An Unsurprising Hatred of Catholic Truth, part two

Revolutionaries hate history. Indeed, they must make war against in order to overthrow history. They, the revolutionaries, are the authors of a “new” or a “real” history that is based upon feeding the masses propaganda about the past in order to create a “false memory” for those who lived through it and to assure the young that the “new way” is far better with the “bad” past.

This is what the Protestant Revolutionaries did and continue to do. Most Protestants today are absolutely without any knowledge of what happened in Europe prior to 1517, that it was the Catholic Church that evangelized various pagan and barbaric tribes in Europe during the First Millennium. Having been fed a steady dose of absolute untruths and reprehensible distortions of history, the average Protestant does not know, for example, it was Saint Benedict of Nursia and the Western monasticism he started that kept learning alive in the aftermath of the Barbaric invasions. Indeed, most Protestants know nothing about the Middle Ages, and the little that they think they know is false.

The same is true in the case of social revolutionaries, who are most adept at flushing the truth about past down the memory hole. Almost the entire of what passes for “education” in our contemporary centers of brainwashing (sometimes referred to as “public schools”) is based upon the demonization of the past as the “enlightenment” of the present is heralded. Influenced by the methods perfected by Communist propagandists in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, those responsible for assuring that children and adolescents are taught to accept the prevailing “party line” (which refers in this instance to socialism, relativism, evolutionism, environmentalism, feminism, materialism, naturalism, hedonism, narcissism) without complaint.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the conciliar revolutionaries have gone to great lengths to throw out Holy Mother Church’s true history. Their success in this regard has been extraordinary as only a relatively small percentage of Catholics alive today have any true understanding of Catholic history or of much, if anything, to do with Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own daily screeds at the Casa Santa Marta in the past four years have included a constant barrage of caricatures about Catholic truth and insults against Catholics who believe in the integrity of the Holy Faith without any exception, qualification or reservation. Everything about the Faith is a matter of mockery for this hideous, pestilential reprobate who believes that Catholic Faith and Morals are determined by the alleged “needs” of the people. Objective standards of truth do not exist in this man’s mind as such concepts give no room for his false concept of “mercy.”

This is important to understand as the article published in La Civilta Cattolica last month by “Father” Antonio Spadaro, S.J., and Miguel Figueroa, the Protestant editor-in-chief of the Argentinian edition of L’Osservatore Romano, is an exercise in ignoring the past in order to provide cover for “Pope Francis” and his leftist allies in civil governments around the world by making it appear as though Catholics in the United States of America who have allied themselves with “evangelical fundamentalists” are purveyors of “hatred.”

To accomplish this objective, therefore, the authors must make it appear that the “ecumenism of hatred” they denounce is the product of what they call “religion” having had “a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions in recent decades, especially in some US governments:

Religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse

Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad. (Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism.)

First, the authors make it appear that any kind of “religion” is as good as another, but the real point they are making is to demonstrate their preference for no kind of religious influence in public affairs.

Second, the authors must ignore the simple fact that “religion,” to use their word, has been front-and-center of American politics from even before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, which itself was driven in large measure by the fear of one particular religion, Catholicism, despite the fact that some Catholics then living in the thirteen English colonies up and down the Atlantic seaboard did not see that this was so.

As is pointed out in Conversion in Reverse, many leading colonists, including Alexander Hamilton, were very alarmed that Quebec Act granted toleration to Catholics in what had been a French colony prior to 1763. It was fear of men such as Hamilton that such “toleration” might be extended to the American colonies, and it was this fear that was a principle motivating factor in the formation of the First Continental Congress in 1774

It was this hatred of Catholics that caused colonists to consider the Quebec Act as “intolerable” as it was a sign, at least to them, that the British were beginning to slacken in their resolve against “popery” when the truth of the matter was the act demonstrated British pragmatism in the face of a populace more numerous and prosperous than were the Acadians who were dispersed in Nova Scotia.

