Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part three

An Overview

We have been eyewitnesses of the “canonization” of the late Jewish Marxist agnostic, Saul Alinksy, and every single one of his Judeo-Masonic beliefs.

We have been eyewitnesses of a “papal” endorsement of everything that supposed “dissidents” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have long pushed to support the “leftist” version of statism, which varies only be degrees from the “rightist” version of statism. What some called “AmChurch” has been ratified by a supposed Successor of Saint Peter, an alleged Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, a man who is constantly talking about the necessity of “proclaiming Christ” without his ever doing so when speaking to Talmudists, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Hindus, Communists and other assorted atheists, who did not make one reference to even the Holy Name of Jesus, no less to the fact that He is indeed the Divine Redeemer Who was made Incarnate in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb.

Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the alleged “Pope Francis,” is revealing that “AmChurch” was nothing other than a more honest representation of what was intended by the “Second” Vatican Council than some of us ever understood in our “conservative” days. I was deluded at the time into thinking that “AmChurch” was an aberration. Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s addresses thus far should no one believing that “AmChurch” is anything other than what was intended by Giovanni Battista Enrinco Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick and his twisted revolutionaries all along. There is no excuse for being deluded any longer.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s address to a special joint session of Congress earlier today was actually worse than my own caricature of it six months ago now (see Previewing Bergoglio's Congressional Speech). The title of an article of mine from 2010, Not A Mention of Christ the King, that detailed the lack of any reference to the Divine Redeemer in any presidential inaugural address could be used as the title of this current commentary as Bergoglio made an assiduous effort not to mention the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, therefore making it appear that it is “impolitic” to do so in “mixed company” in a secular forum.

This is the work of Judeo-Masonry, which has long been the tool by which the adversary has sought to condition Catholics to be “silent” about their Faith in “mixed company” and in public settings. Such a bifurcation between the true Faith and the obligations we have by virtue of our Baptism and Confirmation to defend It in all settings is of the essence of Judeo-Masonry, and this infectious disease goes back to the very arrival of Catholics in the Colony of Maryland in 1634.

This is evident from the instructions that the future Second Lord of Baltimore, Cecil Calvert, gave to his brother Leonard prior to the departure of the ship Ark and the Dove that was to take Catholics to settle in the Colony of Maryland that had been chartered under their father, the First Lord of Baltimore, George Calvert. These passages from Robert Leckie’s American and Catholic explain the origins of what Leckie believed was a virtue, “religious freedom,” but which was from the beginning a trap to keep Catholics silent about the Faith in exchange for the “right” to worship privately as “quietly as possible:

Ten days before the ships [taking Catholics to the Colony of Maryland] sailed, Baron [Cecil, later to be the Second Lord of Baltimore] handed his brother [Leonard] instructions enjoining the Catholics aboard the Ark and the Dove to be careful “that they suffer no scandal or offence be given to ay of the Protestants,” and that they hold their own services “as privately as may be,” remembering “to be silent upon all occasions of discourse concerning matters of Religion.” Baltimore not only sought “unity and peace amongst all the passengers on Shipp-board,” but ashore as well, and thus he gave orders that upon landing the Catholics should immediately make a public oath of allegiance to the king, that when a messenger was sent to Virginia he should be “such a one as is conformable to the Church of England,” and that throughout their governance of Maryland “the said Governor and Commissioners [who were all Catholic] treate the Protestants with as much mildness and favor as Justice will permit.”

In these famous instructions, then Cecilius Calvert wrote the blueprint for religious freedom in America. His father had conceived of a colony in which Protestants and Catholics might live side by side in amity, each respecting the rights of the other, and he himself had put it into execution. True as it undoubtedly is that the Calverts were motivated by expediency, that they desperately desired to obtain religious freedom for their persecuted brethren, and that there is no reason to believe that they would have offered it had the Catholic party, rather than the Protestant been in power, the fact remains that the Maryland Colony was tolerant at a time when all others were intolerant, and in this it was unique. As John Tracy Ellis has observed: “Two years before Roger Williams fled the Puritan wrath of Massachusetts Bay to establish religious tolerance in Rhode Island, Baltimore had laid the groundwork for such a policy in Maryland.” (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, p. 25.)

Catholics are not baptized to be “silent upon all occasions of discourse concerning matters of Religion.” They are baptized and confirmed to bear witness to the truths of the true Faith. The process of “conversion in reverse” had begun. The state of apostasy and blasphemy and sacrilege and betrayal that is so prevalent today among Catholics in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world is traceable, at least in large measure, to the “relief” that Catholics, who ought to rejoice in being persecuted for the Holy Faith as Our Lord Himself promised a great reward for those who are persecuted for His Name’s sake, felt at being able to practice their Faith without persecution upon arrival in Maryland in 1634. It is no wonder that some of the descendants of those first Catholics, including the Shrivers of Maryland, have been so supportive of a “quiet” and “respectable” Catholicism as the precondition for good citizenship and “peace” with those who belong to false religions.

By remaining quiet about the very Lord of history itself while addressing the members of the Congress of the United States of America, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has shown himself true to the Judeo-Masonic tenets of Americanism, which counsels “respect” for the false beliefs of others and “prudence” in discussing the Faith in public so as not to cause social unrest.

A true Successor of Saint Peter understands that he has the obligation to speak out in behalf of the Holy Faith in all circumstances no matter the consequences. Millions of ordinary Catholics have preferred death to silence about Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church.  Yes, they have preferred imprisonment, the loss of all of their possessions, estrangement from, if not denunciation by, their own family members, torture, and the most cruel kinds of death imaginable.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio prefers to make “quiet gestures,” such as an unscheduled stop to the visit the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are in locked in a legal battle with the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro over the United States Department of Health and Human Services mandate to provide health care insurance coverage for contraception and other “family planning services” to their employees, in Washington, District of Columbia, rather than raising his voice, which he chooses to keep silent on “moral issues” in front of the powerful of this world, prophetically in their defense when speaking to Obama/Soetoro and before the members of Congress.

One does not have to belong a Masonic lodge, although Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a member of what the late Irish Jesuit, Father Edward Cahill, S.J. (see To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part one, and To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part two), to speak as one influenced by the demonic tenets of Judeo-Masonry. This is a point that Pope Leo XIII made abundantly clear in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view -- namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism.

What We have said, and are about to say, must be understood of the sect of the Freemasons taken generically, and in so far as it comprises the associations kindred to it and confederated with it, but not of the individual members of them. There may be persons amongst these, and not a few who, although not free from the guilt of having entangled themselves in such associations, yet are neither themselves partners in their criminal acts nor aware of the ultimate object which they are endeavoring to attain. In the same way, some of the affiliated societies, perhaps, by no means approve of the extreme conclusions which they would, if consistent, embrace as necessarily following from their common principles, did not their very foulness strike them with horror. Some of these, again, are led by circumstances of times and places either to aim at smaller things than the others usually attempt or than they themselves would wish to attempt. They are not, however, for this reason, to be reckoned as alien to the masonic federation; for the masonic federation is to be judged not so much by the things which it has done, or brought to completion, as by the sum of its pronounced opinions. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)  

Yes, it is the sum of the "pronounced opinions" of Judeo-Masonry that matters, not any specific program or line of action, although there have been programs and lines of action (the establish of public schools and the mandating of curricula of study, legislation liberalizing divorce, attempts at imposing laws forbidding the wearing of clerical garb in public and of the operation of parochial schools, the promotion of contraception and abortion and licentious perversity in civil law and public culture) that members of the lodges have undertaken over the course of this nation's history that were meant to be detrimental to the Faith. The Judeo-Masonic spirit convinces even believing Catholics that the social encyclical letters of our true popes don't apply to the United States of America, and that simple statements of Catholic truth, including the one below from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, have been made "obsolete" over the course of time:

For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.) 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the very embodiment of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of religious indifferentism that has distorted the minds and polluted the hearts of Catholics in the United States of America from its inception. His speech earlier today before that special joint session of the Congress of the United States of America both feeds off of a ready acceptance of the “necessity” of silence about the Holy Name of Jesus in public and reinforces such silence by his own “papal” example.

