Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part two

Although hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this website have explained the simple fact, one that took me until I was in late-thirties and early-forties to accept, that the founding principles of this nation, based as they are on naturalism, religious indifferentism and semi-Pelagian (the heresy that men can more or less stir up the graces or energies they need to “solve” whatever problems they face, something that manifests itself as the false belief “We are Americans, we can do whatever we put our minds to doing”) beliefs, are destined founder (pun completely intended) over the course of time. The fact that there has been such a rapid acceleration of the process of decline just in the past few years alone is attributable to the paucity of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world as a direct consequence of the liturgical barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rites.

We have returned to the era of paganism in which the caesars and their minions believed that they had an obligation before their “gods” to persecute Christians and to force them to adore their idols or forfeit their lives. It is, of course, truly astounding to behold this unfold before our very eyes. However, one must understand that there is no turning the ship-of-state around. From whence is the great groundswell of electoral support going to come to “vote the bums” out of office?

As will be explained in tomorrow’s third part of what has become a four-part series, the naturalists of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” have made their peace with “social issues,” ceding the “culture wars” to the demands of public opinion, which has been catered do and cultivated by the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” ever since the era of the virulently anti-Catholic and uber-liberal President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, whose “New Freedoms” slogan was actually a continuation and expansion of many of the policies of a thirty-third degree Freemason, President Theodore Roosevelt.

The situation within the counterfeit church of conciliarism has also experienced a rapid acceleration of its inherent degeneracy in the past decade. Even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II would have denounced the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, although he would have done so in conciliarspeak, that is, in humanistic terms, not by appealing to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. 

Although I have scoured the website of the Occupy Vatican Movement for any sign of some kind of reaction to Obergefell v. Hodges from the Uber Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, there is, of course, none to be found. “Pope Francis” has maintained the same kind of silence now on the “moral issues” as he has done so many times in the past two years, four hundred fifty-seven days.

If one may recall, the marauding Argentine kept his ever-moving mouth shut when the lower house of the French national legislature, the National Assembly, approved “gay marriage” on April 22, 2013, and he said not a word to the renegade former Marxist guerilla fighter named Dilma Rousseff, the President of Brazil, about a then pending bill in the Brazilian Congress that would provide a “back door” means to surgical baby-killing on demand when he was in Brazil for the hootenanny known as “World Youth Day” between July 21, 2013, and July 28, 2013. That bill was approved on August 1, 2013, just three days after Jorge had returned to Rome to place that beach ball and sports jersey on Our Lady’s altar in the Basilica of Saint Mary Major.

This is what an incredulous Catholic within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in Brazil wrote at the time about the silence of Jorge and the Brazilian “bishops”:

August 1, 2013, became a day of mourning in Brazil’s history. On this date, reneging on the pledge she made during the presidential campaign, President Dilma Rousseff sanctioned the law opening the gate for the “killing of the innocents.”

Not only are her hands red with blood, but also the hands of those who favored the veiled and hasty way this law was approved by the two houses of the Congress. Particularly to blame are Minister of Health Alexandre Padilha and PT (Workers Party) House representative Iara Bernardi. But also culpable are the members of both Houses who voted for the bill, alleging that the word “abortion” had not been used in the text. . . .

Petitions with thousands of signatures were delivered to the Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro requesting the Bishops to ask Pope Francis to say a word against the law of abortion during his stay in Rio, and to exhort President Dilma to veto it. I don’t know if the Bishops transmitted the request. What I do know is that Pope Francis did not say a word against the abortion law in his multiple public appearances. If he had done so, I believe Rousseff would not have sanctioned the law.

The Brazilian Conference of Bishops, in its turn, did very little. Millions were expecting it to pressure the President to veto the project. Instead of asking for a total veto, it only requested a partial veto. It received nothing.

The Conference of Bishops in Brazil has been a voice that lulls to sleep the good reactions of pro-life Catholics and the hand that extinguishes the flame of their enthusiasm.

The indignation of millions of Catholics did not find an echo in the voice of the religious authorities. One word from the Pontiff in his long, spectacular stay in Brazil would have sufficed to save the lives of millions of voiceless innocents.

