpit at St. Vibiana’s Cathedral on Palm Sunday one year. According to news reports, in 1996 his functionaries in the Los Angeles archdiocesan chancery office were involved in helping illegal aliens register to vote so that they could vote for the pro-abortion Catholic Loretta Sanchez against the pro-life Robert K. Dornan. Mahony even went so far as to bestow Papal honors on two purveyors of indecency and filth in the media — Rupert Murdoch, a 33rd-degree Mason, and Roy Disney. Nothing like a little blood money from those who have produced motion pictures and TV programs glorifying sin, eh? And that is to say nothing of how Mahony has used the money of ordinary Catholics to try to “de-Europeanize” the liturgy, which has been the subject of many commentaries and analyses in the past few years.

Cardinal Roger Mahony has no one but himself to blame for the embarrassment he is suffering at present. He does not care to learn the simple fact that those who support the promotion of sin under cover of law are unfit to hold any office — and that they should be given no quarter in the Church whatsoever. Many are the good and sincere people who have come by their money honestly, people who want to use the treasure God has bestowed upon them for the promotion of reverence in worship and integrity of doctrine. How sad it is that those good people are mocked and reviled as reactionaries while the supporters of the baby-killing political party and soul-killing entertainment fare are honored as great supporters of the “progressive” Church. Says a lot right there, doesn’t it?

Naturally, the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton, who promised to run the most ethical administration in history, sold everything they could to the highest bidder should come as absolutely no surprise. They are base, coarse, vile, vulgar, greedy, prideful human beings who believe in all utter arrogance and righteousness that they can do whatever it is they want whenever it is they want with complete and total impunity, responding with indignation when forced to answer questions about their corrupt practices. During the entire course of their lives they have done only that which comes naturally to them. (It would be highly ironic if one of Clinton’s own pro-abortion U.S. attorneys, Mary Jo White of the Southern District of New York, turns out to be the one who forces the crooks from Arkansas and Chappaqua to finally face a jury of their peers for the first time in their lives.)

However, even though scandals are part of the Church’s history and are sewn into the fabric of fallen man, it is nevertheless true that each man is responsible for his own actions and that those in positions of ecclesiastical authority have a special obligation to avoid even the whiff of scandal and favoritism. Cardinal Mahony, who claims to be an advocate of the poor and the downtrodden, certainly likes to hobnob with the rich and the famous who help subsidize and perpetuate the culture of death in this country, and export it around the world. Now he has no one to blame but himself for his embarrassment at doing the bidding of blood-sucking pro-aborts; and nothing to blame but his own desire to ingratiate himself to all of the wrong people in high places for all of the wrong reasons. (Droleskey columns -- Blood Money Talks) 

It should come as no surprise that Roger Mahony, a friend of apostates and infidels and baby-killers, including the just re-elected Mayor of Los Angeles, California, Antonio Villaraigosa, and the current Governor of the State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Gray Davis, Schwarz's predecessor, would grovel before his Talmudic paymasters. It's an easy thing to take "blood money" from the spiritual descendants of those who bought Judas Iscariot for thirty pieces of silver when you take blood money from those who have the blood of the innocent dripping from their hands by means of their active support for the mystical dismemberment of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ under cover of the civil law. Each of these three (Villaraigosa, Schwarzenegger, Davis) supporters of chemical and surgical baby-killing is a Catholic. Each resides in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Each is in perfectly "good standing" with Roger Mahony.

What's not in "good standing" with Roger Mahony? The Catholic Faith as it has been taught from time immemorial.

What's not in "good standing" with Roger Mahony? The Immemorial Mass of Tradition that goes back in all of its essential elements to the first pope, Saint Peter, who was instructed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ between the time of His Resurrection on Easter Sunday and His Ascension to the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday.

What's not in "good standing" with Roger Mahony?

Protecting the innocence and purity of children, whom he assaults with the vilest means of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, a form of instruction that was specifically prohibited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929. I know. I know. That's one of those "contingent" documents that has become "obsolete" given the changed circumstances of "modern man."

What's not in "good standing" with Roger Mahony?

Seeking with urgency the unconditional conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith before they die.