Bergoglio is a man who has hidden his pectoral cross, such as it is, in the presence of Talmudic rabbis in order to not to offend them, and he has demonstrated in numerous venues, including the chamber of the United States House of Representatives today and in Cuba just a few days ago, that prefers to offend God and all truth, whether supernatural or natural, in order not to offend those who hold office in civil governments.

This man is far from the spirit of the Apostles.

This man is far from the spirit of the martyrs.

This man is far from the spirit of Holy Mother Church’s confessors.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is driven by the spirits that come from depths of Hell, and it is with this in mind that a segment by segment analysis of his address to the Congress of the United States begins.

Jorge’s Judeo-Masonic Naturalism, Junk History and Junk Science

Bergoglio began his address by invoking Moses, moving on eventually to cite four Americans whose lives, he contended, should serve as the “yardstick” by which “time” would judge the work of the members of Congress:

To the first excerpt from Jorge’s speech:

Honorable Members of Congress,

Dear Friends,

I am most grateful for your invitation to address this Joint Session of Congress in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.  I would like to think that the reason for this is that I too am a son of this great continent, from which we have all received so much and toward which we share a common responsibility.

Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation.  You are the face of its people, their representatives.  You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics.  A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people.  To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Comment Number One:

Jorge took a legitimate concept, the pursuit of the common good, and distorted it quite insidiously as the first end of the common good on the natural level is the pursuit of justice, that is, to render to each person that which is his due. A just government, again speaking only on the natural level, is one whose scope of authority is limited to the protection of innocent citizens, securing the borders and providing for the defense of its territorial integrity.

Writing in his The Framework of a Christian State, Father Edward Cahill, S.J., explained the Catholic Church’s teaching about the purposes of the civil state, beginning with the fact that both the Church and the State are perfect societies with their own respective spheres of authority of competence, although the civil state must be subordinate to the Church in all that pertains to the good of souls:

In marked contrast with non-Christian theories and avoiding the extremes of each, stands the Christian teaching on the origin, nature and purpose of civil society. Christians agree with Pagans, Liberals and Socialists in asserting that the immediate purpose of the State is to promote the temporal good and happiness of the people. But in Christian philosophy in contrast with most non-Christian schools man’s temporal good is taken to include his moral and intellectual interests as well as his material well-being; and is regarded as subordinate to the eternal happiness which is man’s ultimate end.

Again, according to the Christian concept of the State, the members come before the State itself, which can never override man’s inalienable rights, nor limit any of their natural rights, except for a sufficient cause connected with the public good. For the State as a corporate body comes into being solely with a view to the good of the members, and has no interests or rights of its own which are not founded upon the rights and interests of the families and individuals that compose it. Hence all the activities and laws of the ruling authority must be directed solely to promote the public good of the citizens. In so far as they clash with that, they are unlawful and invalid. . . .

Again, the State is not something apart from its members as the ancient pagans implied: nor is it a conventional society as the Liberals assert; neither is it the result of blind physical evolution, as the Socialists teach; but it is a union of families and individuals held together by reciprocal rights and duties. It is ordained by the natural law, which has determined its structures, its functions, and the extent and limitations of its powers. Its purpose is to supplement not to override, personal endeavor and the helps of family life.

The State includes the whole organised nation with all the living forces that compose it. The central authority is only one element in it (albeit the most important one), and must not absorb the activities of other lesser forces or organisations, but should foster private initiative whether individual or collective, while directing it along lines conducive to the public good.

Again, the State is subject to the same moral law as the individual person: and the government of the State in dealing with its own members as well as with other corporate bodies or individuals is bound by the laws of justice, charity and religion. The actual government or central authority in the State is usually also bound by positive laws–the fundamental laws of the constitution–which it cannot change without the clear consent of the people.

Finally, the State cannot interfere with the legitimate action of the Church to which God has committed the duty of guiding and assisting men in the pursuit of their eternal happiness. The State might conceivably have been so constituted as to satisfy completely all that is required to supplement individual and domestic activities; and thus might have been the only type of a perfect and supreme society. But as a matter of fact, God has instituted the Church, another society equally perfect and supreme, and committed to it the care of man’s eternal interests, which are thus withdrawn from the control of the State.

Hence, although it is the natural function of the State to promote men’s good and happiness, there are whole spheres of activity–religious, personal and domestic–reserved from its control, but even in these, the State is bound to afford protection and assistance where required. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, published in 1932 and reprinted by Roman Catholic Books.)

This is alien to the Judeo-Masonic mind of the pantheist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic heresy of “separation of Church and State.”

Hey, I promised you that this would a “longer” article. Although I can write shorter articles, I am mindful of the importance of explaining passages that might seem like they pass Catholic muster but are really filled with distortions and misrepresentations.

To the second excerpt from Bergoglio’s speech:

Yours is a work which makes me reflect in two ways on the figure of Moses.  On the one hand, the patriarch and lawgiver of the people of Israel symbolizes the need of peoples to keep alive their sense of unity by means of just legislation.  On the other, the figure of Moses leads us directly to God and thus to the transcendent dignity of the human being.  Moses provides us with a good synthesis of your work: you are asked to protect, by means of the law, the image and likeness fashioned by God on every human face. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Brief Comment and Analysis:

God certainly gave Moses the Ten Commandments, which Bergoglio almost never cites, but He entrusted their infallible explication to the true Church that His Divine Son founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Holy Mother Church is the repository and the teacher of everything contained in the Divine Positive Law, starting with the Ten Commandments.

Perhaps more to the point, Bergoglio chose the “figure of Moses” because he believes that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, which is why he is such a supporter of the Noahide Laws (see Jorge's priests learn about their Jewish roots) as the basis of contemporary civil law, something that his pro-abortion, pro-perversity rabbi pal, Abraham Skorka, has taught him very well. Bergoglio wants a legal code that he believes can “unite” men, and the “figure of Moses is one he considers “unifying” as opposed to the “polarizing” nature of any mention of Our Lord and the authority of His true Church in secular setting. Senor Jorge’s own First Commandment is this: Thou shalt never offend the Talmudists, and his Second Commandment is similar: “Thou shalt seek always to curry favor with the Talmudists.”

To the third excerpt from Bergoglio’s Congressional address:

Today I would like not only to address you, but through you the entire people of the United States. Here, together with their representatives, I would like to take this opportunity to dialogue with the many thousands of men and women who strive each day to do an honest day’s work, to bring home their daily bread, to save money and –one step at a time – to build a better life for their families.  These are men and women who are not concerned simply with paying their taxes, but in their own quiet way sustain the life of society.  They generate solidarity by their actions, and they create organizations which offer a helping hand to those most in need. 

 I would also like to enter into dialogue with the many elderly persons who are a storehouse of wisdom forged by experience, and who seek in many ways, especially through volunteer work, to share their stories and their insights.  I know that many of them are retired, but still active; they keep working to build up this land.  I also want to dialogue with all those young people who are working to realize their great and noble aspirations, who are not led astray by facile proposals, and who face difficult situations, often as a result of immaturity on the part of many adults.  I wish to dialogue with all of you, and I would like to do so through the historical memory of your people. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Brief Comment:

Yes, the mania for “dialogue.” What would a conciliar “papal” speech be without an exhortation in behalf of “dialogue”?

True popes teach and they exhort. The Divine Constitution of Holy Church contains all that men need to do about how to organize their own lives around First and Last Things and thus to contribute to the common temporal good by keeping in mind the just judgment of God Himself, not “time,” upon their immortal souls when they die.

To the fourth excerpt:

My visit takes place at a time when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans.  The complexities of history and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able by hard work and self-sacrifice – some at the cost of their lives – to build a better future.  They shaped fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people.  A people with this spirit can live through many crises, tensions and conflicts, while always finding the resources to move forward, and to do so with dignity.   These men and women offer us a way of seeing and interpreting reality.  In honoring their memory, we are inspired, even amid conflicts, and in the here and now of each day, to draw upon our deepest cultural reserves.