The Pope, who has spoken so much about protecting the poor, in this case forgot to say a word to save millions of poor innocents from a criminal death. This omission occurred at the very moment when the situation was ideal for him to act - he was the center of attention of the country and the world. This omission took place during his visit to the country with largest number of Catholics in the world…  (Doors Open for Abortion in the World’s Largest Catholic Country.) 

What the writer of this article did not understand or accept was that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not "Pope" Francis and that, save for any Eastern rite bishops who are members of the conciliar "episcopal" conference in Brazil, the men posing as ordinaries of dioceses in Brazil are not true bishops and are one with Bergoglio in having placed themselves outside of the Catholic Church by virtue of their adherence to one condemned proposition after another. This poor man did not realize that it is the job of the figures of Antichrist he accepts as officials of the Catholic Church to remain silent about moral evils as it is they desire to reaffirm hardened sinners in their sins and to show the world how “open,” “tolerant,” and “diverse” their concept of Catholicism is as opposed to that stuffy old “no church” in the centuries (nineteen of them, to be precise) before the dawning of the age of Aquarius, excuse me, conciliarism, with the “election” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

Bergoglio, who is taking conciliarism’s mockery of the papacy to its ultimate conclusion in the same manner that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America have taken to take advantage of a constitution that admits of no authority above its text, which is as fungible in their hands as Sacred Scripture is in the hands of Protestants the likes of Bergoglio and his fellow fiends, also remained silent with the Belgian Parliament approved “child euthanasia” in 2014:

BRUSSELS, February 13, 2014 ( – Belgium has become the first country in the world to approve euthanasia for children of all ages after the country’s parliamentarians passed the controversial bill today in a vote of 86 to 44, with 12 MPs abstaining.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, called the move a “form of abandonment.”

“Belgium has abandoned the elderly, and now they are saying they will abandon their children,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Schadenberg said the new law is not about ending suffering for children with disabilities, but about expanding the “categories that are eligible for death.”

The bill was first introduced in December 2012.

The law extends to those under the age of 18 who request euthanasia with parental consent. It also applies to younger children requesting euthanasia after a doctor has certified that the child fully understands the implications of the decision.

“This is the horrific logic of euthanasia: Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom,” wrote Wesley J. Smith about the law.

The proposed law had been protested by a number of groups that said the existing 2002 euthanasia legislation has been an unmitigated disaster.

Schadenberg said he was not surprised to see the bill pass, since he said the entire euthanasia project in Belgium is being “pushed blindly” by a government that has ignored all the abuses currently taking place within existing euthanasia laws.

“Euthanasia has been really out of control in Belgium for quite some time. We know from studies that about 32 percent of euthanasia deaths go without requests. Over half of euthanasia deaths are not reported,” he said.

Schadenberg said the new law will only make it easier for doctors to indiscriminately and without repercussion end the lives of the most vulnerable deemed unfit to live. (Belgium Parliament passes law allowing children to be euthanized.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio remains silent about these and other moral outrages as goes about his destructive business as a Modernist so very merrily, denouncing those who adhere to Catholic teaching while enabling those who live lives of unrepentant sin, waxing on and on about “the poor” and the need to “save the environment.” He is a pagan, not the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Jorge has got lots to say about those things that concern him. He has nothing to say about the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance or for the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

Bergoglio’s silence, at least thus far as there’s always the possibility, however remote and unlikely, that he might make a passing reference to Obergefell v. Hodges stands in contrast to the lovefests he holds on a constant basis with Talmudists, including members of B’Nai B’rith International to whom he addressed a few fond words of admiration on Thursday, June 25, 2015, the Feast of Saint William the Abbot within the Octave of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist:

Dear Friends,

I am pleased to greet you during your visit to the Vatican.  My predecessors met with delegations of B’nai B’rith International on several occasions, and today I offer you my welcome with renewed respect and affection.

Your organization has enjoyed relations with the Holy See since the promulgation of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate.  This document constituted a milestone on the path of mutual knowledge and esteem between Jews and Catholics, based on the great spiritual patrimony that, thanks be to God, we share in common.