It was not an accident that Roger Mahony acted as he did in concert with two adherents of the blasphemous Talmud in "banning" Bishop Williamson from the formerly Catholic facilities that are now in the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Mahony has good intelligence sources, some of which probably saw the report an internet report [that proved to be spurious] that a possible "landing" for Bishop Williamson might be Mel Gibson's Holy Family Chapel in Malibu, California, speculation that a reader of this site who attends that chapel and has first-hand knowledge of the matter says is without any foundation whatsoever.

Mahony's joint statement with the Talmudic rabbis is a "shot across the bow" (based upon the spurious  eport) at Mel Gibson, who made comments construed to be anti-Semitic, for which he later apologized, in a drunken tirade on July 28, 2006, as he was being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Mahony is saying to Mel Gibson: "You may have your own chapel. I have no control over what goes on there. Nevertheless, I'm putting you on notice--with your 'reputation' as a 'bigot'--that you better not even think of bringing Bishop Williamson to Malibu. You will have to pay dearly with my Jewish supporters if you do. You want to relive that bad publicity from 2006? Invite Bishop Williamson to Malibu and I will show you bad publicity that will hurt your next motion picture's box office receipts."

Mel Gibson has made no statements about Bishop Williamson's interview with Swedish television that aired on January 21, 2009. Even the possibility that such a "notorious sinner" as Bishop Williamson might be given "refuge" in the Los Angeles area is enough to cause a conciliarist such as Mahony to preen and posture for his Talmudic friends. Conciliarists such as Roger Mahony, men who are themselves and who tolerate in others forms of theological dissent that go beyond even the approved apostasies of conciliarism, will not tolerate anything of the "old religion" whatsoever that infuriates their Talmudic paymasters.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the vitriol against Bishop Williamson that has poured out of the mouths of conciliarists in the past six weeks is indicative of the extent to which the conciliar revolution, much like the Bolshevik Revolution itself, has been undertaken with the full support and encouragement of those who adhere to the blasphemous Talmud and who will not rest until and unless every Catholic on the face of this earth ceases all efforts to convert them and/or to identify their Christophobic efforts to undermine and to attack the true Faith in civil law, in the classrooms of "public schools," in motion pictures and television programming, in magazines and newspapers as they promote one abject sin after another in the name of "civil" and "religious" liberty and in the name of "tolerance, "diversity" and "pluralism." (From: Yes, Sir, Master Scribe.)

It was less than a month that Sean Patrick O’Malley, O.F.M., Cap., stepped up the plate to prove his own Talmudic-friendly bona fides:

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, facing a group of local Jewish leaders upset by the Vatican's decision to lift the excommunication of a Holocaust denier, yesterday declared the Holocaust to be "the worst crime in human history" and pledged to move a Holocaust memorial to the new Braintree headquarters of the Archdiocese of Boston.

O'Malley and his top advisers on interfaith relations met for about 75 minutes late yesterday with about 20 Jewish leaders at the downtown office building that serves as the headquarters for many Jewish community organizations. Two Holocaust survivors, Israel Arbeiter and Stephan Ross, told the cardinal about their experiences during World War II, and the group then discussed the ramifications of Pope Benedict XVI's decision to lift the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including Richard Williamson, who denies that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews.

In a telephone interview after the meeting, O'Malley was unusually forceful in his condemnation, not only of Holocaust denial, but of the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X, the ultraconservative and schismatic organization to which the four bishops belong.

"I sincerely believe that many of the Catholics who have gravitated toward this movement have done so because of nostalgia and a desire to participate in the old Mass, but in some of their leadership there's a broader agenda that's very poisonous," O'Malley said.

But the cardinal reiterated his support for the pope's decision to lift the excommunications, saying it opens the door for the Catholic church to reconcile with as many as 1.5 million members of the society, most of whom live in Europe. One of its congregations worships in Woburn.

"The Holy Father lifted this excommunication unaware of the statements that Bishop Williamson had made, and his intention was to try and begin a dialogue that might lead to reconciliation with this group," O'Malley said. "The alternative is that this group is going to evolve farther and farther away from the Catholic church and probably embrace more and more of an anti-Semitic agenda."

Jewish community leaders said they are particularly sensitive to anti-Semitism now because they perceive a rise in the behavior globally. They noted that there has been a very strong relationship between the Catholic and Jewish communities in Boston for several decades, and said they were pleased by yesterday's meeting.

"It was a good conversation, and obviously the next steps really have to come out of the Vatican," said Alan Ronkin, the deputy director of the Jewish Community Relations Council. "The cardinal understands the pain of the community, and we walked out of there feeling that both sides had been heard."