Robert Leckie described the flames of hatred that were fanned by anti-Catholic propagandists in the colonies in the immediate aftermath of the Quebec Act:

This piece of legislation had not only confirmed the French in the free exercise of their religion and the practice of their native law, it had also granted the Quebec government those lands in the west which the English colonies claimed. Now, the colonists fancied themselves surrounded by French-speaking Catholics, the old enemy of former years, and their rage was so unbounded that on October 21, 1774, the [First] Continental Congress addressed a letter to the British people admonishing them for tolerating in America a religion which “has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.”

One again, it was popular to quote Samuel Adams, who had said six years earlier [that is, in 1768]: “I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights. . . .” Once again, the popular press picked up the old anti-Catholic cudgels, and one journal went so far as to predict: “We may live to see our churches converted into mass houses and our lands plundered by tythes for the support of the Popish clergy. The Inquisition may erect her standard in Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia may yet experience the carnage of St. Bartholomew’s Day.” Others, misrepresenting the truth of the Quebec Act, insisted that it actually established Romanism as an official religion, and warned: ‘If Gallic Papists have a right To worship their own way Then farewell to the liberties Of poor America.’

Ministers, of course, were in full voice once more, but so also were John Adams, apparently recovered from his momentary lapse into tolerance, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, the inevitable Samuel Adams, and none other than Washington’s protégé and confidante, Alexander Hamilton, who thundered: “If [Parliament] had any regard to the freedom and happiness of mankind they would not have done it. If they had been friends to the Protestant cause, they would never have provided such a nursery for its greatest enemy . . . They may as well establish Popery in New York and the other colonies as they did in Canada!”

More than the Stamp Act, perhaps more than any other act by Parliament or any British minister, the Quebec Act was a direct cause of the American Revolution. It so inflamed colonial hatred of the mother country that even that staunch and solid Protestant, King George III, was accused of being a Jesuit in disguise, and his statues, from which the rebels later were to melt so many serviceable bullets, were adored with mocking rosaries. Meanwhile, patriots such as Paul Revere did a brisk business in scurrilous engravings which depicted His Majesty and his Ministers clothed in the livery of the Pope of Rome. To the Catholics of colonial America–who actually represented no more than 1 per cent of the total population of three million persons–it appeared that it was time to pull tight the shutters again, and it was this furor of anti-Catholic sentiment that rose about the ears of Father John Carroll when he returned to his native Maryland in 1774. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 45-47.)

Look at those names. John Adams. Samuel Adams. Alexander Hamilton. Paul Revere. These are not men to admire. They hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church, she that is the one and only means of personal salvation and social order.

They had little to fear, however. Eager to be accepted by their fellow colonists, the leading Catholics of the colonies did not want to convert them to Catholicism. They simply desired the “freedom” to practice their Faith without persecution which is the only thing that the Quebec Act had guaranteed French Catholics in Quebec. Indeed, one could say that the Quebec Act was an incubator of the heresy of “religious liberty” just as much as had been the approach taken by the first Catholics who had arrived in Maryland in 1634 and the pragmatic tack taken by William Penn, who was no friend of Catholicism, in the Colony of Pennsylvania.

Archbishop John Carroll, who certainly wanted to advance the best interests of the 25,000 or so Catholics who were in the United States of America in the first twenty years of its existence, believed that the religious “liberty” found in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America would assure the life of the faithful without persecution as had been case in England and Ireland in the two hundred fifty years following the English Protestant Revolution that had been started by King Henry VIII in 1534. Although he was very sincere in this regard, he did not understand that a trap had been set by the adversary to accustom Catholics the ability to practice their Faith while they become “evangelized,” if you will, by the American ways of democracy and egalitarianism:

If any man can be regarded as the Father of the American Church, it is John Carroll of Maryland. Bearer of a respected American name, ordained in a Society which had planted the faith on the shores of the Chesapeake, he took charge of the infant Church as naturally and firmly as a man bringing order to his own household. To the handful of ex-Jesuits demoralized by the suppression of their order he brought inspiration and direction, while guiding the Church from the Penal Age and into the sunlight of religious freedom. John Carroll organized the American Church. Under him, its diverse and disparate elements were unified, and by his establishment of a seminary and schools, its future was assured.