I would like to mention four of these Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton.

This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, the guardian of liberty, who labored tirelessly that “this nation, under God, [might] have a new birth of freedom”.  Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Brief Comment:

Stop!

This is phenomenal even for a conciliar “pope.” Phenomenal.

Although I admit that my having labeled Dorothy Day as a “socialist” yesterday was an over-simplification of her very confused and often muddled views, which included opposition to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and to the “Welfare State” and opposition to abortion, something that Bergoglio did not mention, she did support pacifism, which is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, was sympathetic towards such mass murderers as Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro and even Vladimir I. Lenin, and permitted her Catholic Worker newspaper to run articles that were sympathetic to Communism. She is not a person worthy of emulation as she was not informed by the genuine social teaching of the Catholic Church.

Thomas Merton, a genuine religious syncretist, believed that Buddhism had “something” to teach Catholics about meditation, a false proposition that also denies Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution. There is nothing that a Catholic can “learn” from a false religion except how to worship the devil.

As for Abraham Lincoln? This supposedly “righteous” man unleashed a wave of terror in the South, especially in General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “March to the Sea” that laid waste the property of innocent Southerners and killed untold thousands of innocent human beings, what can be said. This atheist and statist, who used religious references to fool the masses, set the Federal government on a course of expansion that has not only increased since that time, especially after the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson and, of course, the aforementioned Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Chattel slavery was unjust. It would have died out over time. Lincoln’s war of aggression, however, resulted in the exploitation of the slaves who were freed as a result of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 by northern carpetbaggers, whose ruthless rule for selfish gain helped to create the anti-black, anti-Catholic Masonic terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, which was seen by many southerners as the means of seeking justice from the Yankee carpetbaggers (speaking of Yankees, yes, I will write a reflection about the late Lawrence Peter Berra, who was also a coach with New York Mets between 1965 and 1971, becoming the team’s managing upon the sudden death of fellow Catholic Gilbert Ray Hodges on April 4, 1972, before being fired on August 5, 1975).  Abraham Lincoln as a defender of “liberty”? Don’t you believe it! (See the appendix below for more details on this tyrant.) Invidious racial segregation under the cover of the civil law was the “payback” for northern Reconstruction, thus creating the conditions for Martin Luther King, Jr. to arise to prominence to such an extent that a putative “pope” can invoke him as an “example” even though he lived and died as the preacher of a false religion,

Bergoglio could have invoked the memory of Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton, who was “canonized” by Giovanni Battista Enrico Maria Montini/Paul VI forty years ago this year on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, or Venerable John Neumann, who was the Archbishop of Philadelphia from March 28, 1852, or the fearlessly intrepid Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, who worked to protect Italian immigrants in the United States of America from being influenced by Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry as she cared for both souls and bodies. Jorge could even have mentioned such champions of what became cornerstones of conciliar “doctrine” (separation of Church and State and religious liberty) as Archbishop John Carroll, Archbishop John Ireland, James Cardinal Gibbons. (Bergoglio did mention Venerable John Neumann, who was “canonized” by Paul the Sick on June 19, 1977, and Mother Cabrini in his "homily" last evening at the Cathedral of Saint Patrick, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York. That he did not mention them before Congress tells us what he thinks of the Catholic heritage of the United States of America in "mixed settimg.")

No, the Argentine Apostate chose Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr. Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton.

Oh well, back to the sickening speech,

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today.  Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion.  We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.  This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.  A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.  But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.  The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps.  We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within.  To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.  That is something which you, as a people, reject. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Pointed Comment:

This man is a devil.

Bergoglio once again refuses to accept the fact that there is one true religion, Catholicism, and that false religions of their nature are first and foremost acts of violence against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through Holy Mother Church or that many of these false religions, including Talmudism and Mohammedanism, contain exhortation to violence against “infidels” and their shrines.

“Pope Francis’s” swipe against “fundamentalism” was directed also at those Catholics who, despite their own sins and failings, adhere to the Sacred Deposit of Faith without any equivocation, qualification or reservation, those who do indeed see only good and evil as that is what God Himself wants us to see. He wants us to choose the good and reject the evil. How is it possible to do this if one is supposed to see “nuances” in clear-cut matters of moral truth?

Well, that is the point, you see, as Jorge is even yet in a secular setting attempting to propagandize in behalf of the moral opaqueness of his upcoming “synod of bishops” as he warns legislators that there is “good” in almost anything, including those things that “fundamentalist” who engages in moral “reductionism” know are evil in and of their nature. To use the term “violence” in connection with those who call evil by its proper name emboldens those within the echelons of civil power to step up their legal assaults upon those who oppose all of the prevailing evils of the day.

Bergoglio can speak all he wants about “religious freedom.” The plain truth, however, is that to tar and feather those who see “only” good and evil in the world and to make them the objects of persecution for being “bigoted,” “hateful” and “intolerant.”

This man knows exactly what he is doing. Exactly.

Returning to the next section of the speech:

Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice.  We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today’s many geopolitical and economic crises.  Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent.  Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples.  We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.

The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States.  The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.

In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society.  It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society.  Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus.

Another brief comment:

Pure, unadulterated Judeo-Masonry.

Any “faith” will do. All that matters is “fraternity and love.”

"New forms of social consensus"?

Pope Leo XIII and Pope Saint Pius X condemned such naturalistic views in, yes, clear terms of good and evil:

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

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

It was in defense of the truth about Our Lord and His Holy Doctrine that Pope Saint Pius X clearly explicated the Divine Redeemer’s approach toward sin and error:

Catholicism is clear. Heresy and error demand complexity and paradox. This is why the conciliar revolutionaries recoil at the clarity of Saint Paul the Apostle’s Second Epistle to the Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Timothy 1: 1-5.)

Behold the false teachers who have upon us. Their numbers are legion, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a true son of the conciliar revolution, and among whose numbers are to be counted the likes of each member of this false "pope's" "Council of Cardinals" (i.e. The Commissars).

Bergoglio then moved on to provide his own “civics” lesson to apply the religiously indifferentist principles of the Declaration of Independence to the “rights” of those enter the United States of America illegally without even once making an acknowledgment of the fact that nations have the right founded in the Natural Law to protect the integrity and security of their borders as a means of protecting the safety and welfare of their own citizens:

Here I think of the political history of the United States, where democracy is deeply rooted in the mind of the American people.  All political activity must serve and promote the good of the human person and be based on respect for his or her dignity.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776).  If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance.  Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life.  I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.

Here too I think of the march which Martin Luther King led from Selma to Montgomery fifty years ago as part of the campaign to fulfill his “dream” of full civil and political rights for African Americans.  That dream continues to inspire us all.  I am happy that America continues to be, for many, a land of “dreams”.  Dreams which lead to action, to participation, to commitment.  Dreams which awaken what is deepest and truest in the life of a people.

In recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dream of building a future in freedom.  We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners.  I say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from immigrants.  Tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected.  For those peoples and their nations, from the heart of American democracy, I wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation.  Those first contacts were often turbulent and violent, but it is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present.  Nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past.  We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us.  Building a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best.  I am confident that we can do this. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Here is a commentary for the multitudes out in cyberspace:

Bergoglio is as much as saying that nations have no right to regulate migration, and he makes it appear that the waves of immigrants who came to the United States of America came here in the Nineteenth Century did so illegally. While, to be sure, some did, most came here legally, and they were subjected to processing and quarantines in such places as Ellis Island in New York Harbor before they were allowed admittance into the United States of America as legal immigrants. Bergoglio forgot about all that in his “civics lesson” about the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of the sovereignty of the people, not of God, over men and their nations.

Pope Leo XIII condemned the notion of popular sovereignty in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

31. The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.  (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Then again, the Declaration of Independence, unlike the Magna Carta five hundred seventy-one years previously, makes no reference to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Neither did Bergoglio yesterday.

Moreover, “Pope Francis” states as a “good” the mandate to welcome all immigrants and refugees without regard to existing laws or even a justifiable prudence. He seems to be saying that it is “good” to welcome all indiscriminately and it is “evil” not do so, As relativists must do, his denunciation of those who see “good and evil” make his own denunciations of what he sees as “evil” laughably hypocritical and illogical. This is subjectivism and situation ethics writ large.