The current crisis presents the first real opportunity for O'Malley to publicly demonstrate leadership on Catholic-Jewish relations in Boston.

At yesterday's meeting, O'Malley said he had been planning to move a large outdoor menorah that commemorates the Holocaust from the grounds of the former chancery building in Brighton to the new pastoral center in Braintree. He suggested a Holocaust memorial service to mark the transfer. The Jewish community leaders agreed to participate in the ceremony.

O'Malley also said that he would travel this week to Washington for a memorial service for Rabbi Leon Klenicki, the longtime interfaith-affairs director for the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of the cardinal for the past several decades. O'Malley said that after the memorial service, he would meet with national leaders of Jewish organizations to discuss "improving communications."

O'Malley also said the pope's expected trip to Israel in May "will be a wonderful occasion for him to be able to clarify before the world the church's strong feelings about the Holocaust and our special friendship with the Jewish community." (Cardinal reaches out to Jewish leaders) 

This is what I wrote at the time:

The worst crime in human history?

It is necessary to examine this apostate's blasphemous statement in depth before examining others of his statements that were designed to curry favor with the people who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who make war about His Holy Faith by promoting all manner of evils, including abortion, under cover of civil law and in every aspect of popular culture.

Such is the nature of the apostasy wrought by the ethos of conciliarism that a man who thinks himself to be a cardinal-elector of the Catholic Church and the archbishop of a major metropolitan see in the United States of America blurts out such a blasphemous remark without thinking for one moment that the worst crime in history is that which we committed by putting Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God made Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost, to death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

Our sins motivated the crowd on Good Friday to cry out "Give us Barabbas! Give us Barabbas!"

The weight of our sins caused Our Lord to fall three times as He walked the Via Dolorosa from Pontius Pilate's praetorium to Calvary.

Our sins prompted the Roman soldiers and the Pharisees to mock at Our Divine Redeemer as He was stripped of His garments and the unspeakably horrific wounds our sins imposed upon Him during His bloody scourging at the pillar were exposed for all to see.

Our sins helped to give force to the pounding of the nails into the flesh of Our Lord's hands and feet onto the gibbet of the Holy Cross, the very instrument upon which He wrought our salvation.

Our sins inspired the Pharisees to mock Him as He suffered on the wood of the Holy Cross to pay back in His Sacred Humanity what was owed to Him in His Infinity as God, the debt of our sins.

Our sins put God to death.

Deicide is the worst crime ever committed in human history. Deicide, "Cardinal" O'Malley, is the worst crime ever committed in human history?

What was the attitude of the One Who was killed on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in this worse crime ever committed in human history? Did He hunt down His executioners to the far corners of the earth? Did He nurture hurt and resentment over the fact that He, the God-Man, had to come into contact in His Sacred Humanity with the very antithesis of His Sacred Divinity, sin?

No.

This is what the God-Man said as our sins put Him to death in the greatest crime ever committed in human history:

And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Lk. 23: 34.) 

Did Our Divine Redeemer revoke these words of forgiveness?

Did He renege on these words?

Was His forgiveness as fleeting as the morning dew?

Did He, who knows the intentions of all hearts and the circumstances of all lives, "think better" of having forgiven us, His executioners, in light of the fact that we would fall into sins again and again even after we had availed ourselves of His ineffable Mercy in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance?

No.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught us that we would be forgiven nothing unless we forgave our brothers from our hearts, unless, that is, we bestowed upon others Mercy and forgiveness for any and all crimes, whether real or imagined, whether slight or great, committed against as we are forgiven of our own sins by Him in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance through the intermediary of an alter Christus acting in persona Christi:

"Then Peter came unto Him and said: 'Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times.'

"Jesus saith to him: 'I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.'

" 'Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to take the account, one was brought to him, that owed him ten thousand talents. And as he had not wherewithal to pay it, his lord commanded that he should be sold, and his wife and children all that he had, and payment to be made.

" 'But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: "Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." And the lord of that servant being moved with pity, let him go and forgave him the debt.

" 'But when that servant was gone out, he found one of his fellow servants that owed him an hundred pence: and laying hold of him, he throttled him, saying: "Pay what thou owest." And his fellow servant falling down, besought him, saying: "Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he paid the debt.