Looking back on these fifty years of regular dialogue between the Catholic Church and Judaism, I cannot help but thank the Lord for the great progress that has been made.  Many initiatives fostering reciprocal understanding and dialogue have been undertaken; above all a sense of mutual trust and appreciation has developed.  There are many areas in which we as Jews and Christians can continue to work together for the good of the peoples of our time.  Respect for life and creation, human dignity, justice and solidarity unite us for the development of society and for securing a future rich in hope for generations to come.  In a particular way, we are called to pray and work together for peace.  Unfortunately, there are many countries and regions of the world that live in situations of conflict – I think in particular of the Holy Land and the Middle East – and that require a courageous commitment to peace, which is not only to be longed for, but sought after and built up patiently and tenaciously by everyone, especially believers.

During these moments together, I wish to recall with heartfelt gratitude all those who have fostered friendship between Jews and Catholics.  I particularly want to mention Saint John XXIII and Saint John Paul II.  Saint John saved many Jews during the Second World War, met with them numerous times, and greatly desired a conciliar document on this theme.  Regarding Saint John Paul, his various historical gestures remain very much alive in our memories, such as his visit to Auschwitz and to the Great Synagogue of Rome.  With the help of God, I wish to walk in their footsteps, encouraged too by the many beautiful encounters and friendships I enjoyed in Buenos Aires.

May the Almighty and Eternal One bless our dialogue abundantly, especially during this year in which we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate, so that our friendship may always grow deeper and bear abundant fruit for our communities and the entire human family. (Antipope receives members of B’nai B’rith International.)

Looking for a mention of Christ the King in Bergoglio’s address to the Talmudists four days ago?

Keep looking. None is there.

Not so incidentally, however, the nefarious organization known as the “Anti-Defamation League,” which was  started by B’Nai B’rith in 1913 and still files Internal Revenue Service Form 990 nonprofit organization tax reports under the title of Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’rith, has been in the vanguard of supporting contraception, abortion, sodomy and all other manner of perversity while vehemently opposing all displays of Christianity in public places, including the concentration camps known as “public schools.” Legal representatives of the Anti-Defamation League have filed one amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief after another to protected “established” practices that are in defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law while also seeking to provide legal “protection” to those who practice the sin of Sodom and its related vices.

Here is just a summary of some of those amicus curiae briefs:

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al. (2005) This Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of The New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act. The Act prohibits abortions for minors unless the parents have been notified, but provides exceptions for abortions necessary to prevent death and for minors who have obtained a judicial declaration that they are mature enough to make a decision concerning abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the Act was unconstitutional because it does not include a health exception and the death exception is too narrow. ADL, together with 41 other religious and religiously affiliated organizations, joined a brief authored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The brief argued, among other things, that in emergency situations, the Act unconstitutionally threatens the health and lives of young women, and undermines their right to choose an abortion in accordance with religious faiths that place great value on women’s health and lives. The variety of religious beliefs about abortion underscores the importance of maintaining a private sphere– free from undue government interference – in which women, including minors, can make choices to protect their own lives and health in accordance with their faiths. Although parental guidance in young women’s major life decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is important, state-mandated parental involvement can sometimes harm the minor, such as where the family is dysfunctional or where an emergency situation requires immediate action.

Amici are religious organizations and religiously affiliated organizations dedicated to preserving religious freedom for all persons and to protecting a woman’s health and right to carry or terminate her pregnancy in accordance with her religion and values.1 The statements of interest provided by amici, included in Appendix B to this brief, demonstrate their shared interest (from different perspectives) in the right of women of all ages to make reproductive choices in accordance with their individual conscience and free from governmental interference. A full listing of the forty-two (42) organizations signing this brief as amici curiae appears in Appendix A.

Because amici value life and health, and recognize the many divergent theological perspectives regarding abortion, amici agree that all women whose health is at risk should be free to seek the best available medical advice, without governmental coercion or constraint, in making the difficult decision whether to terminate a pregnancy. Adherence to these principles compels amici to support Respondents in this case.

Because amici, cherish human life and health as among their most important values. Many of these religions hold that it is morally appropriate for women of all ages to consider – in accordance with their faiths – the threat to their lives or health in deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy. The New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 132:24-132:28 (Supp. 2004) (the “New Hampshire Act” or the “Act”), lacks a health exception and an adequate life exception, as required by this Court’s precedents. In emergency medical situations, the Act unconstitutionally threatens the health and lives of young women, and undermines their right to choose an abortion in accordance with religious faiths that place great value on women’s health and lives.

