Jorge Reaffirms Those Living Lives of Moral Dissolution

It is wearying to state that dealing with Jorge Mario Bergoglio is wearying.

Part of the weariness is caused by how utterly shameless the Argentine Apostate is in seeking to project his own heretical beliefs onto the entirety of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, going so far as make it appear that the following plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself do not mean what Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial:

[3] And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: [5] For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

[6] Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. [7] They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? [8] He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [10] His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. (Matthew 19: 3-10.)

Bishop Richard Challoner provided the following commentary on verses nine and eleven that demonstrates the simple fact that Our Lord’s doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which Holy Mother Church has kept inviolate throughout the course of nearly two millennia, permits the separation of spouses because of adultery, neither spouse is free to “remarry” while the other is still alive:

[9] Except it be: In the case of fornication, that is, of adultery, the wife may be put away: but even then the husband cannot marry another as long as the wife is living.

[11] Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 

No one who has been following the unfolding of events since the conciliar “archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, walked out onto the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, can feign any kind of shock over the fact that “Pope Francis” does not believe in the immutability of any of Holy Mother Church’s received teaching. Everything is up for grabs, including especially as regards the precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Much like Martin Luther and Henry VIII five hundred years ago, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that chastity is possible to maintain if one finds himself the unwilling victim of a divorce. Indeed, the Argentine Apostate believes that it is not “realistic” or even “healthy,” possibly, for those who have “remarried” civilly or are cohabiting outside of the marriage to amend their lives. He even demonstrates great toleration for those who are engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by assuaging their consciences rather than by disturbing themto reform their lives of perdition.

Although anything and everything that Bergoglio is saying now is just a rehash of the content of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2017—which was itself merely a “papal” approbation of everything he taught and the pastoral practices he sanctioned as “Father,” “Auxiliary Bishop,” and “Cardinal” Bergoglio in Argentina, the false “pontiff’s” most recent efforts to “accompany” the “divorced and remarried” was perhaps his boldest effort to date as he attempted to claim that Our Lord’s plain words quoted above do not mean what Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial:

The Holy Father also warned against giving in to the temptation to entertain “special pleading” in questions regarding marriage. The Pharisees, he noted, present Jesus with the problem of divorce. Their method, the Pope said, is always the same: “casuistry,” — “is this licit or not?”

“It is always the small case. And this is the trap, behind casuistry, behind casuistical thought, there is always a trap: against people, against us, and against God, always. ‘But is it licit to do this? To divorce his wife?’ And Jesus answered, asking them what the Law said, and explaining why Moses framed the Law as he did. But He doesn’t stop there. From [the study of the particular case], He goes to the heart of the problem, and here He goes straight to the days of Creation. That reference of the Lord is so beautiful: ‘But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh’.”

Pope Francis went on to say, “The Lord refers to the masterpiece of Creation,” which is precisely the human person, created as male and female. God said He “did not want man to be alone,” He wanted him to be with “his companion along the way.” The moment Adam meets Eve, he said, is a poetic moment: “It is the beginning of love: [a couple] going together as one flesh.” The Lord , he repeated, “always takes casuistic thought and brings it to the beginning of revelation.” On the other hand, he explained, “this masterpiece of the Lord is not finished there, in the days of Creation, because the Lord has chosen this icon to explain the love that He has for His people.” At the very point “when the people is unfaithful,” he said, God speaks to him with words of love”:

“The Lord takes this love of the masterpiece of Creation to explain the love He has for His people. And going further: when Paul needs to explain the mystery of Christ, he does it in a relationship, in reference to His Spouse: because Christ is married, Christ was married, He married the Church, His people. As the Father had married the People of Israel, Christ married His people. This is the love story, this is the history of the masterpiece of Creation – and before this path of love, this icon, casuistry falls and becomes sorrowful. When, however, this leaving one’s father and mother, and joining oneself to a woman, and going forward... when this love fails – because many times it fails – we have to feel the pain of the failure, [we must] accompany those people who have had this failure in their love. Do not condemn. Walk with them – and don’t practice casuistry on their situation.”

Pope Francis also said the Gospel episode encourages us to reflect “about this plan of love, this journey of love in Christian marriage, that God has blessed the masterpiece of His Creation,” a blessing, he said, “that has never been taken away. Not even original sin has destroyed it.” When we thinks of this, we can “see how beautiful love is, how beautiful marriage is, how beautiful the family is, how beautiful this journey is, and how much love we too [must have], how close we must be to our brothers and sisters who in life have had the misfortune of a failure in love.”

Turning again to Saint Paul, Pope Francis emphasized the beauty of “the love Christ has for His bride, the Church”:

“Here too, we must be careful that love should not fail: [it is dangerous] to speak about a bachelor-Christ (It. Cristo troppo scappolo): Christ married the Church. You can’t understand Christ without the Church, and you can’t understand the Church without Christ. This is the great mystery of the masterpiece of Creation. May the Lord give all of us the grace to understand it and also the grace to never fall into these casuistical attitudes of the Pharisees, of the teachers of the law.” (Jorge Distorts and Misrepresents Our Lord's Own Word.)

Noting that there is a very good analysis of this blasphemy that is designed to reaffirm those living lives of moral dissolution to be found at Novus Ordo Watch, I want to stress the simple fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio's heretical views on divorce and remarriage are premised upon rejecting Holy Mother Church's constant teaching on the indissolubility of valid, ratified and consummated marriages.Bergoglio is concerned about hurting the feelings of those who have chosen to live in states of wanton Mortal Sin while he is offending God by giving sanction to sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and can lead souls to Hell for all eternity.

Moreover, our true popes have always decried evils so as to warn the bishops that is their duty to protect their flock from the errors of the day. The Catholic Church has never failed to preach the truth about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and truth is never an “ideal.” Truth is. Truth exists independently of human acceptance of it. To assert that the Catholic Church has expected too much from her children concerning the faithful observance of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandment is to deny the efficacy of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is thus to blaspheme Our Lord and His Holy Church in order to soothe the tender consciences of those who have chosen to live in sin because they wanted to do so, not because they had “no other choice.”

To wit, Pope Leo XIII issued Arcanum, February 10, 1880, to warn of the aggressive assault against the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that was being made by Freemasons throughout Europe and in the United States of America. The words of Pope Leo XIII stand as a rebuke to everything contained in Amoris Laetitia and in Bergoglio's continued assaults on the Catholic Church's doctrine on the Sacrament of Holy Matriomny since its issuance nearly a year ago.  

A reading of the following passages from Arcanum will illustrate the truth that the ideology of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries was identified and condemned one hundred thirty-six years before the issuance of Amoris Laetitia:

16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also -- indeed, human society itself -- may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.

17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.

18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.

19. Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, has no problem with “civil marriages.” In truth, of course, he has no problem with adultery, fornication, sodomy, cross-dressing, contraception, bodily mutilation, or any other kind of impure practices. He only has a problem with those who condemn these evils and call to correction those who are engaged in them. In this regard, obviously, he has a problem with Holy Mother Church’s twenty true general councils and our true popes.