" 'Now his fellow servants seeing what was done were very much grieved, and they came and told their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him; and said to him: "Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me: Shouldst not thou then have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee?" And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.

" 'So also shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.'" (Lk. 18: 21-35) 

Nothing that anyone does to us, says about us, causes others to think about is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused God in the Flesh to suffer during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart to suffer as those Seven Swords of Sorrow that had been prophesied by the aged Simeon at the time of her Purification in the Temple.

No human being has any right to hold on to any hurt or any personal offense or injury. Let me repeat this so as not be misunderstood: no human being has any right to hold on to any hurt or to any personal offense or injury whatsoever. No such right exists. We must forgive and we must forget. Those who do not forgive and forget as they are forgiven by the God Who forgets will wind up spending their lives in white rage as they strike out at anyone who they believe has ever slighted them even though they may have asked for forgiveness.

Almost every Catholic is familiar with how the legitimacy of the then Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque's claims to have been favored with visits from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was tested by a spiritual director, who asked her to ask Him what her last sin was that she had confessed. Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque gave her spiritual director the answer when she next met with him. Our Lord had told her "I forgot" when Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque asked Him the last sin that she had confessed.

"I forgot."

"I forgot."

How many of us forgive and forget as Our Lord does? That is, Our Lord, although He is God and knows all things, wills to forget our sins once they have been absolved in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance by a true bishop or a true priest. We can do no less. None of us--and I mean none of us--has any right to do any less.

Ah, go tell that the adherents of the false religion that denies Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacred Divinity, the false religion that does not believe in forgiveness, that harbors and nurtures hurt and resentment and seeks to exact vengeance, not justice, upon those they judge guilty of the slightest fault against them and their hideous beliefs that have been rejected by Our Lord and superseded as He breathed His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross as the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The adherents of this false religion, Talmudic Judaism, believe that a crime against a Jew is the worse crime imaginable, and they seek to silence any and all criticism of their nefarious schemes against the Sacred Rights of Christ the King and the Deposit of Faith He has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church with the despicable smear of "anti-Semitism."

Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley served as a modern-day Judas Iscariot in this regard as he accused the Society of Saint Pius X and, by way of extension, all traditionally-minded Catholics of gravitating in the direction of "anti-Semitism:"

The alternative is that this group [the Society of Saint Pius X] is going to evolve farther and farther away from the Catholic church and probably embrace more and more of an anti-Semitic agenda. 

All right, "Cardinal" O'Malley, what is this "anti-Semitic agenda" of which you speak?

Is it "anti-Semitic" to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of those who adhere to the Talmud to the Catholic Faith?

Is it "anti-Semitic" to reiterate the perennial Catholic doctrine that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that was instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday? (From: No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide.)

All this having been noted, though, perhaps the proto-apostle among the conciliar “bishops’” obsession with claiming that the Catholic Church’s teaching about Judaism was the late, corrupt Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin, who, just eighteen months away from his own death from “leukemia,” accused none other than Saint John the Evangelist of being the originator of antisemitism among Catholics:

In the interim, as we await a scholarly resolution of the question of antisemitism in the New Testament, I would strongly urge that the Church adopt a pastoral approach. Father Raymond Brown, a renowned Catholic scholar on the Gospel of St. John, has suggested that the basis of a pastoral approach, at least with with respect to the Fourth Gospel, which is generally considered among the most problematic of all New Testament books in its outlook towards Jews and Judaism. In commenting on John's use of the term, "the Jews," Brown expresses his conviction that, by deliberately using this generic term (where other gospel writers refer to the Jewish authorities or the various Sacred Temple Jewish parties), John meant to extend to the synagogue of his own day blame that an earlier tradition had attributed to the Jewish authorities. Although John was not the first to engage in such extension, he is the most insistent New Testament author in this regard. Brown attributes this process in John to the persecution that Christians were experiencing during that time at the hands of the synagogue authorities. Jews who professed Jesus to be the Messiah had been officially expelled from Judaism, thus making them vulnerable to Roman investigation and punishment. Jews were tolerated by Rome, but who were these Christians whom the Jews disclaimed?

Father Brown maintains that this This is a key pastoral point. Christians today must come to see that such teaching, which an acknowledged part of their biblical heritage, can no longer be regarded as definitive teaching in light of our improved understanding of developments in the relationship between early Christianity and the Jewish community of the time. As Brown says in his book, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, "It would be incredible for a twentieth-century Christian to share or justify the Johannine contention that 'the Jews' are the children of the Devil, an affirmation which is placed on the lips of Jesus (John 8: 44)."