Although his administrative ability was indeed great, coming at a time when it was most needed, his insights into the American character may have been even of more value to the Church. He realized that in the matter of religion the genius of the new American political system was the separation of church and state. His writings and his speeches are full of encomiums not on behalf of toleration, for that presumes an established church, but for complete religious freedom. It may be that, like the Calverts before him, this attitude was born of expediency; that Catholicism had more to gain from religious freedom than any other American creed. True enough, but so also did the Founding Fathers of the United States have the most to gain from independence.

So it was John Carroll who gave the American Church, this congeries of European races forever in conflict over tastes and customs, yet joined together in the unity of the One Faith, its peculiar American stamp. Most astonishing, he foresaw its future, "To dissipate justice," he said in 1785, "time will be our best aid, as also will divine Providence and the experience of our fellow citizens in our devotion to our country and its independence." (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday and Company, pp. 88-89.)

There is a lot of truth contained in the three paragraphs cited above from the late Robert Leckie's American and Catholic, but not that intended by Mr. Leckie or by the man he praised so much, Archbishop John Carroll, who became the first bishop of the United States of America when he was consecrated on August 15, 1790, by Bishop Charles Walmseley, O.S.B., in Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England. There is, I should say (apologies to the late  Ralph McPherson Kiner for using this phrase that he repeated so much in the early days of broadcasting games for the New York Mets in the 1960s), a lot of unintended truth in the three paragraphs cited above.

Archbishop John Carroll did assure the future of the Catholic Church in the United States of America by his embrace of "religious freedom." Carroll's embrace of "religious freedom" in the belief that the civil rights of individual Catholics and the institutional rights of Holy Mother Church was erroneous as "religious freedom" for one is "religious freedom" for all. Lacking an ultimate arbiter ordained by God to resolve disputes between Church and State that were bound to emerge over the course of time as such disputes occurred frequently even during the period of Christendom itself.

Carroll, presaging the giddy optimism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII concerning the need for an "opening to the world" (Roncalli/John XXIII's much vaunted "updating" or, in Italian, aggiornamento), could not foresee areas of conflict between Church and State in the framework of the "genius" of Constitution of the United States of America. Archbishop Carroll truly believed that the Catholic Church, though she might have suffer persecution from individual Protestants and unbelievers and in states where the roots of "religious liberty" had not yet taken root, would be respected by officials of the Federal government to carry out her apostolic duties without interference.

Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution Catholic immigrants from Ireland began to suffer in the 1820s, although he had died on December 3, 1815, and thus never saw this persecution. Carroll's naive trust and full-throated endorsement of these twin errors came despite the fact that it was within his own lifetime that the first two papal condemnations of them were pronounced. Those pronouncements did not matter to him. The United States of America was "different." It was "special." It was "exceptional." The "good" and "tolerant" Protestants and Freemasons and others who just wanted to "live together" as Americans would never seek to the double-edged sword of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" against the Catholic Church, right?

Within ten years of his death, the persecution of Irish immigrants, who were very eager to prove their Americanism, was in fever pitch, and it was endorsed by many politicians, which puts the lie to the contention made by Spadaro and Figueroa that it has been only in more recent decades that “religion” has sought to play a role in politics and public policy decision-making. Nonsense. A particular “religion,” Protestantism, used all of the levers of power available to them to make sure that the “unwashed” Irish immigrants, beholden to a foreign potentate, the pope, were not able to influence politics and policy in this country.

The first means used by Protestants and, it should be noted, Freemasons to blunt the influence of the new immigrants was the standardize public schools into systems of Protestant propaganda and the inculcation of American values sentiments, starting with religious indifferentism itself. 

Massachusetts became the first state to mandate curricular standards on a statewide basis, creating in 1837 the first state Department of Education (thought control) in the United States of America, principally to Americanize the children of Irish immigrants to this country. Horace Mann, who had no initial interest in the subject of education, was recruited to head the new agency. He warmed to to this task with ready abandon, establishing the following guideline over the course of seven years:

(1) Fifth Annual Report (1841). Mann argued successfully that economic wealth would increase through an educated public. It was therefore in the self interest of business to pay the taxation for public education.