Pope Leo XIII used the authority of the See of Saint Peter to denounce popular trends that Bergoglio does not believe need to be decried:

28. Now, however much the legislators of these our days may wish to guard themselves against the impiety of men such as we have been speaking of, they are unable to do so, seeing that they profess to hold and defend the very same principles of jurisprudence; and hence they have to go with times, and render divorce easily obtainable. History itself shows this; for, to pass over other instances, we find that, at the close of the last century, divorces were sanctioned by law in that upheaval or, rather, as it might be called, conflagration in France, when society was wholly degraded by the abandoning of God. Many at the present time would fain have those laws reenacted, because they wish God and His Church to be altogether exiled and excluded from the midst of human society, madly thinking that in such laws a final remedy must be sought for that moral corruption which is advancing with rapid strides.

29. Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

30. Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

31. Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

32. Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society.

33. It must consequently be acknowledged that the Church has deserved exceedingly well of all nations by her ever watchful care in guarding the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. Again, no small amount of gratitude is owing to her for having, during the last hundred years, openly denounced the wicked laws which have grievously offended on this particular subject;[51] as well as for her having branded with anathema the baneful heresy obtaining among Protestants touching divorce and separation;[52] also, for having in many ways condemned the habitual dissolution of marriage among the Greeks;[53] for having declared invalid all marriages contracted upon the understanding that they may be at some future time dissolved;[54] and, lastly, for having, from the earliest times, repudiated the imperial laws which disastrously favored divorce.[55] (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Pope Leo XIII named Protestantism as the proximate root cause of the promotion of divorce and “remarriage” in contemporary times while condemning the Greek Orthodox, who blazed the path that Luther trod five hundred years after the Greek Schism of 1054, for their habitual dissolution of marriages. A true pope decried evils. He did not seek to make any excuse for them on the pretext of finding “good” in anything evil as evil is the privation of good. Then again, one has to be a Catholic to understand such points.

Pope Leo XIII also cited instances in which the Catholic Church rebuffed civil leaders who wanted her to sanction their lecherous and adulterous ways:

34. As often, indeed, as the supreme pontiffs have resisted the most powerful among rulers, in their threatening demands that divorces carried out by them should be confirmed by the Church, so often must we account them to have been contending for the safety, not only of religion, but also of the human race. For this reason all generations of men will admire the proofs of unbending courage which are to be found in the decrees of Nicholas I against Lothair; of Urban II and Paschal II against Philip I of France; of Celestine III and Innocent III against Alphonsus of Leon and Philip II of France; of Clement VII and Paul III against Henry VIII; and, lastly, of Pius VII, that holy and courageous pontiff, against Napoleon I, when at the height of his prosperity and in the fullness of his power. This being so, all rulers and administrators of the State who are desirous of following the dictates of reason and wisdom, and anxious for the good of their people, ought to make up their minds to keep the holy laws of marriage intact, and to make use of the proffered aid of the Church for securing the safety of morals and the happiness of families, rather than suspect her of hostile intention and falsely and wickedly accuse her of violating the civil law. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

Each of the despots who demanded that their divorces be sanctioned by Holy Mother Church would have found a most tender and receptive ear in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has ready excuses for evils and those who persist in them while apologizing for how the Catholic Church has presented what he disparages as a “theological ideal” of marriage by stressing the “the almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation."

All that Bergoglio has been doing, of course, since the issuance of Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016, is to apply Modernism’s dogmatic evolutionism to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and to each of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments concerning conjugal morality, starting with his contention that the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage should not be presented as a “duty” or by “repeating doctrine.” The Argentine Apostate believes that doctrine repels Catholics and that the beauty of its truths have no capacity to convince them to adhere to it for love of God and for the sake of their own sanctification and salvation.

Yet is that Popes Leo XIII and Pius IX did precisely what is disparaged by “Pope Francis.” They saw it as their duty to defend and to teach the doctrine of marital indissolubility:

41. In the great confusion of opinions, however, which day by day is spreading more and more widely, it should further be known that no power can dissolve the bond of Christian marriage whenever this has been ratified and consummated; and that, of a consequence, those husbands and wives are guilty of a manifest crime who plan, for whatever reason, to be united in a second marriage before the first one has been ended by death. When, indeed, matters have come to such a pitch that it seems impossible for them to live together any longer, then the Church allows them to live apart, and strives at the same time to soften the evils of this separation by such remedies and helps as are suited to their condition; yet she never ceases to endeavor to bring about a reconciliation, and never despairs of doing so. But these are extreme cases; and they would seldom exist if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion, but entertaining right ideas of the duties of marriage and of its noble purpose; neither would they anticipate their marriage by a series of sins drawing down upon them the wrath of God.

42. To sum up all in a few words, there would be a calm and quiet constancy in marriage if married people would gather strength and life from the virtue of religion alone, which imparts to us resolution and fortitude; for religion would enable them to bear tranquilly and even gladly the trials of their state, such as, for instance, the faults that they discover in one another, the difference of temper and character, the weight of a mother's cares, the wearing anxiety about the education of children, reverses of fortune, and the sorrows of life.

43. Care also must be taken that they do not easily enter into marriage with those who are not Catholics; for, when minds do not agree as to the observances of religion, it is scarcely possible to hope for agreement in other things. Other reasons also proving that persons should turn with dread from such marriages are chiefly these: that they give occasion to forbidden association and communion in religious matters; endanger the faith of the Catholic partner; are a hindrance to the proper education of the children; and often lead to a mixing up of truth and falsehood, and to the belief that all religions are equally good.    

44. Lastly, since We well know that none should be excluded from Our charity, We commend, venerable brothers, to your fidelity and piety those unhappy persons who, carried away by the heat of passion, and being utterly indifferent to their salvation, live wickedly together without the bond of lawful marriage. Let your utmost care be exercised in bringing such persons back to their duty; and, both by your own efforts and by those of good men who will consent to help you, strive by every means that they may see how wrongly they have acted; that they may do penance; and that they may be induced to enter into a lawful marriage according to the Catholic rite. (Pope Leo XIII, ArcanumFebruary 10, 1880.)

32. In the first place Christ Himself lays stress on the indissolubility and firmness of the marriage bond when He says: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder,"[31] and: "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."[32]

33. And St. Augustine clearly places what he calls the blessing of matrimony in this indissolubility when he says: "In the sacrament it is provided that the marriage bond should not be broken, and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring."[33]

34. And this inviolable stability, although not in the same perfect measure in every case, belongs to every true marriage, for the word of the Lord: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder," must of necessity include all true marriages without exception, since it was spoken of the marriage of our first parents, the prototype of every future marriage. Therefore although before Christ the sublimeness and the severity of the primeval law was so tempered that Moses permitted to the chosen people of God on account of the hardness of their hearts that a bill of divorce might be given in certain circumstances, nevertheless, Christ, by virtue of His supreme legislative power, recalled this concession of greater liberty and restored the primeval law in its integrity by those words which must never be forgotten, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." Wherefore, Our predecessor Pius VI of happy memory, writing to the Bishop of Agria, most wisely said: "Hence it is clear that marriage even in the state of nature, and certainly long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, was divinely instituted in such a way that it should carry with it a perpetual and indissoluble bond which cannot therefore be dissolved by any civil law. Therefore although the sacramental element may be absent from a marriage as is the case among unbelievers, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage there must remain and indeed there does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so bound up with matrimony from its first institution that it is not subject to any civil power. And so, whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is really a true marriage, in which case it carries with it that enduring bond which by divine right is inherent in every true marriage; or it is thought to be contracted without that perpetual bond, and in that case there is no marriage, but an illicit union opposed of its very nature to the divine law, which therefore cannot be entered into or maintained."[34]

35. And if this stability seems to be open to exception, however rare the exception may be, as in the case of certain natural marriages between unbelievers, or amongst Christians in the case of those marriages which though valid have not been consummated, that exception does not depend on the will of men nor on that of any merely human power, but on divine law, of which the only guardian and interpreter is the Church of Christ. However, not even this power can ever affect for any cause whatsoever a Christian marriage which is valid and has been consummated, for as it is plain that here the marriage contract has its full completion, so, by the will of God, there is also the greatest firmness and indissolubility which may not be destroyed by any human authority.