Bergoglio also ignored the inconvenient fact that the immigrants from Central America and Mexico who are flocking to this country currently are fleeing dire economic conditions and injustices, many of which are caused by corrupt regimes and corrupt banking systems, in their native lands. It is easy to swat away at the “yanqis” of the north as “haters” for seeking to protect their own borders. It is far more difficult to face the reality that the governments of Latin America, many of which have been influenced by Judeo-Masonic tenets that were imported into their midst by citizens of the United States of America and Europe in the Nineteenth Century, are to blame for creating this problem.

Back to Jorge again:

 Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War.  This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions.  On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities.  Is this not what we want for our own children?  We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation.  To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal.  We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome.  Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12). (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Getting close to the end comment:

What is the Golden Rule?

It is a “one size fits all” effort to use a term that arose in Protestant circles in England in the Seventeenth Century to avoid mentioning the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ and thus to distort the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, which is not an invitation to break just civil laws or to leave hardened sinners in their sins in the name of “compassion” and “love.”

This is another instance of the conciliar “pope’s” doing the bidding of the Obama-Biden administration to accept refugees from Iraq and Syria whose numbers will swell the Mohammedan population of this nation and result in calls for them to live under Sharia Law and to be judged by Sharia courts.

Gee, I forgot. Mohammedanism is a “religion of peace.” It’s easy to forget that these days, isn’t it?

The next passage is the one where Jorge Mario Bergoglio talked about the importance of defending and protecting human life at all stages of development, prompting me to think that he was going to actually mention the word “abortion” specifically after the applause generated by the Republicans in the chamber of the United States House of Representatives had died down. I laughed out loud when he launched into a statement of firm opposition to the death penalty!

This Rule points us in a clear direction.  Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated.  Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves.  Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves.  In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities.  The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us.  The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Primal Scream Comment:

THE YARDSTICK WE USE FOR OTHES WILL BE THE YARDSTICK BY WHICH TIME WILL USE FOR US?

JORGE, ARE YOU AN ATHEIST?

Christ the King will judge us at the hour of our death, not “time,” and He will judge us by the standard of our being Catholics in a state of Sanctifying Grace who adhere to everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

What a naturalist!’

All right, back to his segue to the death penalty:

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty.  I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes.  Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty.  Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Reiterating what has been said before:

To avoid using the word “abortion” was clearly evil.

Why the subtlety when he was so direct on the death penalty, on the “rights” of those who enter nations illegally, on income inequality, on the need for “dialogue” on everything under the sun?

Bergoglio is oblivious to the horrors of the killing of the innocent preborn. His silence before lawmakers yesterday stands in sharp contrast to the following oft-quoted passage found in Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

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

Really, what more can be said? The man has not a Catholic bone in his body. Not one.  (For a conservative estimate of the number of preborn babies killed by surgical means each day, please see Number of Abortions Each Day.)

Additionally, as noted in my summary yesterday, the morality of the death penalty, imposed by a duly constituted authority against those convicted of heinous crimes after the administration of the due process of law, is founded in the Natural Law, something was taught by none other than the Angelic Doctor himself, Saint Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Proverbs 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).  (Summa Theologica.)

Pope Saint Pius V, a Dominican and hence a student of Saint Thomas Aquinas, also understood that the civil state had the immutable precepts of the Natural Law to impose the death penalty upon malefactors found guilty of heinous crimes after the due process of law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, had been followed and run its course. It is no more possible for any true pope of the Catholic Church to declare the death penalty as "unnecessary" and "in opposition to the Gospel message" as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did in a message on the "World Day of the Sick" in 2003, than it is to deny an article contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith:

Through the celebration of this World Day of the Sick, may the Gospel of life and love resound loudly, especially in the Americas, where more than half the world’s Catholics live. On the continents of North and South America, as elsewhere in the world, "a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurable ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty . . . This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message (Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia In America, 63).  (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, XI World Day of the Sick, 2003).

It is the conciliar "popes'" and "bishops'" equating the inviolability of the lives of innocent human beings with those of heinous criminals that is "opposed to the Gospel message," not the death penalty, which Pope Saint Pius V believed should be imposed upon clerics who committed perverse sins against nature:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)

Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that there are circumstances justifying the use of the death penalty, admitting that its application in concrete circumstances is a matter of due discretion for the civil authorities to determine. The Catholic Church can never deny as a matter of principle that the death penalty is any way a violation of the moral law whatsoever. It is not. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Although the imposition of the death penalty upon a person convicted of heinous crime is a matter of prudential judgment in the practical order of things, one can no sooner argue that the death penalty is opposed to the law of God than he can argue that God is an octagon of persons. The precepts of the Natural Law are as immutable as the articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in junk social science just as much as he believes in junk science. For any legitimate program of rehabilitation for an incarcerated person to be effective, you see, it must be based upon the teaching of the Catholic Church as efforts of secular “behavior modifications” are bound to fail and can never point a criminal in the direction of the only reform of his life that matters, that of confessing his sins to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and thereafter living penitentially to make reparation for his sins after he has paid his debt to society while imprisoned.

The imposition of the death penalty, however, is not based on the prospects of rehabilitation. The imposition of the death penalty legitimately is based in the demands of justice itself.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate and a fool.

Next up in Jorge’s speech was Dorothy Day and income inequality:

In these times when social concerns are so important, I cannot fail to mention the Servant of God Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker Movement.  Her social activism, her passion for justice and for the cause of the oppressed, were inspired by the Gospel, her faith, and the example of the saints.

How much progress has been made in this area in so many parts of the world!  How much has been done in these first years of the third millennium to raise people out of extreme poverty!  I know that you share my conviction that much more still needs to be done, and that in times of crisis and economic hardship a spirit of global solidarity must not be lost.  At the same time I would encourage you to keep in mind all those people around us who are trapped in a cycle of poverty.  They too need to be given hope.  The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially in its causes.  I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Getting even closer to the end comment:

Inequality in the possession of goods is part of the nature of things, something that Bergoglio does not recognize or accept that this is so, nor does he have any understanding that the actual economic injustices that do exist in the world are the direct consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King by the Protestant Revolution in Europe and the undermining and destabilizing of Catholic countries in Latin America by Masonic subversives to this very day.

Bergoglio truly believes that it is possible for men to realize social justice within nations and to have peace among them while turning a blind eye to that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Here comes Laudato Si:

It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth.  The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable.  “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.  It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (Laudato Si’, 129).  This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to “enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (ibid., 3).  “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all” (ibid., 14).

In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to “redirect our steps” (ibid., 61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.  I am convinced that we can make a difference, I'm sure and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play.  Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a “culture of care” (ibid., 231) and “an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (ibid., 139).  “We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology” (ibid., 112); “to devise intelligent ways of… developing and limiting our power” (ibid., 78); and to put technology “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral” (ibid., 112).  In this regard, I am confident that America’s outstanding academic and research institutions can make a vital contribution in the years ahead. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Getting Really Fatigued at 2:00 a.m Comment:

Pure propaganda invented by the pro-population control crowd based upon junk science. Ah, what you expect from a junk theologian who is not even a member of the Catholic Church. Just read Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge part one, and Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part two.