(2) Seventh Annual Report (1843). Horace Mann inspected and appraised favorably the Prussian school system. This report led to widespread improvement .of education through the educational theories of Pestalozzi, Herbart and eventually Froebel.

(3) Tenth Annual Report (1846). Mann asserted that education was a natural right for every child. It is a necessary responsibility of the State to insure that education was provided for every child. This report led to the adoption of the first State law requiring compulsory attendance in school in 1852.

(4) Twelfth Annual Report (1848). He presented a rationale for the support of public education through taxation. Society improves as a result of an educated p public. He argued for non-sectarian schools, so the taxpayer would not be in the position of supporting any established religion with which he might disagree in conscience. (Educational Contributions of Horace Mann)

The development of Horace Mann's thought was influenced heavily by the "Prussian Education System" that had its origins in the Eighteenth Century and whose own "evolution" over the course of the decades thereafter convinced him to use it as a model for Massachusetts, which, in turn, could be a model to "standardize" his brainwashing standards for the rest of the nation. Indeed, Mann, who belonged to the extinct species of naturalist organized crime known as the Whig Party, convinced his fellow party adherents to become "true believers" in the "Prussian Education System." Mann even traveled to Prussia in 1843 to see the system for himself. The People's Republic of New York was one of the first to follow the model that Mann established in the neighbor statist stronghold of Massachusetts, and it is absolutely no accident at al that these two states remain two of the most hostile states to home schooling parents in the United States of America at this time (Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont round out the ranks of the states whose regulations are designed to make home schooling very difficult as parents are monitored at every turn).

One of the keys to the "Prussian Education System" was the passage of laws to compel the attendance of children in state-run institutions of thought-control. The Prussians of the Eighteenth Century, however, were simply implementing the idea of a former Augustinian monk, a man named Martin Luther, who believed that it was necessary to require children to go to school in order that they learn how to read the Protestant version of the Bible  to make sure that all remnants of Catholicism could be eradicated from the German states influenced by his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church and to organize society under the Social Reign of Christ the King, which, of course, Luther, much like another German, a priest from Bavaria who was ordained on June 29, 1951 (Father Joseph Ratzinger), rejected out of hand and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes was wrong both in theory and in fact.

By the way, the likes of Horace Mann, much like Luther three hundreds years before him, desired compulsory so that those children of Catholic immigrants would be exposed to the "truth" in the blasphemous "King James" version of the Bible. We must remember that each and every Protestant "bible" is worthless it contains false translations and omit Sacred Books contained in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, thereby blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration each word contained in Holy Writ was written. Do not permit yourselves into believing one of naturalism's greatest lies: that it doesn't matter what version of the Bible one reads. This belief is from the devil himself.

Compulsory attendance in state-run institutions of thought-control was essential to American "educational reformers" such as Horace Mann for many of the same reasons, although the Prussian system that they admired so much had made explicit what was implicit in Luther's call for "compulsory education:" the belief that the civil state has the "right" and thus the "duty" to educate children, not parents, thereby violating the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and denying the graces inherent in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that equip every father and mother with the graces necessary to fulfill the primary end of their wedded union in Christ the King: the procreation and education of children.

Alarmed that the efforts to “educate” the children of Catholic immigrants might not be enough, many influential Protestants in the 1840s and 1850s sought to blunt their growing political influence. So much for the false, self-serving narrative spun by Spadaro and Figueroa that “religion” has had more of an influence on politics and public policy in recent decades than in the past here in the United States of America.