The religious component of the rights of privacy and of reproductive choice have been repeatedly recognized in this Court’s opinions, including in cases as early as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and as recent as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Many Americans reflect upon their religious beliefs and moral principles when making important private decisions about family, marriage, and procreation. The variety of religious teachings and beliefs about abortion underscores the importance of maintaining a private sphere – free from undue government interference – in which women can make choices to protect their own lives and health in accordance with their faiths and their consciences. This private sphere extends to minor women who are faced with pregnancies that threaten their lives and health. Although amici support and encourage parental guidance in young women’s major life decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, they recognize that state-mandated parental involvement can sometimes harm the minor, such as where the family is dysfunctional or where an emergency medical situation requires immediate action. The Constitution protects minors from such threats to their lives, health, and religious beliefs. (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.)

Yesterday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged the Florida Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee to reject a divisive and unconstitutional school prayer bill – SB1360 - at its March 26th hearing.  If enacted, SB1360 would permit Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other sectarian prayers at public school assemblies, sports events, dances and other school-related activities.   

In a letter to the Florida Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee, ADL advised that, In our religiously diverse state, such a policy is patently unfair, divisive, and unconstitutional, and it would cost local school districts and taxpayers needless litigation expenses.  The First Amendment and federal Equal Access Act provide public high school students with the right to privately pray alone or in groups during non-curricular time and to form non-curricular religious clubs.  The clear effect of this policy would be to impose the majority's religious beliefs, which depending on the individual school could be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, upon all students at school-sponsored high school activities. 

Practically speaking, most school-related activities are "noncompulsory" in name only.  Students such as sports team members make commitments that require their attendance at games.  And other students feel intense peer pressure to attend school-related activities.  Regardless of peer pressure, students should not have to choose between attending a school-related activity and being subjected to unwanted religious activity … .

In these difficult times, we urge the Committee on Education Pre-K-12 to focus on matters that unite Floridians and that do not risk unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds.  We therefore urge you to vote against SB1360.

In its most recent school prayer case – Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe - the U.S. Supreme Court found that a school policy virtually identical to the policy provided for in SB1360 unconstitutionally endorsed and coerced religion.

David Barkey, ADL Southern Area Counsel, is in Tallahassee today and is available for interviews. (ADL: ADL Warns School Prayer Bill in Florida is Unconstitutional)

The constitutional mandate of separation of church and state, as interpreted in a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, prohibits a public school from giving students the impression that it prefers or sanctions a particular religion, or religion generally. Our public schools must be hospitable to students from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of their faith. A Christmas concert dominated by religious carols, Christian music in the school office, and a creationism video in science class with a theological message are not reflective of religious neutrality, but instead appear to be school endorsement of the Christian religion.

Celebrations of holidays and expressions of religious belief enrich the personal and spiritual lives of many Americans. But those practices belong in a house of worship, in private religious schools, in the home, and in the heart - not in the public schools. Our public schools should inculcate students with understanding and respect for diversity, as well as a spirit of tolerance, acceptance and inclusion.

A sturdy wall separating church and state is essential to preserving and promoting freedom of religion in our increasingly pluralistic nation.

Consequently, promotion of religious views, such as that which took place in this Colorado public school, is inconsistent with the guarantees of religious liberty in the First Amendment  (ADL Not Out to Censor Christmas)

San Francisco, CA, May 15, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) welcomed today's California Supreme Court decision supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry.  The court held that under California law, the right to marry is a fundamental right, integral to an individual's autonomy, and that banning same-sex couples from marrying violates the California Constitution.

ADL issued the following statement:

We are pleased by the court's decision supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, and welcome this reaffirmation of equal protection for all.

We are also gratified that the Court agreed with our assertion that the law raised privacy issues, exposing gay individuals "to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large."

With this decision, California has taken a significant step forward in the pursuit of individual liberty and freedom from discrimination for all.

ADL has regional offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Diego and San Francisco.  ADL joined a coalition brief, authored by the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP. (ADL Welcomes California Supreme Court Decision In Support Of Same Sex Marriage.)