Everything in the created world is going to be destroyed by God at the end of time. The world as we know it is passing away. It will be destroyed by fire. How sad it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose own soul is in great peril of eternal hellfire for all of his unspeakable crimes committed he has committed against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and against the eternal and temporal good of human souls, which have been created by God and redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Whose doctrine he continues to distort, mispresent, ignore and pervert with a reckless abandon that is truly of a diabolical nature.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one of history's greatest destroyers of the zenith of the beauty of God's creation, a human soul, which has been made in His very image and likeness, and he has let loose a veritable sea of moral destruction that would have made some of the worst barbarians that the world has ever known blush with shame. He is an enabler of the Actual Sins of men, thereby showing himself to be an enemy of souls and of the very created world for which he protests so much care and love, reaffirming adherents of every false religion on earth in paths that can lead them only to Hell, participating in a seemingly endless series of “inter-religious prayer” meetings and services, “prayed” out of the blasphemous Talmud with his Talmudic rabbi pal, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, Abraham Skorka, muted his voice about the killing and displacement of Catholics and Orthodox Christians in the Middle East by the faithful adherents of the idolatrous false “prophet,” Mohammed, kept silent as national legislatures or courts have “legalized” “gay marriage” and then as various governments have sought to prosecute those who refuse to acknowledge this perversity as having any standing before God or men, and, among so many other things, hidden his pectoral cross under his fascia so as not to offend two Talmudic rabbis in Jerusalem, and he kept his peace about abortion yesterday while speaking explicitly on matters that are no part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith:

Back to the speech:

A century ago, at the beginning of the Great War, which Pope Benedict XV termed a “pointless slaughter”, another notable American was born: the Cistercian monk Thomas Merton.  He remains a source of spiritual inspiration and a guide for many people.  In his autobiography he wrote: “I came into the world.  Free by nature, in the image of God, I was nevertheless the prisoner of my own violence and my own selfishness, in the image of the world into which I was born.  That world was the picture of Hell, full of men like myself, loving God, and yet hating him; born to love him, living instead in fear of hopeless self-contradictory hungers”.  Merton was above all a man of prayer, a thinker who challenged the certitudes of his time and opened new horizons for souls and for the Church.  He was also a man of dialogue, a promoter of peace between peoples and religions.

From this perspective of dialogue, I would like to recognize the efforts made in recent months to help overcome historic differences linked to painful episodes of the past.  It is my duty to build bridges and to help all men and women, in any way possible, to do the same. When countries which have been at odds resume the path of dialogue – a dialogue which may have been interrupted for the most legitimate of reasons – new opportunities open up for all.  This has required, and requires, courage and daring, which is not the same as irresponsibility.  A good political leader is one who, with the interests of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism.  A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 222-223). (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Comment Number Whatever as I have lost count:

We can all stipulate with Pope Benedict XV that World War I was a pointless war, which was brought on by the systematic efforts of the Judeo-Masonic war machine in the United Kingdom to do away with the last remaining vestiges of Catholic rule in such places as the Austro-Hugarian Emprie and by a fierce, militaristic nationalism that was meant to replace Catholicism as the foundation of "unity" within the formerly Catholic nations of Euorpe. Well, Bergoglio may not see things precisely that way. However, World War I was immoral and unjust, although not necessarily for the reasons the Argentine Apostate may believe in his understanding of "history," which is just much junk as are his theology, his science and his social science.

Insofar as Thomas Merton is concerned lost the Catholic Faith. As noted earlier, he was influenced by Buddhism. He was influenced by Saul Alinsky through his friend Jacques Maritain. Merton believed in religious syncretism and thus in evolution of dogma. He is thus a true progenitor of the conciliar revolution, although perhaps not to the extent as Father Pierre Martin Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.

Some role model for legislators.

Yes, yes, yes, to Jorge again:

Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world.  Here we have to ask ourselves: Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?  Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.  In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Our Lady of Fatima Comment:

Well, Jorge, you are not a true pope. You are not a true bishop. You are not a true priest. You are not a member of the Catholic Church. You do not understand that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the only foundation of peace within souls and within and among nations. Period. To know true peace in the world souls must be in states of Sanctifying Grace, something that very difficult today given the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s sacramentally barren liturgical rites and Bergoglio’s own enabling of hardened sinners in their lives of unrepentant sin.

The way to world peace runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message by a true pope’s consecrating Russia collegially with all of the true bishops of the world to this Heart out of which was formed the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

No sappy talk about the arms industry, which certainly does exist to make money, can end arms trafficking, which is a scourge that has been visited upon us precisely because men sin wantonly and arm themselves against reforming their lives by rejecting and persecuting those who exhort them to do so.

The final passage of the speech, at last:

Three sons and a daughter of this land, four individuals and four dreams: Lincoln, liberty; Martin Luther King, liberty in plurality and non-exclusion; Dorothy Day, social justice and the rights of persons; and Thomas Merton, the capacity for dialogue and openness to God.

Four representatives of the American people.

I will end my visit to your country in Philadelphia, where I will take part in the World Meeting of Families.  It is my wish that throughout my visit the family should be a recurrent theme.  How essential the family has been to the building of this country!  And how worthy it remains of our support and encouragement!  Yet I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without.  Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family.  I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.

In particular, I would like to call attention to those family members who are the most vulnerable, the young.  For many of them, a future filled with countless possibilities beckons, yet so many others seem disoriented and aimless, trapped in a hopeless maze of violence, abuse and despair.  Their problems are our problems.  We cannot avoid them.  We need to face them together, to talk about them and to seek effective solutions rather than getting bogged down in discussions.  At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future.  Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.

A nation can be considered great when it defends liberty as Lincoln did, when it fosters a culture which enables people to “dream” of full rights for all their brothers and sisters, as Martin Luther King sought to do; when it strives for justice and the cause of the oppressed, as Dorothy Day did by her tireless work, the fruit of a faith which becomes dialogue and sows peace in the contemplative style of Thomas Merton.

In these remarks I have sought to present some of the richness of your cultural heritage, of the spirit of the American people.  It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream. 

God bless America! (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Final comments on the speech:

Yes, Jorge threw a bone to those who want to “defend marriage” even as he speaks about going to the “existential peripheries” to find ways of “including” those who are engaged in the sin of Sodom and even as many of his “bishops” endorse “civil unions” or “gay marriage” in the name of “stable, loving relationships. Bergoglio is a destroyer of the family, not its defender as he tried to portray himself yesterday and as he will portray himself over the weekend in Philadephia, Pennsylvania.

Peace as the fruit “dialogue”?

Dialogue is a tool of the devil to keep men from listening to the voice of Christ the King as He has discharged It exclusively in His Catholic Church, she who is the sole repository and infallible teacher of everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Peace?

There will be more on that subject later today as Jorge will be at the United Nations in less than five hours to speak to a global audience about his pantheism and religious indifferetism.

No, not a mention of the Divine Redeemer.

Not one,

Our Lord really meant it when He said:

For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8: 36-28)

And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 40-42.)

If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth: that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ: to whom is glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is to try you, as if some new thing happened to you; But if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that when his glory shall be revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his Spirit, resteth upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things.

But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God? And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them also that suffer according to the will of God, commend their souls in good deeds to the faithful Creator. (1 Peter 4: 11-19)

Don’t worry. There will be more religious indifferentism at “Ground Zero” in less than eight hours.

As if to show himself a complete pagan, Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the United States Capitol to greet the crowd that had gathered in the area below. Here is an account of what transpired when House Speaker John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio) led him out to the balcony:

In improvised remarks made from the balcony of the American Congress to huge crowds gathered in the National Mall in Washington, Pope Francis asked God to bless all the people of America, especially the children and their families. Speaking in his native Spanish, he asked the crowds to pray for him too, adding that “if there are among you any who do not believe or cannot pray, I ask you please to send good wishes my way”.

The Pope's impromptu greeting came after his address inside Congress to a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before taking his leave of the cheering crowds lining the Mall, the Pope said in English “Thank you very much – and God bless America!” (Bergoglio gives impromptu greeting to crowds in Washington Mall.)

It is as though Jorge said, "Hey, baby, send me some good vibes." To quote a friend of ours, "What a jerk."

I do not have “good wishes” to send your way, Senor Bergoglio. I offer prayers for your coversion as, objectively speaking, you are leading men and their nations to the eternal hellfire that awaits you if your persist in your apostasy to the moment you die. “Time” will be judge you then. Christ the King will do so, and you are deceiving yourself if you think that you’ve got it made.

Obviously, none of us have it “made,” which is why we must accept all penances with joy as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

There will be a summary article on today’s events later today. I will also be working on detailed commentaries on the interview Bergoglio gave on Tuesday and on his addresses to Obama/Soetoro and to the conciliar “bishops.”