Indeed, an entire political party, the Know-Nothing Party, arose after the election of 1852, to oppose the political influence of Catholic immigrants, and police in several cities simply looked the other way as riots against Irish Catholics broke out in such places as Boston, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island, and Louisville, Kentucky:

The Know-Nothings, a new society, began to be organized about 1852. Theirs was a secret order, which bound its members by a solemn oath. It was formed, ostensibly, to defend the rights of the poor against European invasion. “America is for Americans” was its slogan. With this object in view, they endeavored to have severe naturalization laws enacted against the new arrivals from Europe, and exclude citizens born of foreign parents from holding public offices. In reality, these fanatics combated no so much the foreign immigration as the fidelity of Europeans, especially the Irish, to the Church of Rome. To base calumnies they added murder, pillage, incendiarism, and, before long, found an occasion for opening the campaign. In the spring of 1853 the Papal Nuncio to Brazil, Archbishop Bedini, arrived in New York, bringing the Sovereign Pontiff’s blessing to the faithful in the United States. He was charged, moreover, to investigate the conditions of Catholicism in the great Republic.

The Know-Nothings saw in this mission a grave attack upon American liberties. Their newspapers denounced the perfidious and ambitious intrigues of Rome. The apostate priest Gavazzi came from London and placed his eloquence at the service of his follow-socialists and friends. For several months he followed the Envoy form one city to the other, vomiting forth lies, threatening him with dire reprisals, and through fiery denunciation endeavored to stir up the masses against the “Papists.”

From vituperation and abuse there was but one step to action. On Christmas day in Cincinnati a band of assassins attempted to do away with the Nuncio. Driven off by the police, they revenged themselves by burning him in effigy. This odious scene was enacted in several towns. Conditions pointing to renewed attacks, Archbishop Bedini was forced to depart after a short sojourn in the United States. But the hostilities did not cease with the departure of the Nuncio. The campaign lasted for three years, attended by violent outrages and attacks, and armed forces had presently to interfere to defend life and property. A witness of these disorders, Father [Pierre Jean] De Smet draws a gloomy picture of existing conditions in his letters. “The times are becoming terrible for Catholics in these unhappy States. Nowhere in the world do honest men enjoy less liberty.”

“European demagogues, followers of Kossuth, Mazzini, etc., have sworn to exterminate us. Seven Catholic churches have been sacked and burned; those courageous enough to defend them have been assassinated.” “The future grows darker, and we are menaced from every side. If our enemies succeed in electing a President from ranks–until now the chances have been in their favor–Catholics will be debarred from practicing their religion; our churches and schools will be burned and pillaged, and murder will result from these brawls. During this present time [1854] over twenty thousand Catholics have fled to other countries seeking refuge from persecution, and many more talk of following them. The right to defame and exile is the order of the day in this great Republic, now the rendezvous of the demagogues and outlaws of every country.”

No laws were enacted for the protection of Catholics, and in some States the authorities were openly hostile. “The legislators of New York and Pennsylvania are now busy with the temporal affairs of the Church, which they wish take out of the hands of the Bishops. These States have taken the initiative, and others will soon follow. In Massachusetts, a mischief-making inquisition has just been instituted, with the object of investigating affairs in religious houses. In Boston, a committee of twenty-four rascals, chosen from among the legislators, of which sixty are Protestant ministers, searched and inspected a convent of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.”

While making a tour of the Jesuit houses with the Provincial, Father De Smet more than once braved the fury of the fanatics. In Cincinnati, a priest could not show himself in the street without being insulted by renegade Germans, Swiss, and Italians. In Louisville, thirty Catholics were killed in an open square and burned alive in their houses. Those who attempted to flee were driven back into the flames at the point of pistols and knives. Even in St. Louis, several attempts were made in one week upon the lives of citizens. The Jesuits were not spared. At Ellsworth, Maine, Father Bapst was taken by force from the house of a Catholic where he was hearing confessions, was covered with pitch, rolled in feathers, tied, swung by his hands and feet to a pole, and carried through the city to the accompaniment of gross insults. (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” pp. 262-265.)

This was not taught in American history classes fifty years ago when I was in high school, and it is certainly not being taught today, and is not something that “Father” Spadaro and Senor Figueroa want to admit as it would defeat their effort to show that an “ecumenism of hate” is what binds Catholics to “evangelical fundamentalists” in support of President Donald John Trump and his policies. Behold the true “ecumenism of hatred” that existed in the Nineteenth Century in the United States of America that was directed at Catholics by an alliance of Protestants, Jews and Freemasons.