36. If we wish with all reverence to inquire into the intimate reason of this divine decree, Venerable Brethren, we shall easily see it in the mystical signification of Christian marriage which is fully and perfectly verified in consummated marriage between Christians. For, as the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Ephesians,[35] the marriage of Christians recalls that most perfect union which exists between Christ and the Church: "Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico, in Christo et in ecclesia;" which union, as long as Christ shall live and the Church through Him, can never be dissolved by any separation. And this St. Augustine clearly declares in these words: "This is safeguarded in Christ and the Church, which, living with Christ who lives for ever may never be divorced from Him. The observance of this sacrament is such in the City of God . . . that is, in the Church of Christ, that when for the sake of begetting children, women marry or are taken to wife, it is wrong to leave a wife that is sterile in order to take another by whom children may be hand. Anyone doing this is guilty of adultery, just as if he married another, guilty not by the law of the day, according to which when one's partner is put away another may be taken, which the Lord allowed in the law of Moses because of the hardness of the hearts of the people of Israel; but by the law of the Gospel."[36]

37. Indeed, how many and how important are the benefits which flow from the indissolubility of matrimony cannot escape anyone who gives even a brief consideration either to the good of the married parties and the offspring or to the welfare of human society. First of all, both husband and wife possess a positive guarantee of the endurance of this stability which that generous yielding of their persons and the intimate fellowship of their hearts by their nature strongly require, since true love never falls away.[37] Besides, a strong bulwark is set up in defense of a loyal chastity against incitements to infidelity, should any be encountered either from within or from without; any anxious fear lest in adversity or old age the other spouse would prove unfaithful is precluded and in its place there reigns a calm sense of security. Moreover, the dignity of both man and wife is maintained and mutual aid is most satisfactorily assured, while through the indissoluble bond, always enduring, the spouses are warned continuously that not for the sake of perishable things nor that they may serve their passions, but that they may procure one for the other high and lasting good have they entered into the nuptial partnership, to be dissolved only by death. In the training and education of children, which must extend over a period of many years, it plays a great part, since the grave and long enduring burdens of this office are best borne by the united efforts of the parents. Nor do lesser benefits accrue to human society as a whole. For experience has taught that unassailable stability in matrimony is a fruitful source of virtuous life and of habits of integrity. Where this order of things obtains, the happiness and well being of the nation is safely guarded; what the families and individuals are, so also is the State, for a body is determined by its parts. Wherefore, both for the private good of husband, wife and children, as likewise for the public good of human society, they indeed deserve well who strenuously defend the inviolable stability of matrimony.

38. But considering the benefits of the Sacrament, besides the firmness and indissolubility, there are also much higher emoluments as the word "sacrament" itself very aptly indicates; for to Christians this is not a meaningless and empty name. Christ the Lord, the Institutor and "Perfecter" of the holy sacraments,[38] by raising the matrimony of His faithful to the dignity of a true sacrament of the New Law, made it a sign and source of that peculiar internal grace by which "it perfects natural love, it confirms an indissoluble union, and sanctifies both man and wife."[39] (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

To disparage the duty to teach the doctrine of the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is to disparage Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, and this is precisely what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done throughout the entirety of his presbyteral and “episcopal” life.

Bergoglio’s insidious redefinition of marriage is experientially-based. Indeed, everything that this heretic believes about the Catholic Faith is experientially-based, and this is nothing other than pure Modernism as dissected by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Once again, of course, one can see that a true pope has condemned the entire false foundation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “theology,” such as it is, that the false “pontiff” uses to accept each false religion as good and true in and of themselves and that he used in Amoris Laetitia to accept the “goodness” of “stable bonds” that are said to exist between couples who demonstrate “love” for each other. Everything that exists, therefore, even if it is not “ideal” or “perfect,” is said to exist by the very ordained will of God.

Influenced by the late Father Walter Burghardt, S.J., who wrote that Protestant sects enjoy the favor of God by the sheer fact of their existence, Jorge Mario Bergoglio looks for the “good” in every sinful relationship imaginable, no matter how sick, twisted or perverted it may be.. And it is this false sense of tolerance that the conciliar “pope” is urging upon married couples by exhorting them to engage in “dialogue” in order to be “open to new ways of thinking” so as to realize “university in diversity” or “reconciled diversity.” In other words, Bergoglio is telling married couples to be as flexible in their “opinions,” including those pertaining to Faith and Morals, as he is. Everything is up for discussion and “dialogue” in the name of a search for the “common ground.”

No one who has even a small iota of intellectual honesty can claim Bergoglio's Ding School of Apostasy "homily" of Friday, February 24, 2017, was anything other than an attempt to relativize the plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Indeed, everything about Catholic Faith and Morals is up for “dialogue” in order for order for there to be “reconciled diversity” or “unity in diversity,” which is the exact same heretical line that was being used by ecumenists in the 1950s and that has been used by the conciliar “popes” since the end of the “Second” Vatican Council. What matters, Jorge the Naturalist believes, is to make unrepentant sinners feel "comfortable" and "happy" about themselves so that they can be secure in knowledge that they can find a "no judgment zone" in what they think is the Catholic Church.

Bergoglio attempt to justify all of this by having invoking his false concept of "mercy" is nothing other than the application of situation ethics under the guise of "papal teaching," and it is one that he is applying at this time not only to those who commit adultery, fornicate and/or commit sodomy in the lay life. He is equally at ease applying his false concept of "mercy" to members of his "clergy," whether validly ordained or not, who are guilty of abusing children by committing sins of impurity against them, up to and including the sin of Sodom, which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Jorge's "gospel of mercy" thus is more accurately described as his "gospel of lust" or his "gospel of 'if it feels good, do it.'" 

This is why the false "pontiff" is refusing to defrock clerical abusers, most, although not all, of whom were never "frocked" to begin with as they were installed as presbyters in the invalid conciliar rite of supposed priestly ordination. "Mercy" must be shown to these reprobates:

Pope Francis has been slammed by church officials and sex abuse survivors for cutting penalties for paedophile priests.


The Pope is said to be applying his vision of a 'merciful church' to sex offenders by reducing punishments to weaker sentences, such as a lifetime of prayer and penance.