This means nothing to the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the conciliar “archbishop” of New York, Timothy Michael Dolan, who visited the Anti-Defamation League’s New York headquarters on April 22, 2009, exactly one week after his installation as the successor to the late Edward Michael Egan, and said the following:

"This is awesome for me," Archbishop Dolan said.  "I have long admired the work of the Anti-Defamation League from afar, and now to receive your welcome and your assurances of our hope for future cooperation, which I enthusiastically share, means very much to me." (Press Release of the Anti-Defamtion League.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is just as much an admirer of the Anti-Defamation League and its parent organization, B’Nai B’rith as is Timothy Michael Dolan, whose “face time” has been greatly curtailed in the past four hundred fifty-eight days as the Argentine Apostate takes up almost all of the oxygen in the conciliar church. The fact that Bergoglio has managed to crowd out Dolan of publicity is feat in and of itself.

What does this have to do with Obergefell v. Hodges?

Well, just about everything considering that the Anti-Defamation League, joined by numerous pro-abortion, pro-proversity “mainstream” sects and a variety of secular humanist organizations, filed an amicus curiae brief in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges as it was under consideration by the Supreme Court of America to support the nonexistent “constitutional right” for people of the same gender to “marry.” Here is but an excerpt as the brief itself constitutes a total of forty-two pages of text:

Amici curiae are a diverse group of religious, civil rights, and cultural organizations that advocate for religious freedom, tolerance, and equality. Amici have a strong interest in this case due to their commitment to religious liberty, civil rights, and equal protection of law. Identity and Interest Statements of particular amici can be found in the Appendix to this brief. 


History shows us that some of this nation’s most abhorrent laws and practices—laws and practices that are now considered anachronistic blemishes on our history—were grounded in and defended by religious and moral justifications. For three-quarters of a century, this Court has refused to uphold laws dis­advantaging minority groups based on religious or moral disapproval alone—with the one, now-discredited exception of Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). While Respondents largely shy away from explicitly embracing religious and moral justifications in support of Kentucky Const. § 233A, Michigan Const. art. I, § 25, Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11, and Tennessee Const. art. XI, § 18, their amici do not. And the legislative history and ballot initiative campaigns behind these marriage bans demonstrate that the bans had the specific—and improper—purpose of codifying a particular religious understanding of marriage into civil law and expressing moral disap­proval of same-sex couples.

This improper purpose renders the marriage bans unconstitutional under both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Because the bans enshrine a particular religious viewpoint into law and lack a secular purpose, they necessarily run afoul of Establishment Clause principles. These Establish­ment Clause shortcomings buttress the unavoidable conclusion that the bans also violate the Equal Protection Clause. As this Court has held, moral-and religion-based disapproval does not qualify as a legiti­mate governmental interests sufficient to survive even the lowest levels of constitutional scrutiny.

Finally, contrary to the arguments of some who defend the marriage bans, invalidating the bans will not jeopardize religious liberty. As an initial matter, the cases before this Court concern whether same-sex couples are entitled to the benefits of civil marriage. Religious groups will remain free, as they always have been, to choose how to define religious marriage and which marriages to solemnize. To the extent that the “religious liberty” arguments take the form of concern regarding private entities’ and individuals’ potential future liability under a variety of different types of anti-discrimination laws, they are a red herring. Not only do such arguments erroneously conflate marriage equality laws with application of anti-discrimination laws, but they also reflect a profound misunderstand­ing of religious liberty. Religious liberty should serve as a shield, not as a sword to discriminate against members of a disadvantaged minority group. . . .

Religion offers no trump card over anti-discrimination laws. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage simply to foreclose potentially meritorious discrimination claims against a commercial business (where such anti-discrimina­tion laws exist) is not a legitimate governmental interest. No matter how they are framed, the “religious freedom” arguments can gain no traction in cases like these, involving a challenge to a discriminatory marriage law. This Court is not in the habit of upholding discriminatory laws to protect religious prerogatives. The proponents of these arguments would do better to recognize that religious liberty is best safeguarded when religious groups retain the freedom to define religious marriage for themselves, and to remember that civil marriage is an institution of government, which is prohibited from enacting laws based on particular religious viewpoints. See § II.A, supra.