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Appendix

Abraham Lincoln, The Statist (as excerpted from "Not A Mention of Christ the King," February 11, 2010.)

Abraham Lincoln, our sixteenth president whose birthday, February 12, was a legal holiday in twelve states prior to 1971, has been made the stuff of myths galore. A consummate statist whose policies can be seen quite rightly as serving as the forerunner of the statism of the present day, Lincoln has had more Catholicism projected into his complex, rationalist mind than any other president, save for George Washington himself.

Discerning the truth of Lincoln's religious views is not easy. This is because Lincoln, very much in the manner of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was cautious in what he said and to whom he said it. William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner from 1834 until his death on April 15, 1865, was convinced that Lincoln remained a Christian infidel until the time he was shot by John Wilkes Booth at the Ford Theater in Washington, District of Columbia, on the evening of Good Friday, April 14, 1865, dying early the next day, Holy Saturday. Herndon noted that the "young Mister Lincoln," to coin a phrase, made many young men rationalists after his own views:

The best evidence this side of Lincoln's own written statement that he was an Infidel, if not an Atheist, as claimed by some, is the fact that he never mentions the name of Jesus. If he was a Christian, it could be proved by his letters and speeches. That man is a poor defender of a principle, of a person, or a thing, who never mentions that principle, person or thing. I have never seen the name of Jesus mentioned by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln never mentioned the name of Christ in his letters and speeches as a Christian. I have searched for such evidence, but could not find it. I have had others search, but they could not find it. This dead silence on the part of Mr. Lincoln is overwhelming proof that he was an unbeliever.

While Lincoln frequently, in a conventional way, appeals to God, he never appeals to Christ nor mentions him. I know that he at first maintained that Jesus was a bastard, and later that he was the son of Joseph and not of God.

Lincoln was not a Christian in any sense other than that he lived a good life and was a noble man. If a good life constitutes one a Christian, then Mill and a million other men who repudiated and denied Christianity were Christians, for they lived good and noble lives.

If Mr. Lincoln changed his religious views, he owed it to me to warn me, as he above all other men caused me to become an unbeliever. He said nothing to me, intimated nothing to me, either directly or indirectly. He owed this debt to many young men whom he had led astray, if astray the Christian calls it. I know of two young men of promise, now dead and gone -- gone into endless misery, according to the evangelical creed -- caused by Lincoln's teachings. I know some of the living here, men in prominent positions of life, who were made unbelievers by him.

One by one, these apocryphal stories go by the board. Courageous and remorseless criticism will wipe out all these things. There will not be a vestige of them in 50 years to laugh at or to weep at. (Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views; the full text of Herndon's letter is found in an appendix below.)  

A more nuanced judgment about Lincoln's belief in God was offered two years ago by the chairman of the Department of History at East Carolina University, Dr. Gerald J. Prokopowicz, in his book "Did Lincoln Own Slaves? And other frequently asked questions about Abraham Lincoln." Here is a brief excerpt from a news story about Dr. Prokopowicz's book, which, written with the benefit of more of an exposure to Lincoln's writings and speeches than William Herndon had available in his own day, is a fairly definitive account of the complex subject of Lincoln's religious beliefs:

If Lincoln wasn’t a Christian, why are his speeches full of talk about God?

Because he believed in God, or Providence, or some kind of supernatural power beyond this earth that controlled the fates of people and nations. He sometimes quoted Shakespeare’s line, “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,/Rough-hew them how we will,” which must have appealed to the former axeman in him. As a child, he absorbed a stern Calvinism from Baptist preachers who emphasized the power of an omnipotent God, the kind of deity who notes the fall of every sparrow. As an adult, he must have spoken of his religious beliefs to his law partner William Herndon often enough to pique Herndon’s curiosity, but not fully enough to satisfy it, as evidenced by Herndon’s inclusion of questions about religion in almost all of his interviews with Lincoln’s New Salem acquaintances.

Lincoln’s ideas, whatever they were, were not easy to grasp. While he accepted the notion of providence, and referred to it often, he rarely spoke publicly of Jesus Christ. In New Salem Lincoln associated with freethinkers who doubted the divinity of Jesus, and he wrote an essay mocking the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Lincoln’s friends, anxious to protect his budding political career, threw the manuscript into the fire.   

As he matured, Lincoln learned to be more careful about expressing his views on religion. He must have said enough, however, to develop a reputation as an infidel. In 1846, when he ran for Congress against a well known Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright, he found himself on the defensive against Cartwright’s charges that he was not a believer. Lincoln responded with a public statement that would remain the longest explanation of his religious beliefs he would ever write.

“I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular,” Lincoln wrote, in carefully measured words that reflect the tone of more recent political denials. Although strictly true, Lincoln left open the possibility that he had spoken with unintentional disrespect. In the next paragraph he agreed with his readers that it would be wrong for any candidate to scoff openly at religion, and stated that he himself would not vote for such a person, because “I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, of the community in which he may live.” Lincoln again managed to have it both ways: he shared his audience’s disapproval of “infidels,” but only those who scoff “openly” and thereby insult the majority’s feelings. He didn’t say that he belonged to the majority, and tacitly reserved the possibility that he scoffed at religion, just not openly. 

Over time, Lincoln’s interest in religion grew. The death of his son Eddie in 1850 gave him cause to ponder the brevity and meaning of life on earth, and of course the casualties of the Civil War forced him to confront the issue every day. By the time he came to write the Second Inaugural Address in 1865, with its mature theological contemplation of the inscrutability and justice of the Almighty, he had gone far beyond the easy skepticism of his youth. (Change of Subject: Did Abraham Lincoln believe in God?) 

Abraham Lincoln was not a Catholic. He was not a Christian. He had no conversion to Christianity. He was precursor of the modern statist, seeking to repress legitimate political dissent as he expanded the scope and the size of the power of the Federal government of the United States of America (see the good summary of revisionist history about Lincoln at American Stalin | Abraham Lincoln). It is not for nothing that Pope Pius IX wove a crown a thorns with his own hands to be sent to the imprisoned former president of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis. Pope Pius IX did not support chattel slavery. Neither did he support the unjust use of military force against the southern states, exemplified by the ransacking and pillaging on General William Tecumseh Sherman's march from Atlanta, Georgia, to the sea, and by the orders given by General Benjamin Butler for the women of New Orleans, Louisiana, to genuflect before Union troops lest they be subjected to wretched abuses.

Appendx B

Williaim Herndon on Lincoln's Religious Views

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
by William Herndon
from Religious Views Of Our Presidents
by Franklin Steiner

The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio, and edited by Francis E. Abbott: 

Mr. Abbott:

Some time since I promised you that I would send you a letter in relation to Mr. Lincoln's religion. I do so now. Before entering on that question, one or two preliminary remarks will help us to understand why he disagreed with the Christian world in its principles as well as in its theology. In the first place, Mr. Lincoln's mind was a purely logical mind; secondly, Mr. Lincoln's was a purely practical mind. He had no fancy or imagination, and not much emotion. He was a realist as opposed to an idealist. As a rule, it is true that a purely logical mind has not much hope, if it ever has faith, in the unseen and unknown. Mr. Lincoln had not much hope and no faith in the unseen and unknown. Mr. Lincoln had not much hope and no faith in things that lie outside of the domain of demonstration; he was so constituted, so organized that he could believe nothing unless his senses or logic could reach it. I have often read to him a law point, a decision, or something I fancied. He could not understand it until he took the book out of my hand, and read the thing for himself. He was terribly, vexatiously skeptical. He could scarcely understand anything, unless he had time and place fixed in his mind.