It has been revealed by church officials that Pope Francis overruled advice given to him by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about two priests  - allowing them to be punished by a lifetime of prayer.


One of the priests was the Reverend Mauro Inzoli, who was found guilty of abusing young boys by the Vatican in 2012 and was ordered to be defrocked.


However, he appealed, and in 2014 Francis reduced the penalty to a lifetime of prayer, prohibiting him from celebrating Mass in public or being near children, barring him from his diocese and ordering five years of psychotherapy.


Rev Inzoli was then convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against five children as young as 12.


He is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him.


A church official has said some paedophile priests and their high-ranking friends appealed to Pope Francis by citing the pope's own words about mercy in their petitions.


They said: 'With all this emphasis on mercy ... he is creating the environment for such initiatives.' 


Marie Collins, an abuse survivor and founding member of Francis' sex-abuse advisory commission, expressed dismay that the congregation's recommended penalties were being weakened.


She said: 'All who abuse have made a conscious decision to do so. Even those who are paedophiles, experts will tell you, are still responsible for their actions. They can resist their inclinations.'


Many canon lawyers and church authorities argue that defrocking paedophiles can put society at greater risk because the church no longer exerts control over them.


They argue that keeping the men in restricted ministry, away from children, enables superiors to exert some degree of supervision.


But Ms Collins said the church must also take into account the message that reduced canonical sentences sends to both survivors and abusers. (Jorge Quietly Trims Sanctions of Clerical Abusers Who Want His 'Mercy")


Conciliar "discipline" for clerical abusers has always been a farce. Bergoglio is, no matter how quietly, just putting his own stamp of "mercy" on this farce as he really does not believe that any kind of sins of impurity, including those committed upon innocent children, is 


Even though the article in the Daily Mail quoted above had a photograph of the decrepit old Antipope Emeritus, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, stating that he defrocked over eight hundred clerical abusers, the truth is much more complex than this as the "restorer of tradition" was, as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger during his days at the conciliar "archbishop" of Munich and Freising in 1980, not exactly overly concerned with clerical abusers (see Appendix A below, which demonstrates once again that the antipope emeritus has always been as sanguine about the horror of personal sin as the man who replaced him in the conciliar seat of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. 


Moreover, as has been pointed out so many times n the past, Ratzinger/Benedict himself is a blasphemer who has called down himself the wrath of God by denying the nature of dogmatic truth to consign the dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church's true councils and the teachings of her true popes to the dust bin of history by asserting that they can be reinterpreted now because the language used at the time of their formulation was conditioned on the historical circumstances of the moment, an assertion that is an utter act of blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost. Ratzinger/Benedict has praised false religions, esteemed their symbols with his own priestly hands, entered into their places of false worship and called them "sacred," and has stressed that the "values" of false religions can help to build the "better," more "peaceful" world. A man who believes and does these things will be incapable of reacting with the proper amount of moral outrage when faced with the suffering of the sheep, reacting only when bad press forces him to do so.

Ratzinger/Benedict refused to do anything other than issue an "apology" for the terrible crisis of clerical abuse uncovered in Ireland, angering the conciliar "archbishop" of Ireland, Diarmuid Martin, who is, apart from his criticism of Ratzinger/Benedict's passivity in the wake of the report issued by the Murphy Commission in 2010, a complete creature of conciliarism. Not one of the Irish "bishops" was been penalized by Ratzinger/Benedict during his tenure. Not one.

Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict even refused to to accept the resignation of two of these putative Successors of the Apostles, Eaamon Oliver Walsh and Ray Field, after they had tendered them to him in 2010. And it was, after all, Ratzinger/Benedict who appointed the lavender-friendly George Niederauer to succeed his protege, William Levada, as the conciliar "archbishop" of San Francisco, California, after he named Levada as his own successor as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Ultimately, of course, the likes of George Niederauer and Raymond Lahey and Daniel Leo Ryan (see Sick From Head To Toe) were made "bishops" of the counterfeit church of concilairism by the very non-blessed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II (see "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts).

Unlike the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the late Father Gerald Fitzgerald understood that priests and religious suffering from attraction to men and boys have no place in the priesthood. There must be no compromise on this point as no one who is a "closet" homosexual or who has committed homosexual acts is fit to be ordained to the priesthood or to continue serving as a priest after his ordination. There is no place for the effeminate or for those steeped in sins of unnatural vice in the priesthood, and those who have committed such sins need to be isolated as they are a danger to the spiritual and temporal well-being of innocent children. Indeed, they are a danger to their own spiritual and temporal well-being, something that Father Fitzgerald understood very well.

Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, warned the Catholic bishops of the 1950s not to place predators back into any parish assignments, going so far as place a $5,000 deposit towards the purchase an island to isolate these men as he did not believe that they were capable of reforming their behavior, that the best that could be done for them was to keep them away from possible future victims as they made reparation for their sins and attempted to save their immortal souls: 

As early as the mid-1950s, decades before the clergy sexual-abuse crisis broke publicly across the U.S. Catholic landscape, the founder of a religious order that dealt regularly with priest sex abusers was so convinced of their inability to change that he searched for an island to purchase with the intent of using it as a place to isolate such offenders, according to documents recently obtained by NCR.

Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, an order established in 1947 to deal with problem priests, wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood should be laicized immediately.

Fitzgerald was a prolific correspondent who wrote regularly of his frustration with and disdain for priests "who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls." His views are contained in letters and other correspondence that had previously been under court seal and were made available to NCR by a California law firm in February.

Fitzgerald's convictions appear to significantly contradict the claims of contemporary bishops that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served.

It is clear, too, in letters between Fitzgerald and a range of bishops, among bishops themselves, and between Fitzgerald and the Vatican, that the hierarchy was aware of the problem and its implications well before the problem surfaced as a national story in the mid-1980s.

Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, reacting in February to a federal investigation into his handling of the crisis, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."

Indeed, some psychology experts seemed to hold the position that priest offenders could be returned to ministry. Even the Paracletes, as the order developed and grew, employed experts who said that certain men could be returned to ministry under stringent conditions and with strict supervision.

The order itself ultimately was so inundated with lawsuits regarding priests who molested children while or after being treated at its facility in Jemez Springs, N.M., that it closed the facility in 1995.

Whatever discussion occurred during the 1970s and 1980s over proper treatment, however, for nearly two decades Fitzgerald spoke a rather consistent conviction about the dim prospects for returning sex abusers to ministry. Fitzgerald seemed to know almost from the start the danger such priests posed. He was adamant in his conviction that priests who sexually abused children (often the language of that era was more circumspect in naming the problem) should not be returned to ministry.

In a 1957 letter to an unnamed archbishop, Fitzgerald said, "These men, Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary layization [sic]." The letter, addressed to "Most dear Cofounder," was apparently to Archbishop Edwin V. Byrne of Santa Fe, N.M., who was considered a cofounder of the Paraclete facility at Jemez Springs and a good friend of Fitzgerald.

Later in the same letter, in language that revealed deep passion, he wrote: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat -- but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said it were better they had not been born -- this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?"