Negative passages such as these must be re-evaluated in light of the Second Vatican Council's strong affirmation in its Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Relations (Nostra Aetate) that Jews remain a covenanted people, revered by God. The teaching of recent Popes has also emphasized this. Pope John Paul II, in particular, has often highlighted the intimate bond that exists between Jews and Christians who are united in one ongoing covenant. ("Antisemitism: The Historical Legacy and the Continuing Challenge for Christians".) 

How was this not blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and Saint John the Evangelist?

As you can see, however, Joseph Bernardin's bias against words inspired by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity and written by the beloved disciple who stood faithfully at the foot of the Cross as the Divine Redeemer shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us and as His Most Blessed Mother suffered the Fifth Sword of Sorrow being plunged into her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart is a distinguishing characteristic of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's relationship with the adherents of the Talmud. Great pains must be undertaken to avoid even the appearance of offending Talmudic Jews while tremendous offenses to God are planned for months, if not years, in advance. Meaning no disrespect to anyone who does not accept the fact that heretics cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately, such an inversion and perversion of truth should be a cause to consider the simple fact that the Catholic Church has never given the appearance of such infidelity and that she is incapable of giving such an appearance of infidelity as she enjoys a complete and perpetual immunity from error and heresy.)

Father Denis Fahey definitively refuted the charge of antisemitism as applied to faithful Catholics who seek the truth in love by opposing Judaism in all its varied contemporary form and who treat its adherents with kindness and dignity while doing what they can, if “only” by prayer,  to plant the seeds of the true Faith in their immortal souls, which is a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy and that the most charitable thing that can be done for anyone whose soul is captive to the devil by means of Original Sin and/or to those among the baptized whose souls are captive to the devil by means of the horror of Mortal Sin:

The annual celebration of the Feast of Christ the King is meant to lead men “to reflect on the Last Judgement, in which Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will severely avenge such insults.” Our Lord Jesus Christ came down to proclaim His Father’s programme for the restoration of ordered life in the world and died proclaiming it. After Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus had catalogued modern errors against the order of society demanded by the infinite dignity of the Life of Sanctifying Grace, restored through the foundation of the Mystical Body on Calvary, Popes Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII have set forth in their Encyclicals the Positive programme for order enjoined upon us by Christ Our Head, Priest and King. In this series of books I am endeavouring to make known that positive programme to as many as possible, so that they may have a thorough knowledge of the order of the world they should stand for as members of Christ. The series is placed under the patronage of St. Joan of Arc. At the beatification of that lovely saint in 1908, Blessed Pius X sadly reminded members of Christ that: “All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics.”

As I was not able to bring out this book when it was originally written, it has been laid aside for years. In the meantime, the need for setting forth the full doctrine of the Kingship of Christ has been forcibly brought home to me by the confusion created in minds owing to the use of the term “Anti-Semitism.” The Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural régime in Germany gave to the world the odious spectacle of a display of Anti-Semitism, that is, of hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.”

In March, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the Archbishop of Tours: “In the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.” These sublime words of the Vicar of Christ have nerved me to do all in my power to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism, including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural Reign of Christ the King. In addition, for over twenty years I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year, on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother, for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for order. Thus I have been striving to follow the example of our Divine Master. Blessed Pius X insists that “though Jesus was kind to those who had gone astray, and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous convictions, however sincere they appeared to be the need of combining firmness in the proclamation of the integral truth with loving charity towards those in error is insisted on, even more emphatically, by Pope Pius XI: “Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on, and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or disguise it conceals itself.”

A day will come when the Jewish Nation will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him Whom they rejected before Pilate. That will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother. Until that day dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the True Supernatural Order of the world must be exposed and combated. (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

Father Fahey pointed out above that Catholics must never be intimidated by the slogan of anti-Semitism. Consider once again these telling words:

Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.” (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.) 

It is important to keep these distinctions in mind as it is not "anti-Semitic" to adhere to the Catholic Faith as it has been taught perennially without making any concessions to conciliarism. It is not "anti-Semitic" to oppose the falsehoods of conciliarism.