I became acquainted with Mr. Lincoln in 1834, and I think I knew him well to the day of his death. His mind, when a boy in Kentucky, showed a certain gloom, an unsocial nature, a peculiar abstractness, a bold and daring skepticism. In Indiana, from 1817 to 1830, it manifested the same qualities or attributes as in Kentucky; it only intensified, developed itself, along those lines in Indiana. He came to Illinois in 1830, and, after some little roving, settled in New Salem, now in Menard County and State of Illinois. This village lies about 20 miles north-west of this city. It was here that Mr. Lincoln became acquainted with a class of men the world never saw the like of before or since. They were large men -- large in body and large in mind; hard to whip and never to be fooled. They were a bold, daring, and reckless sort of men; they were men of their own minds -- believed what was demonstrable; were men of great common sense. With these men Mr. Lincoln was thrown; with them he lived, and with them he moved and almost had his being. They were skeptics all -- scoffers some. These scoffers were good men, and their scoffs were protests against theology -- loud protests against the follies of Christianity. They had never heard of Theism and the newer and better religious thoughts of this age. Hence, being natural skeptics, and being bold, brave men, they uttered their thoughts freely. They declared that Jesus was an illegitimate child. They were on all occasions, when an opportunity offered, debating the various questions of Christianity among themselves. They took their stand on common sense and on their own souls; and though their arguments were rude and rough, no man could overthrow their homely logic. They riddled all divines, and not unfrequently made them skeptics, unbelievers as bad as themselves. They were a jovial, healthful, generous, social, true, and manly set of people. 

It was here and among these people that Mr. Lincoln was thrown. About the year 1834 he chanced to come across Volney's Ruins and some of Paine's theological works. He at once seized hold of them, and assimilated them into his own being. Volney and Paine became a part of Lincoln from 1834 to the end of his life.

In 1835 he wrote out a small work on Infidelity, and intended to have it published. This book was an attack upon the whole grounds of Christianity, and especially was it an attack upon the idea that Jesus was the Christ, the true and only-begotten son of God, as the Christian world contends. Mr. Lincoln was at that time in New Salem, keeping store for Mr. Samuel Hill, a merchant and postmaster of that place. Lincoln and Hill were very friendly. Hill, I think, was a skeptic at the time. Lincoln, one day after the book was finished, read it to Mr. Hill, his good friend. Hill tried to persuade him not to make it public, not to publish it. Hill, at that time, saw in Lincoln a rising man, and wished him success. Lincoln refused to destroy it -- said it should be published. Hill swore it should never see the light of day. He had an eye on Lincoln's popularity -- his present and future success; and believing that if the book was published it would kill Lincoln forever, he snatched it from Lincoln's hand when Lincoln was not expecting it, and ran it into an old-fashioned tin plate stove, heated as hot as a furnace; and so Lincoln's book went up to the clouds in smoke. It is confessed by all who heard parts of it that it was at once able and eloquent; and, if I may judge it from Mr. Lincoln's subsequent ideas and opinions, often expressed to me and to others in my presence, it was able, strong, plain and fair. His argument was grounded on the internal mistakes of the Old and New Testaments, and on reason and on the experiences and observations of men. The criticisms from internal defects were sharp, strong, and manly. 

Mr. Lincoln moved to this city in 1837, and here became acquainted with various men of his own way of thinking. At that time they called themselves Freethinkers, or Freethinking men. I remember all these things distinctly; for I was with them, heard them and was one of them. Mr. Lincoln here found other works -- Hume, Gibbon, and others -- and drank them in. He made no secret of his views; no concealment of his religion. He boldly avowed himself an Infidel.

When Mr. Lincoln was a candidate for our legislature, he was accused of being an Infidel and of having said that Jesus was an illegitimate child. He never denied his opinions nor flinched from his religious views. He was a true man, and yet it may be truthfully said that in 1837 his religion was low indeed. In his moments of gloom he would doubt, if he did not sometimes deny, God.

Mr. Lincoln ran for Congress against the Rev. Peter Cartwright in the year 1846. In that contest he was accused of being an Infidel, if not an Atheist. He never denied the charge -- would not -- "would die first." In the first place, because it could and would be proved on him; and in the second place, he was too true to his own convictions, to his own soul, to deny it.

When Mr. Lincoln left this city for Washington, I knew he had undergone no change in his religious opinions or views. He held many of the Christian ideas in abhorrence, and among them this one, namely, that God would forgive the sinner for a violation of his laws. Lincoln maintained that God could not forgive; that Christianity was wrong in teaching forgiveness.

From what I know of Mr. Lincoln, and from what I have heard and verily believe, I can say, first, that he did not believe in special creation, his idea being that all creation was an evolution under law; secondly, that he did not believe that the Bible was a special revelation from God, as the Christian world contends; thirdly, he did not believe in miracles as understood by Christians; fourthly, he believed in universal inspiration and miracles under law; fifthly, he did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, as the Christian church contends; sixthly, he believed that all things, both matter and mind, were governed by laws, universal, absolute and eternal. All his speeches and remarks in Washington conclusively prove this. Law was to Lincoln everything, and special interferences, shams and delusions.

From private letters from Herndon to Mr. Remsburg, and published for the first time in Abraham Lincoln: Was He a Christian? in 1893.

I was the personal friend of Lincoln from 1834 to the day of his death. In 1843 we entered into a partnership which was never formally dissolved. When he became unpopular in this Congressional district because of his speeches on the Mexican War, I was faithful to him. When he espoused the anti-slavery cause and in the eyes of most men had hopelessly ruined his political prospects, I stood by him, and through the press defended his course. In those dark hours, by our unity of sentiment and by political ostracism, we were driven to a close and enduring friendship. You should take it for granted, then, that I knew Mr. Lincoln well. During all this time, from 1834 to 1862, when I last saw him, he never intimated to me, either directly or indirectly, that he had changed his religious opinions. Had he done so had -- he let drop one word or look in that direction, I should have detected it.

I had an excellent private library, probably the best in the city for admired books. To this library Mr. Lincoln had, as a matter of course, full and free access at all times. I purchased such books as Locke, Kant, Fichte, Lewes; Sir William Hamilton's Discussions on Philosophy; Spencer's First Principles, Social Statics, etc.; Buckle's History of Civilization, and Lecky's History of Rationalism. I also possessed the works of Paine, Parker, Emerson and Strauss; Gregg's Creed of Christendom, McNaught on Inspiration, Volney's Ruins, Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity, and other works on Infidelity. Mr. Lincoln read some of these works. About the year 1843 he borrowed The Vestiges of Creation of Mr. James W. Keyes, of this city, and read it carefully. He subsequently read the sixth edition of this work, which I loaned him. Mr. Lincoln had always denied special creation, but from his want of education he did not know just what to believe. He adopted the progressive and development theory as taught more or less directly in that work. He despised speculation, especially in the metaphysical world. He was purely a practical man. He adopted Locke's notions as to his system of mental philosophy, with some modifications to suit his own views. He held that reason drew her references as to law, etc., from observations, experience and reflection on the facts and phenomena of Nature. He was a pure sensationalist, except as above. He was a materialist in his philosophy. He denied dualism, and at times immortality in any sense.

Before I wrote my Abbott letter, I diligently searched through Lincoln's letters, speeches, state papers, etc., to find the word immortality, and I could not find it anywhere except in his letter to his father. The word immortality appears but once in his writings.

If he had been asked the plain question, "Do you know that a God exists?" he would have said: "I do not know that a God exists."

At one moment of his life I know that he was an Atheist. I was preparing a speech on Kansas, and in it, like nearly all reformers, I invoked God. He made me wipe out that word and substitute the word Maker, affirming that said Maker was a principle of the universe. When he went to Washington he did the same to a friend there.

Mr. Lincoln told me, over and over, that man has no freedom of the will, or, as he termed it, "No man has a freedom of mind." He was in one sense a fatalist, and so he died. He believed that he was under the thumb of Providence (which to him was but another name for fate). The longer he lived, the more firmly he believed it, and hence his oft invocation of God. But these invocations are no evidence to a rational mind that he adopted the blasphemy that God seduced his own daughter, begat a son on purpose to have mankind kill him, in order that he, God, might become reconciled to his own mistakes, according to the Christian view.

Lincoln would wait patiently on the flow and logic of events. He believed that conditions make the man and not man the conditions. Under his own hand he says: "I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me." He believed in the supreme reign of law. This law fated things, as he would express it. Now, how could a man be a Christian -- could believe that Jesus Christ was God -- could believe in the efficacy of prayer -- and entertain such a belief?