The documents were sealed at the request of the church in an earlier civil case involving Fr. Rudolph Kos of Dallas. Eleven plaintiffs won awards in the case in which Kos was accused of molesting minors over a 12-year period. He had been treated at the Paraclete facility in New Mexico. The documents were unsealed in 2007 by a court order obtained by the Beverly Hills law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, according to Anthony DeMarco, an attorney with the firm that has handled hundreds of cases for alleged victims of sexual abuse in the Los Angeles archdiocese and elsewhere.

According to Helen Zukin, another member of the firm, the documents have been used in some cases to dispute the church claim that it knew nothing about the behavior of sex abusers or the warning signs of abuse prior to the 1980s.

In a September 1952 letter to the then- bishop of Reno, Nev., Fitzgerald wrote: "I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. ... Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal." The advice was ignored and the priest was allowed to continue in ministry, and was ultimately accused of abusing numerous children, for which the church paid out huge sums in court awards.

While Fitzgerald told anyone who would listen of the futility of returning sexually abusive priests to ministry, that conviction became less absolute as the order, today headquartered in St. Louis, grew and the scope of its work became more complex. Fitzgerald, by most accounts, was deeply motivated by a sense of obligation to care for priests who were in trouble. Originally a priest of the Boston archdiocese for 12 years, he became a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross in 1934, and started the Servants of the Paraclete in 1947. His concern at the time was primarily for priests struggling with alcoholism. As his new order matured and its ministry became known, bishops began referring priests with other maladies, particularly those who had been sexually abusive of children. The order for years was the primary source for care of priests in the United States with alcohol and sexual problems.

At times, Fitzgerald appears to have resisted taking in priests who had sexually abused youngsters. In his 1957 letter he requested concurrence from the cofounder archbishop "of what I consider a very vital decision on our part -- that for the sake of preventing scandal that might endanger the good name of Via Coeli [the name of the New Mexico facility] we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce" children. "Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here."

In September 1957 the bishop of Manchester, N.H., Matthew F. Brady, sought Fitzgerald's advice regarding "a problem priest," John T. Sullivan, who seemed sincerely repentant and whose difficulty "is not drink but a series of scandal-causing escapades with young girls. There is no section of the diocese in which he is not known and no pastor seems willing to accept him," Brady wrote. The "escapades" involved molestation of young girls. In at least one instance, he procured an abortion for a teenager he had impregnated. In another case, he fathered a child and provided support to the mother until she later married. The charges of molesting girls would follow him the rest of his life.

"The solution of his problem seems to be a fresh start in some diocese where he is not known. It occurred to me that you might know of some bishop who would be willing to give him that opportunity," Brady wrote in his original letter.

Fitzgerald responded that in his judgment the "repentance and amendment" in such cases "is superficial and, if not formally at least subconsciously, is motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures."

Fitzgerald added that the Paracletes had "adopted a definite policy not to recommend to bishops men of this character, even presuming the sincerity of their conversion. We feel that the protection of our glorious priesthood will demand, in time, the establishment of a uniform code of discipline and of penalties."

He acknowledged the degree of deference with which Catholic clergy were treated even by civil authorities. "We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum [the care of souls]," he wrote.

Sullivan apparently had already been pulled from active ministry. In October 1957, less than a month after contacting Fitzgerald, Brady wrote a response to the bishop of Burlington, Vt., among the first of more than a dozen bishops approached by Sullivan for the next five years, warning against accepting him.

Brady then wrote a letter that he sent out time after time to bishops inquiring about Sullivan after he had requested acceptance for ministry. "My conscience will not allow me to recommend him to any bishop and I feel that every inquiring bishop should know some of the circumstances that range from parenthood, through violation of the Mann Act, attempted suicide, and abortion.

"Father Fitzgerald of Via Coeli would accept him only as a permanent guest to help save his soul but with no hope of recommending him to a bishop."

According to a 2003 Washington Post story, Sullivan, who had bounced around from diocese to diocese for nearly 30 years, "was stripped of his faculties to serve as a priest after he kissed a 13-year-old girl in Laconia, N.H., in 1983, when he was 66. He died in 1999, never having faced a criminal charge." After his death the church paid out more than a half-million dollars in awards to Sullivan's victims, including three in Grand Rapids, Mich., and one in Amarillo, Texas, two dioceses that did not heed the warnings of the bishops in New Hampshire. The victims said they were abused when they were between 7 and 12 years old.

In April 1962, Fitzgerald wrote a five-page response to a query from the Vatican's Congregation of the Holy Office about "the tremendous problem presented by the priest who through lack of priestly self-discipline has become a problem to Mother Church." One of his recommendations was for "a more distinct teaching in the last years of the seminary of the heavy penalty involved in tampering with the innocence (or even non-innocence) of little ones."

Regarding priests who have "fallen into repeated sins ... and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicization."

In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."

But by 1963, Fitzgerald's powerful hold on the direction of the order was weakening. According to a 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General, the appointment of a new archbishop, James Davis, began a new era of the relationship between the order, which was a "congregation of diocesan right," and the archdiocese. Davis and Fitzgerald apparently clashed over a number of issues. Davis was far more concerned than his predecessor about the business aspects of the Santa Fe facility and demanded greater accountability. He also demanded greater involvement of medical and psychological professionals, while "Fr. Gerald [Fitzgerald] distrusted lay programs, psychologists and psychiatrists," favoring a more spiritual approach, according to McNamara.

McNamara said Fitzgerald was eventually forced from leadership by a combination of factors, not least of which was a growing disagreement with the bishop and other members of the order over the direction of the Paracletes. After 1965, said McNamara, Fitzgerald "never again resided at Via Coeli Monastery, nor did he ever regain the power he had once had."

Nor did he get his island. In 1965 Fitzgerald had put a $5,000 deposit on an island in Barbados, near Carriacou, in the Caribbean that had a total purchase price of $50,000. But the new bishop apparently wanted nothing to do with owning an island, and Fitzgerald, who died in 1969, was forced to sell his long-sought means for isolating priest sex offenders.

When asked for comment, a spokesman for the Paraceltes referred NCR to historic accounts previously written about the order. (Bishops were warned of abusive priests.)


True bishops before the "Second" Vatican Council had been warned by Father Fitzgerald. They did not care. The seeds of corruption were planted long ago. They only managed to come to the forefront and receive liturgical expression and now even "papal" approbation in the decades thereafter. There is quite a contrast between the courageous, manly approach of the late Father Gerald Fitzgerald and that of the conciliar "popes," including the "merciful" "Pope Francis," who is very sympathetic to those who have chosen to persist in sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commadments. 


Writing in The Catholic Church and Salvation, the late Monsingor Joseph Clifford Fenton, the editor of the much-respected American Ecclesiastical Review between 1943 and 1963 (and a teacher of my own late seminary professor and friend, Father John Joseph "Jackie Boy" Sullivan, about whom a revised article will appear at some point in the next few weeks six months after what would have been his one hundredth birthday last year), the explained the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church concerning those steeped in Mortal Sin:


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

It is clear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that this is so, once again supplying us with yet another tangible proof that he possesseth not the the Catholic Faith, He is a heretic and a mortal enemy of Christ the King and the souls He redeemeed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

There is little more that can be written about this reprobate who loves to reaffirm others in their lives of moral dissolution. Those who believe him to be "Pope Francis" are only fooling themselves as the Catholic Church makes no terms with error of any kind, and no true pope in her history, no man how personally sinful a few of them may have been, ever taught the things that Senor Jorge is teaching at this time.