It is not "anti-Semitic' to oppose the murderous policies of the Zionist State of Israel.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to oppose Zionism.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to identify that the chief purveyors of objective evil in the United States of America and many other parts of the world are adherents of the Talmud.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to pray and to work for the conversion of Talmudic Jews.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to pray and work for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

It is not "anti-Semitic" to apply the rigors of true historical research into the events that occurred during World War II. Research can be accepted or rejected. To apply the label of "anti-Semitic" to research because those who have conducted it have reached conclusions not accepted by the "mainstream" is the height of fascistic duplicity.

There are countless examples of conciliar “bishops” throughout the world who have paid their obeisance to their Talmudic masters and, as there is no need of reiterating here, the conciliar authorities revised the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews in the Great Orations that had been prayed from time immemorial in the Mass of Tradition when they composed the synthetic concoction known as the Novus Ordo liturgical abomination. It is also important to remember that none other than the “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, personally rewrote the Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews found in the “John XXIII Missal” at the behest of Talmudists who complained about it after the late antipope had issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, before being faced with a firestorm of protest from those he sought to appease after they were displeased by his revision.

Three successive conciliar “popes” have entered synagogues, wherein they were treated as inferiors while Talmudists greeted them with hymns in Hebrew boasting of their waiting for the Messias to come, to reaffirm their congregants that their falsehoods were pleasing to God.

The American “bishops” continue to be good “foot soldiers” of the conciliar program of apostasy.

To wit, John Joseph “ Cardinal O’Connor, who was the conciliar "archbishop" of New York from March 19, 1984 to May 3, 2000, a man who protected moral perverts within his clergy, told a the Masonic B'Nai Brith organization in March of 1998 that "Catholicism and Judaism were meant to coexist side by side until the end of time. This is not what I teach. This is what my boss, Pope John Paul II, teaches, and I work for my boss." Jewish rabbis were amazed at what they heard. Here is an account offered by a "papal" knight, the late Rabbi Leon Klenicki, a pro-abortion rabbi who was present at that Anti-Defamation League dinner in 1998:

Once we invited him [John "Cardinal O'Connor] to talk at one of the Anti-Defamation League dinners. He was there to help present a booklet we had put out. During his speech, he told a story about how he once went to a Reform synagogue and he was the only one there with a yarmulke. Several Reform rabbis who were there looked at each others--I think they couldn't believe it--but everybody was laughing. The Cardinal had a serious point, too. Later that night, he said that he was in pain because there are Jews who do not want to exercise their Judaism because of assimilation or other reasons. It is their duty to practice their faith, he said, to prove that God exists and to refute the Holocaust. He sounded very much like a rabbi when he spoke. The crowd was all around him afterwards, shaking his hand and embracing him. I told him if he ever needed a job I knew a congregation that could use him. (Page 148 of Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor.)

This was apostasy.

This remains apostasy twenty-six years later, and it is the sort of betrayal demonstrated by the fickleness of those who cried out “Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in the highest” on this very day, Palm Sunday, before crying out “Give us Barabbas! Give us Barabbas! We have to king but Caesar” just five days later.

Alas, our own fickleness greets our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at Holy Mass all too frequently before sins against charity are committee in the coffee klatsches that take place in the convivia held immediately thereafter.

Our own fickleness sees us ready to defend the truths of the Holy Faith in general while refusing to root out our disordered attachment to ourselves, our own will, our creaturely attachments, and even to our own persistence in Venial Sins.

Our own fickleness sees us ready to denounce the conciliar officials for their refusal to invite non-Catholics into the Barque of Peter while excusing ourselves from even discussing the Holy Faith with relatives, friends, acquaintances, and coworkers for fear of losing human respect.

We must pray for the conversion of all non-Catholics, including Jews, but we must first of all pray to Our Lady daily, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, for our own conversion away from the world, the flesh, and the devil so that we, especially during this Holy Week of 2024 that began with First Vespers for Palm Sunday on Saturday, March 23, 2024, may climb the ladder of personal sanctity and thus, having made, if at all possible, a good sacramental confession to a true priest during this weeks of weeks, will participate in the ceremonies of the Paschal Triduum, perhaps if only remotely, in such spirit of mediation and thanksgiving that the coming triumph of Easter and the Paschal Season that ensues therewith will prepare us to be partakers of that unending Easter Sundy of glory in the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church and Protector of the Faithful, 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.

Saint Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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