Interestingly, the aforementioned the Know Nothing Party (or American Party), was actually formed in 1845 by the first Talmudist elected to Congress, Lewis Charles Levin. Levin formed the Know Nothings not to oppose immigration in general but to protest the influx of German and Irish Catholic immigrants to the United States of America. In other words, the Know Nothing Party was founded by a Jew to oppose the immigration of Catholics to this country because he wanted to preserve the "American way," which, of course, provides plenty of space for the devil and his false religions, starting with Talmudism, of course, while seeking to intimidate Catholics in this country from knowing anything about, no less proclaiming openly, the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations. Americanism is thus an expression of the Talmudic ethos that celebrates error while scorning the truth incluing Truth Incarnate Himself. 

Part of the larger "Know Nothing" movement (named not for fictional Sergeant Hans Schultz of Hogan's Heroes, but for members of this movement saying that they "knew nothing" about its activities when questioned) that sponsored mob riots against Catholics in various areas, including the attacking and killing of individual Catholics and the burning of Catholic church buildings and schools. Know Nothings won control of the Massachusetts General Court in the elections of 1854, being successful as well in electing their candidates as mayors of the cities of Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California. Ohio was a particular stronghold of the Know-Nothings, who nominated former President Millard Fillmore, who had succeeded to the presidency of the United States of America upon the death of President Zachary Taylor on July 9, 1850, and served the remainder of Taylor's term (which ended on March 4, 1853), for president in 1856.

The Blaine amendments, named after the virulently anti-Catholic James G. Blaine (R-Maine), who, in additional to being the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States of America in 1884, served in the United States House of Representatives (where he was the Speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875), in the United States Senate and served two different terms in two different presidencies as the United States Secretary of State, prohibited the use of public funding of any kind to subsidize schools operated by religious organizations.

That notwithstanding, however, none other than the infamous Americanist, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, sought to encourage Catholics to join the leave the Democratic Party, which had served as the means by which Catholic immigrants from all over Europe, especially after the War between the States to achieve upward economic mobility and political influence, in order to join the Republican Party precisely because he, Ireland, wanted to show his support for public schools as the means to “Americanize” Catholic immigrants from Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.

John Ireland was also not above interfering in political matters outside of the State of Minnesota.

To wit, As is well known, Bishop Bernard McQuaid of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, conflicted with the infamous Americanist archbishop of Saint Paul, Minnesota, John Ireland, who took it upon himself in the Spring of 1894 to write letters to the members of the New York State Legislature to urge them to vote for Father Sylvester Malone, a supporter of suspended priest Father Edward McGlynn, who promoted the Knights of Labor, which had been condemned by the Vatican in a letter Elzear-Alexandre Cardinal Tascherau, the Archbishop of Quebec from March 19, 1871, to April 12, 1898 (a condemnation Americanists contended applied only to Canada and thus defied, later petitioning the Vatican successfully in the person of the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons to reverse), rather than for McQuaid for what was called the "Catholic seat" on the New York State Board of Education. Malone won, angering McQuaid and the Archbishop of New York, Michael Corrigan, another anti-Americanist of Irish descent. Ireland was a support of public schools as a means of "Americanizing" Catholic students. McQuaid and Corrigan wanted the Faith to be protected against the secularizing elements of a culture that they knew posed dangers to the life of the faithful. Sound familiar.

The McQuaid-Ireland dispute occurred when all diocesan bishops, quite of course, had ordinary, territorial jurisdiction, something that no traditional Catholic bishop possesses (unless one accepts the claims made by Bishop Louis Vezelis, who, ironically, is located in Rochester, New York). And the McQuaid-Ireland dispute flared up anew later in 1894 when Ireland absented himself from his archdiocese for a month to campaign for Republican Party candidates in the State of New York, appearing alongside such notorious Masons as then United States Senator William McKinley (R-Ohio) and the then head of the United States Civil Service Commission, Theodore Roosevelt. McQuaid denounced Ireland from the pulpit in Rochester. That was a little much for the papal delegate, Monsignor (later Cardinal) Francesco Satolli, who wrote to McQuaid to tell him to stop the public criticism of Ireland, who was, to be sure, no favorite of Rome's.