Our recourse must be to Our Lady as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. This is Lent. We had better make more time for prayer, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary in order to plant the seeds for the day when a true pope will be restored to the Throne of Saint Peter and fulfill her Fatima Message, thereby resulting in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Most Blessed Mother and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, to whom the month of March is dedicated, will assist us to save our souls as we seek to please their Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, which provides us with all of the supernatural means necessary to avoid sin, to do penance for our sins and to amend our lives as befits redeemed creatures.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Sorrows, 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 A

"Fall Guys" Aren't Usually "Stand-Up" Guys

April 21, 2010


Former President Richard Milhous Nixon was, despite his protestations to the contrary in a nationally televised press conference at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday, November 17, 1973 (which I was listening to on the radio while approaching Little Rock, Arkansas, in my 1972 Chevrolet Nova, taking an overnight at a Sheraton hotel before continuing on from Albany, New York, where I rented an apartment in preparation of my commencing doctoral studies at the State University of New York at Albany two months later, to College Station, Texas, to pick up our then six year-old beagle Blanky from my brother before proceeding down to Harlingen to visit my parents for a week--got all that?), indeed a crook. (See the "I'm not a crook" segment of that November 17, 1973, press conference.)

Who said so? Richard Nixon himself said so, if, that is, the late Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr., Nixon's last White House Chief of Staff and the "As of now, I'm in charge here, in the White House" Secretary of State of the United States of American under the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan from January 20, 1981, to July 5, 1982, is to be believed:

He [Alexander Haig] was brutally candid about his own run for office and his subsequent distaste for political life. “Not being a politician, I think I can say this: The life of a politician in America is sleaze,” he told the authors of “Nixon: An Oral History.”

“I didn’t realize it until I started to run for office,” he said. “But there is hardly a straight guy in the business. As Nixon always said to me — and he took great pride in it — ‘Al, I never took a dollar. I had somebody else do it.’ ” (Alexander M. Haig Jr. Dies at 85, p 3)

A lot of people took for the "fall" for Richard Nixon from 1973-1975. Among those who went to jail because of "Watergate" related crimes were former White House Chief of Staff Harry Robins Haldeman, former White House Domestic Adviser John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney Generals of the United States of American (not to mention, among many others, "Watergate" conspirators George Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson). Among the major "Watergate" players, however, only one, John Mitchell, who participated actively in the planning and execution of the break-ins of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, District of Columbia, that resulted in the arrest of the "Watergate burglars" by security guard Frank Wills on the evening of Saturday, June 20, 1972, remained silent to the point of his death on November 9, 1988. John Mitchell, who found himself caught up in what he called the "White House horrors," alone played his role as the silent "fall guy" until the very end. Most of the others wrote books about their "Watergate" experiences.

"Fall guys" aren't usually "stand up" guys, however. They usually fall by the wayside sooner or later, refusing to take the blame, in whole or in part, for the misdeeds of others.

Case-in-point: the elderly Monsignor Gerhard Gruber of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising in Germany, who was fingered by officials in the conciliar Vatican and in his own chancery office as the "culprit" who reassigned a known clerical abuser, Father Peter Hullermann, a priest of the Diocese of Essen, Germany, while Joseph Ratzinger was then the conciliar "archbishop" of Munich and Freising. It has been noted in several articles on this site that it is very plausible to contend that Ratzinger did indeed have direct knowledge of the case of Father Hullermann and that he personally approved the latter's assignment to parish work in a meeting at which he presided on January 15, 1980. This is just not idle speculation. Monsignor Gruber is evidently upset that he has had to take for the "fall" for his "pope:"

Catholic Church officials assigned full responsibility for the reassignment of a known pedophilic priest to retired vicar general Gerhard Gruber who served as deputy to Joseph Ratzinger when he was archbishop. Gruber is now challenging a Church statement that he "acted on his own authority," a claim he says was never discussed with him.

The emergency plan was hastily assembled in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising on the evening of March 11, a Thursday. The Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper had exposed the scandal surrounding pedophile priest Peter H., and the affair over sexual abuse in the church was getting dangerously close to the pope.

Peter H., a vicar from the western German city of Essen who had molested boys on several occasions, was sent to Munich in 1980, where he was assigned to work as a pastor again. As a result, he was able to abuse even more boys. The archbishop and chairman of the diocesan council, which approved H.'s appointment, was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger also chaired a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, in which the pedophile priest's living arrangements and therapy were discussed. He must have been familiar with H.'s criminal past. Because of this, the diocese has, in recent weeks, left no stone unturned in its effort to explain why the current pope could not be held accountable for H.'s continued service in his diocese.

That effort has been supported by documents found in the diocese records office that related to H., and that were signed by someone else at the time: the loyal Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, Ratzinger's deputy during his time as archbishop.

Apparently no one on the crisis team objected to the idea of taking Pope Benedict "out of the firing line" and using Gruber, 81, as a scapegoat instead. On the morning of March 12, while the press office was busy drafting a statement in which Gruber was given the full blame for H.'s appointment to serve as a pastor, and that included Gruber's personal apology, a church official was badgering the retired priest on the phone.

But Gruber, who felt put under pressure, later confided in theologian friends. He told them that he had been emphatically "asked" to assume full responsibility for the affair, and that church officials had promptly faxed him a copy of the statement and instructed him to make any changes he deemed necessary.

'Incorrect Decisions'

According to the statement released by the archdiocese, Ratzinger was partly responsible for making the decision to accept H.'s appointment. "Notwithstanding this decision," however, H. was assigned "by the then vicar general" to assist in pastoral care, without restriction, in a Munich parish. The statement also read: "Gruber assumes full responsibility for the incorrect decisions." A spokesman for the archdiocese later added that Gruber had "acted on his own authority" in the case of Peter H.

Gruber's friends say that the old man was only familiar with parts of the statement, that he was apparently being used as a scapegoat and that he was also under additional emotional pressure. To everyone's surprise, Gruber wrote an open letter in which he qualified the archdiocese's statement, writing that he did not sign any documents over which he had no influence. He also noted that he was "very upset" about the "manner in which the incidents were portrayed" by the archdiocese. "And the phrase 'acted on his own authority' also wasn't discussed with me," he wrote.

The archdiocese was unwilling to comment on the accusations, except to state it continued to believe that the former vicar general had acted on his own authority in the case of Peter H., and that he had admitted to having made mistakes. Gruber has gone on a trip to recuperate from "weeks that have been very stressful for me." His loyalty is greatly appreciated in Munich. Archbishop Reinhard Marx, Gruber writes, has sent him his best wishes and "expressed his appreciation for my 'participation'." (Catholic Abuse Scandal: Was Munich's Vicar General Forced to Serve as Ratzinger's Scapegoat?; see also Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.) 