He did not believe in the efficacy of prayer, although he used that conventional language. He said in Washington, "God has his own purposes." If God has his own purposes, then prayer will not change God's purposes.

I have often said to you, and now repeat it, that Lincoln was a scientific materialist, i.e., that this was his tendency as opposed to the Spiritualistic idea. Lincoln always contended that general and universal laws ruled the Universe -- always did -- do now -- and ever will. He was an Agnostic generally, sometimes an Atheist.

That Mr. Lincoln was an Infidel from 1834 to 1661, I know, and that he remained one to the day of his death, I honestly believe. I always understood that he was an Infidel, sometimes bordering on Atheism. I never saw any change in the man, and the change could not have escaped my observation had it happened.

Lincoln's task was a terrible one. When he took the oath of office his soul was bent on securing harmony among all the people of the North, and so he chose for his cabinet officers his Opponents for the Presidential candidacy in order and as a means of creating a united North. He let all parties, professions, and callings have their way where their wishes did not cut across his own. He was apparently pliant and supple. He ruled men when men thought they were ruling him. He often said to me that the Christian religion was a dangerous element to deal with when aroused. He saw in the Kansas affairs -- in the whole history of slavery, in fact -- its rigor and encroachments, that Christianity was aroused. It must be controlled, and that in the right direction. Hence he bent to it, fed it, and kept it within bounds, well knowing that it would crush his administration to atoms unless appeased. His oft and oft invocations of God, his conversations with Christians, his apparent respect for Christianity, etc., were all means to an end. And yet sometimes he showed that he hated its nasal whines.

A gentleman of veracity in Washington told me this story and vouched for its truthfulness: "A tall saddle-faced man," he said, "came to Washington to pray with Lincoln, having declared this to be his intention at the hotel. About 10 o'clock a.m. the bloodless man, dressed in black, with white cravat, went to the White House, sent in his card, and was admitted. Lincoln glanced at the man and knew his motives in an instant. He said to him, angrily: 'What, have you, too, come to torment me with your prayers?' The man was squelched and said, 'No, Mr. Lincoln' -- lied out and out. Lincoln spoiled those prayers."

Mr. Lincoln was thought to be understood by the mob. But what a delusion! He was one of the most reticent men that ever lived. All of us -- Stuart, Speed, Logan, Matheny, myself and others, had to guess at much of the man. He was a mystery to the world -- a sphinx to most men. One peculiarity of Mr. Lincoln was his irritability when anyone tried to peep into his own mind's laboratory. Considering all this, what can be thought of the stories about what he is said to have confided to strangers in regard to his religion?

I see frequently quoted a supposed speech made by Mr. Lincoln to the colored people of Baltimore, on the presentation of a Bible to him. This supposed speech contains the following: "All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book." This idea is false and foolish. What becomes of nine-tenths of the life of Jesus of which we have no history -- nine-tenths of the great facts of this grand man's life not recorded in this book? Mr. Lincoln was full and exact in his language. He never used the word Saviour, unless in a conventional sense; in fact, he never used the word at all. Again, he is made to say: "But for this book, we could not know right from wrong." The lowest organized life, I was about to say, knows right from wrong in its particular sphere. Every good dog that comes in possession of a bone, knows that the bone belongs to him, and he knows that it is wrong for another dog to rob him of it. He protests with bristling hair and glistening teeth against such dog robbery. It requires no revelation to teach him right from wrong in the dog world; yet it requires a special revelation from God to teach us right from wrong in the human world. According to this speech, the dog has the advantage. But Mr. Lincoln never uttered such nonsense.

I do think that anyone who knew Mr. Lincoln -- his history -- his philosophy -- his opinions -- and still asserts that he was a Christian, is an unbounded falsifier. I hate to speak thus plainly, but I cannot respect an untruthful man.

Let me ask the Christian claimant a few questions. Do you mean to say, when you assert that Mr. Lincoln was a Christian, that he believed that Jesus was the Christ of God, as the evangelical world contends? If so, where did you get this information? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln was a converted man and that he so declared? If so, where, when, and before whom did he declare or reveal it? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln joined a Church? If so, what Church did he join, and when did he join it? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln was a secret Christian, acting under the cloak of the devil to advance Christianity? If so, what is your authority? If you will tell me when it was that the Creator caught in his almighty arms, Abraham, and held him fast while he poured the oil of grace on his rebellious soul, then I will know when it was that he was converted from Infidel views to Christianity.

The best evidence this side of Lincoln's own written statement that he was an Infidel, if not an Atheist, as claimed by some, is the fact that he never mentions the name of Jesus. If he was a Christian, it could be proved by his letters and speeches. That man is a poor defender of a principle, of a person, or a thing, who never mentions that principle, person or thing. I have never seen the name of Jesus mentioned by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln never mentioned the name of Christ in his letters and speeches as a Christian. I have searched for such evidence, but could not find it. I have had others search, but they could not find it. This dead silence on the part of Mr. Lincoln is overwhelming proof that he was an unbeliever.

While Lincoln frequently, in a conventional way, appeals to God, he never appeals to Christ nor mentions him. I know that he at first maintained that Jesus was a bastard, and later that he was the son of Joseph and not of God.

Lincoln was not a Christian in any sense other than that he lived a good life and was a noble man. If a good life constitutes one a Christian, then Mill and a million other men who repudiated and denied Christianity were Christians, for they lived good and noble lives.

If Mr. Lincoln changed his religious views, he owed it to me to warn me, as he above all other men caused me to become an unbeliever. He said nothing to me, intimated nothing to me, either directly or indirectly. He owed this debt to many young men whom he had led astray, if astray the Christian calls it. I know of two young men of promise, now dead and gone -- gone into endless misery, according to the evangelical creed -- caused by Lincoln's teachings. I know some of the living here, men in prominent positions of life, who were made unbelievers by him.

One by one, these apocryphal stories go by the board. Courageous and remorseless criticism will wipe out all these things. There will not be a vestige of them in 50 years to laugh at or to weep at.

In his Life of Lincoln, pp. 445-446, Mr. Herndon said:

No man had a stronger or firmer faith in Providence -- God -- than Mr. Lincoln, but the continued use by him late in life of the word God must not be interpreted to mean that he believed in a personal God. In 1854, he asked me to erase the word God from a speech I had written and read to him for criticism, because my language indicated a personal God, whereas he insisted that no such personality ever existed.

Appendix C

A Note From Mr. Michael Reardon, 2010

I appreciated very much your excellent article of Feb. 16, Not A Mention Christ the King, especially your information in regard to Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln’s war had a dramatic effect on my own family. I have a dozen blood relatives who fought for the Confederacy,  most of whom were wounded, including lost limbs, with one missing in action and presumed killed. In regard to the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Cold Harbor Property, which sat at a crossroads where five roads met, and still do, was a 182-acre farm, where sat the Cold Harbor Tavern (Burnett’s Inn) and four other buildings, all owned by my great, great grandfather, Isaac Burnett. He lived in the tavern with his wife, his older sister, and his nine daughters and four sons. His son, George, my great grandfather, was the only Confederate soldier from Cold Harbor. My grandmother was born in the Tavern in 1880. The Battle of Cold Harbor was the bloodiest  short battle of the War, with the most intense fighting taking place within a half mile of the tavern. Some 7,000 Union soldiers were killed in twenty minutes in the main assault on June 3, 1864. Both the armies of George McClellan and Grant camped on Isaac Burnett’s property in 1862 and in 1864, with devastating results. In the words of Martha Burnett, Isaac’s 21-year old daughter at the time, “In the month of June 1864 General Grant’s army came on the premises and swept it clean of everything in the way of supplies for man and beast.” The Confederate never took anything from the property. Martha, on one occasion, saw a Union soldier take a large glass bowl from the tavern and hide it in a haystack. She went out in the night and hid it in another haystack. Today that bowl belongs to a cousin who lives in Williamsburg. Claims made by the family after the War in the amount of $10,415.00, a huge amount in those days, were denied by the U.S. Government.