Finally, Respondents’ and amici ’s argument that the Court should leave the issue of marriage equality to state legislatures and the democratic process (see, e.g., Br. for Petitioners, pp. 51-54, Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2015)) are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the operation of the Equal Protection Clause. Under such a theory, grounded in the reasoning of Dred Scott, this Court should have abstained from deciding cases like Brown and Loving; the Court instead should have waited for the state legislatures to vindicate equal rights. That is not how the Fourteenth Amendment works. (Anti-Defamation League Amicus Curiae Brief in case of Obergefell v. Hodges.)

Leaving aside the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment until part three on Tuesday, June 30, 2015, the Feast of the Commemoration of Saint Paul within the Octave of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul and within the Octave of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, it is enough to remind the “vast” readership or this site that the religiously neutral Constitution of the United States of America was destined to have the plain meaning of its text rendered meaningless by virtue of its framers’ belief that men of any religious belief or of no religious belief could agree to disagree on matters of “faith” so as to pursue “common interests.” This is the exact same false belief advanced by concilairism, namely, to put aside “differences” of religion in order to pursue “common interests.”

There are, of course, many “common interests” between the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity. Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s upcoming “synod of ‘bishops,’” whose result he is preordaining by hand-picking “gay friendly” “bishops” to serve on it, is all about arguing about that which is beyond mere creatures to debate, that is, the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, met as it has been with complete silence thus far from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is going to “transformative” in lavender strongholds such as Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro District of the City of San Francisco, California, Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Saint Francis Xavier Church in the Greenwich Village section of the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, Saint Paul the Apostle Church in the Lincoln Center section of Manhattan, Saint Brigid’s Church in Westbury, New York, and Saints Cyril and Methodius Church in Deer Park, Long Island, New York, to name just a few among so many, of course. It is only a matter of time before some “loving” presbyter in one of these strongholds of perversity (excuse me, “diversity” and “tolerance”) decides to be a “pioneer” and perform a “gay marriage” ceremony with a Novus Ordo nuptial service, a travesty that would be replete with “bridesmaids,” of course. Such a spectacle might even be more likely to take place in a conciliar venue in Belgium, The Netherlands, or Germany.

If and when such spectacles do come to pass, though, one can be assured that one will hear the same kind of silence from Jorge Mario Bergoglio by which he responded to advances of evil elsewhere in the world as he fiddles away praising the Talmudists and every other false religious group extant today and ever seeking to find a way to “save the earth” while emptying what little of anything recognizable as Catholicism in his false church with a wanton sense of abandon that would make even John Calvin and Oliver Cromwell seem like veritable pillars of Catholic tradition.

This is all a cruel farce, a travesty, a mockery of God and of the Holy Faith that He has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping. The Catholic Church cannot be stained by any taint of error, as pope after pope has taught us. While each person must come to recognize this for himself (it took me long enough to do so!), we must nevertheless embrace the truth once we do come to recognize and accept it without caring for one moment what anyone else may think about us.

It is evil to maintain that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter can give us false or "ambiguous" doctrines and defective liturgies. It is impossible to reconcile the “doctrines" of the "Second" Vatican Council and of the conciliar "popes" with this passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos:

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

This day, the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, reminds us that it is necessary to make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds. A true pope maintains the Catholic Faith so that "revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." A true pope never goes to places of false worship or prays as a Jew or gives the appearance of reaffirming adherents of false religions in their false beliefs as he exhorts them to use those false beliefs as the basis for "building" the "better" world. A true pope is never silent about the Holy Name when addressing those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is really that simple, and how dumb and stubborn and blind was I for failing to see what so many of the true bishops and priests ordained on this very day have seen for so long. Remember, the Catholic Church enjoys a Perpetual Immunity from Error and Heresy.

The month of June, the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, ends at 11:59:59 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, June 30, 2015, the Commemoration of Saint Paul. It is always time, however, to enfold ourselves in the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

Every extra moment we spend before the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament and every extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we pray will help us to be more and more conformed to the likeness of Our Divine Redeemer, Who permitted His own Most Sacred Heart to be wounded by our sins during His Passion and the same time He permitted our sins to pierce His Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart with the Fourth through the Seventh Swords of Sorrow.

We must always remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever crosses--personal, social and ecclesiastical--that we are asked to carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Remember the words of the late William C. Koneazny: "Our Lady will come and throw the bums out!"

Our Lady of Perpetual Help, 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.