Monsignor Gruber isn't the only one who's been thrown under the conciliar bus to seek to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Dario "Cardinal" Castrillon Hoyos, who commended a conciliar "bishop" in France, Pierre Pican, for refusing to turn over a presbyter to the civil authorities (see Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Meet Pope Saint Pius V), is seeking to protect himself and the current "pontiff" by blaming the refusal to hand over clerical abusers for criminal prosecution by the civil authorities on none other than Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II ("Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts):

Meanwhile, according to the Spanish daily La Verdad, Colombian cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos said at a weekend conference in Murcia that Pope John Paul approved the policy of not reporting to the police clerical sex abuse crimes.

In a September 2001 letter, recently published by the French Catholic publication Golias, Cardinal Hoyos wrote to French bishop Pierre Pican to congratulate him for not reporting an abuser priest. Earlier that year, Bishop Pican received a suspended three-month sentence for not reporting serial abuser Fr René Bissy, who was eventually given an 18-year prison sentence for child sex abuse crimes between 1989 and 1996.

Speaking in Murcia on Saturday, Cardinal Hoyos confirmed the text of the letter, adding also that Pope John Paul had seen it and “authorised me to send it to all the bishops”.

Four months earlier, in 2001, Pope John Paul assigned judicial responsibility for certain “grave” sins (including child sex abuse) to the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith. It was following this that the then prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote to all Catholic bishops advising that they refer all credible cases of clerical child sex abuse to him. That letter was accompanied by another one, also in Latin, instructing that this be kept secret.

If Cardinal Hoyos’s claim is true it would suggest that Pope John Paul’s 2001 directive was intended to encourage a policy of cover-up. (Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.) 

Fall guys aren't usually stand-up guys. This is true in politics. This is true in commerce. This is true in professional sports. This is true in ecclesiastical matters. 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI acted as he did in 1980 with Father Peter Hullermann because he has a casual, dismissive attitude concerning the horror of personal sin.

Ratzinger/Benedict has said he has "nothing against" those who go to what they think is Holy Mass in the conciliar structures "on occasion, " meaning that he has little regard for the Third Commandment and for one of the six Precepts of the Church. (CARDINAL RATZINGER ON THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY).

Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of regard for the Third Commandment is but a logical consequence for the lack of regard that he has for the First and Second Commandments as he has, as Benedict XVI, personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his priestly hands and has said that "Christians and Jews pray to the same Lord" and has called mosques and synagogues and even a mountain in Japan, Mount Hiei, atop which the Buddhists worship their devils as "sacred" places.

One who can so flagrantly violate the First and Second Commandments with such utter impunity demonstrates in the objective order of things, leaving aside subjective culpability solely to God Himself, Who alone knows the interior dispositions of souls, that he does not understand Who God is or what He has revealed to us through His true Church.

This lack of understanding of the identity of God flows logically from Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of understanding of the nature of God and His Revelation, believing that the expressions of dogmatic truth are contingent on the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. One who gets such basic things wrong is not going to have much of a real sense of the horror of personal sin and how to respond to it appropriately, which is one of the reasons that Ratzinger/Benedict and his band of conciliar "bishops" have sought to protect perverted priests/presbyters time and time again until their cover-ups and abuse of power made headlines that could no longer be ignored.

Ratzinger/Benedict has a high regard for "theologians" who are steeped in error, believing that even those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ continue "believing in a Christian manner" (see Cardinal Ratzinger). Does Our Lord have such a "high regard" for those who deny His Sacred Divinity? Is He sanguine about error and defections from the Faith?

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes, blasphemously, that Holy Mother Church is a "sinner church," not the spotless, immaculate Mystical Bride of her Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He believes in a "church" that has no claim to any temporal rights whatsoever, placing himself in quite some contrast with our true popes, including Pope Pius XI:

“Let me go one step further. From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendor. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society. Contrary to what has happened until now, she will present herself much more as a community of volunteers .... 

"As a small community, she will demand much more from the initiative of each of her members and she will certainly also acknowledge new forms of ministry and will raise up to the priesthood proven Christians who have other jobs. In many smaller communities, respectively in social groups with some affinity, the normal care of souls will take place in this way .... 

"There will be an interiorized Church, which neither takes advantage of its political mandate nor flirts with the left or the right. This will be achieved with effort because the process of crystallization and clarification will demand great exertion. It will make her poor and a Church of the little people .... All this will require time. The process will be slow and painful ....

“From this interiorized and simplified Church, a great force will pour out. The men of an [artificially] planned world will feel unspeakably isolated. When God will seem to have totally disappeared for them, they will experience a complete and horrible poverty. And then they will discover the small community of those who believe as something entirely new .... 

"Her [the Church’s] real crisis has hardly started. We still have to go through some great storms .... Certainly she will never again be the dominant force in society to the degree that she was until recently.  (Fr. Ratzinger's progressivist plan to change the face of the Church.)

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Has Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI taken back anything that he has ever written? Anything? No, he has, "in everything that is essential," "remained identical?". Who says say? He does, that's who:

I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict is trying to get others to take the "fall" for his own enabling of clerical abusers in Germany and as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith even though he knew full well how the conciliar 'bishops" of the world were protecting priests and presbyters, even though he knew full well that victims were being browbeaten and intimidated by chancery officials, even though he knew full well that civil crimes were going unreported and molesters were being placed back to what he considered to be "priestly ministry" who had demonstrated themselves to be mortal threats to the bodily and spiritual welfare of Catholics attached to the conciliar structures.

Five years of apostasy.

Five years of sacrilege.

Five years of blasphemy, including, as mentioned just above, Ratzinger/Benedict's esteeming the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands in the John Paul Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, on Thursday, April 17, 2008. Ratzinger/Benedict listened patiently as the enabler of clerical abusers, including Rembert George Weakland himself

, Richard Sklba, read the following blasphemous descriptions of these false religions:

A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem. 

A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color. 

A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue. 

The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers. 

A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment. (USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu Leaders To Meet With Pope Benedict XVI; see video of this blasphemous offense to God by clicking See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

Some are rejoicing now that it has been revealed that this apostate and blasphemer posing as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter offers the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace when he is not offending God by presiding over the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service publicly.

What does this prove? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. It certainly does not prove that Ratzinger/Benedict is trying to "restore the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church."

Many Modernist bishops and priests at the begriming of the Twentieth Century offered the fully unreformed Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. They did not have the Catholic Faith. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not about one's aesthetic "likes." It is about giving the Most Blessed Trinity fitting worship as the Holy Faith itself is conveyed flawlessly, without any defect or ambiguity whatsoever. And that this heretofore "secret" has been public now is to help rally the "traditionalist" troops, especially those in the Society of Saint Pius X, around him now that he finds himself under such siege in the secular media for his self-made problems.

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church to accept a menorah as a symbol of the "perennial validity of God's covenant of peace"?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a copy of the Koran, which blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by denying His Sacred Divinity and is heretical in that it does that God is a Trinity of Persons, which was represented by the American conciliar "bishops" as "the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace"?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God in the very Flesh, say what Ratzinger/Benedict said in May of 2008 when he, the false "pontiff," received yet another copy of the Koran, this time in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, called this work of blasphemy a "dear and precious book." Would Our Lord speak in such a way about a book that denies His Sacred Divinity? Restoring the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept the "metallic cube" representing the principles of Jain?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a brass incense burner (talk about a grain of incense!) with the word "Om" on it in order to "esteem" the Hindu religion?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a bell used in the false worship of Buddhism?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for a putative Roman Pontiff to call a mosque, a place of diabolical worship, or a mountain revered by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists as "sacred"?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" for an alleged Successor of Saint Peter to enter into synagogues and to treat the false, blasphemous religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents?

Was Bishop George Hay wrong when he he wrote that the Catholic Church's attitude about the places of false worship, including the synagogue, will always be the same? Was Pope Pius XI wrong to insist on the same doctrine?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than othersFor their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teachesShe has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erringIn this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

These brief passages are absolute, unconditional condemnations of the beliefs and practices of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos is also a condemnation of the belief held by many, although not all, traditionally-minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that it is necessary to come to a "correct" understanding of the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council, that these documents have been "misunderstood" in the name of "spirit of Vatican II." Wrong! Pope Pius XI made it abundantly clear that the Catholic Church "proposes a complete and easily understood teaching." Can there be any clearer statement that the confusion caused by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath is not a work of the Catholic Church but of the Master of Lies and the very Prince of Darkness himself?

Those who contend that "Pope" Benedict XVI is trying to uncover the "true" meaning of  the "Second" Vatican Council must contend with simple Catholic truth, that it is never necessary to try "uncover" that which is clear and precise, the expression of Catholic truth:

These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erringIn this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

That conciliarists are still arguing amongst themselves about the "true" meaning of the "Second" Vatican Council is, as noted just before, a manifest indication that that robber baron council was not the work of the Catholic Church, she who can never give us anything obscure, unclear or in the least ambiguous. As for the laughable, absurd contention made by "Bishop" Nickless that there is "no difference" between the "pre-Vatican II" and "post-Vatican II" periods, please see the compendium that I have provided in Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and Not So "Upright" After All.

How can the "ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" be restored by a man who rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King and endorses time and time again the condemned falsehood of "separation of Church and State" as he extols the heresy of "religious liberty," praising the nonexistent ability of one false religion after another to "contribute" to the "building" of a "better world"? (See (see Urbanely Accepting Evil,  Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment,  L'Osservatore Del NaturalistaA "Blessing" on a Murderer and His WorkFigures of Antichrist Applauding Each Other, and Working for the Nobel Prize From Hell).

Anyone possessed of the sensus Catholicus knows that none of these these blasphemous actions and/or heresies are an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church," that each of these blasphemous actions is offensive to the honor and majesty and glory of God, that they demand our public acts of reparation as they represent, objectively speaking, scandalous violations of the First and Second Commandments.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never be mixed with a "little bit of truth" and a "little bit" of alleged liturgical "decorum" to serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth. Truth mixed with error is all error.

Was Pope Gregory XVI wrong when he wrote in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, that the Catholic Church can never be stained with the slightest taint of error?

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Can truth and error be part of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Is it possible for doctrinal and pastoral statements to be so filled with ambiguity that it is necessary for an "super-magisterium," if you will, the Society of Saint Pius X, to serve as a "watchdog" upon the words and actions of a putative "council" of the Catholic Church and of putative Successors of Saint Peter?


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.) 

No one who defects knowingly from a single proposition in the Deposit of Faith can remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. A la carte Catholicism is wrong for those Catholics who support one moral evil (abortion, contraception, perversity, usury). A la carte Catholicism is wrong for putative "popes" and "bishops" who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and and reject the Church's official philosophy, Scholasticism, and support most brazenly movements (false ecumenism) and propositions (religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the new ecclesiology) that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

It is always useful to remind readers of the simple truth that no one can hold to a single proposition that has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church and remain within her maternal bosom:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

All the more reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of the symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the "Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:

"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

Do you believe that calling a mosque "sacred" is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of Summorum Pontificum and various efforts, proposed and actual, to rein various practices (the use of "for all" in the "Eucharistic Prayer" in English) in the Novus Ordo service that Ratzinger/Benedict himself continues to observe without any hint of a change at the level of pastoral praxis? (See the "papal" Missals for Ratzinger/Benedict's "apostolic journeys:" Missal for the Journey to the Holy LandMissal for the Journey to the United States of America,Missal for World Youth Day in Sydney.)

Indeed, how is it a "restoration" of our "ecclesiastical traditions" for almost totally naked aborigines to prance around in front of the putative "pope" and then to engage in "full, active and conscious" participation in a Novus Ordo travesty in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday, July 20, 2008? Is this "nothing" or an "exaggeration" in the sight of God Himself?

Do you believe that esteeming the symbols of five false religions is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because you want to project onto the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a progenitor and apologist of the "Second" Vatican Council, a Catholicism that is not there?

Do you believe that going into a synagogue and treating Talmudic Judaism is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of the "progress" that has been made in the past four years?

Do you believe that the thirteen million martyrs who were killed between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D. by the authorities of the Roman Empire were "martyrs for religious liberty," as Ratzinger/Benedict contended blasphemously on December 22, 2005? Is this "nothing" or "an exaggeration"?

Do you believe that Ratzinger/Benedict's praise for evolutionism and for Teilhard de Chardin, a consummate theological evolutionist, is "nothing" or "an exaggeration"?

Is God as sanguine about these things as you are?

No amount of argumentation is going to convince others who don't want to see or to admit these facts to accept them. Argumentation didn't convince me. I had to see things for myself as others prayed for me to do so. We must keep this in mind as we seek to sanctify and to save our own souls, which must be the first and last priorities of our daily lives, as we cling to to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or the nonexistent legitimacy of its false officials.

We can't force others to see or to accept that which they are not ready to see or to accept. Our sacrifices and our prayers and our sufferings and humiliations and penances, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, can help. However, we must be content to be thought of as crazy or disloyal or schismatic as we refuse to have contact with the false religion of conciliarism, as we refuse to accept a belief that the upcoming "negotiations" between the Society of Saint Pius X and the counterfeit church of conciliarism can do anything other than result in the acceptance of apostasy, at least in a "nuanced" manner. This is unacceptable to God. It must be unacceptable to us.

Our Lady wants us to sanctify and to save our souls as members of the Catholic Church. She wants us to trust in her loving maternal care. She wants us to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of her Divine Son's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces to want to pray more, to suffer more, and to sacrifice more and more for the cause of the restoration of the Church Militant here on earth as part of the glorious fruit of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. Do we not have enough love and tenderness in our poor, pitiable hearts to say more Rosaries each day, especially during this month of October?

May we beg our good Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to help us to be more conformed to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and to bear with patience and gratitude the crosses of our own personal lives--as well as those associated with the problems of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large--the sorrows that come our way, giving them to all to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, which loves us with a love that is perfect united to and beats in unison with the matchless love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

May Saint Joseph help us to be true "stand up guys" who take responsibility for our actions and make sincere reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of His foster-Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Chaste Spouse, Our Lady, for our sins and those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists who refuse to take responsibility even for those actions for which they have left a paper trail for the whole world to see and to mock.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary?

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.