The late Dr. Justin Walsh, who died in 2011, wrote the following in The Angelus seventeen years ago about this dispute:

On the First Sunday of Advent in 1894 (the third Sunday after Election Day) Bernard McQuaid, "mitered and with crozier in hand," rose in his cathedral to denounce the interloper from Minnesota. "John Ireland was guilty of unseemly action contrary to episcopal dignity, and one which is a scandal for right-minded Catholics," McQuaid began. He continued: 

If we are to believe the newspapers, Minnesota stands in great need of being purified and His Grace might have found ample scope there for the exercise of his political zeal. was not love of good government which induced Archbishop Ireland to spend so many weeks in New York, away from his diocese, where the law relative to residence obliged him to be.

No, McQuaid insisted, Ireland came "to acquit himself of a debt to the Republican party [for electing Fr. Malone to the board of regents.]" McQuaid added that an appeal to Rome might be necessary to teach the "conspirators" - his term for Ireland, Gibbons, Keane, and O'Connell - to stay home and tend their respective flocks. To forestall action by Rome, Ireland wrote to Propaganda [i.e., The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, established for dealing with all ecclesiastical affairs in missions of the Latin rite throughout the world and having jurisdiction over all foreign missions - Ed.] about McQuaid's pique: "My letters, had...more effect than all the effort he and his friends made in their own state. He was defeated, and he won't forgive me for that."

It was clear by 1895 that Americanist views were incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. In the spiritual realm Keane was hell-bent on fostering interdenominational congresses. In the temporal realm Ireland, and to a lesser extent Gibbons, had peculiar penchants for meddling in things better left alone by Churchmen. In such a situation action by Rome was inevitable. It came on January 6 when Leo XIII addressed Longinqua Oceani to American bishops. (Heresy Blossoms Like a Rose.)

“Religion” has played an important role in American politics and public-policy decision-making only in more recent decades?

Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa are either intellectually dishonest or just entirely ignorant of the true history of the political activity of the American bishops long before the rise of the “moral issues” that they believe have to be viewed in the context of “climate change,” “income inequality” and “justice” for lawbreakers who cross borders illegally.

Despite all of efforts of the Americanist bishops to prove their bona fides to non-Catholics, efforts to persecute the Church at the state level continued throughout the Twentieth Century, noting also that the administration of former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro sought to make Catholic institutions—which are under conciliar control, of course—to provide health insurance coverage for contraception, abortion, sterilization and other “family planning services” as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaDeathCare).

Catholic bishops in the Twentieth Century in Oregon and North Dakota had to oppose state-sponsored efforts to impose Masonically-inspired upon Catholics.

To wit, members of the Grand Orient Masonic lodge of Oregon, using all of their considerable clout, joined forces with their great ally, the Ku Klux Klan, and others to sponsor an initiative (a referendum that, if approved by voters, becomes law as though it had been passed by a state legislature) to amend the Compulsory Education Act to, in effect, outlaw Catholic schools in the State of Oregon by mandating that all children be "educated" in public schools. This effort was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, June 1, 1925. (See America's Concentration Camps).

The State of North Dakota, long a den of Masonic activity (Freemasons in the newly formed state legislature in 1889 sought to "liberalize" existing divorce laws as a means of destabilizing the family, something that was fought by the founding bishop of the Diocese of Jamestown (later Fargo), North Dakota, John Shanley), passed an anti-garb law in 1947 to require priests and consecrated religious to wear lay clothing when teaching in public schools. The Freemasons of North Dakota hoped to force a crisis of conscience for priests and religious that would prompt the two bishops of North Dakota from prohibiting their clergy and religious to teach in public schools. Bishops Leo Dworschak of Fargo and Vincent Ryan of Bismarck got permission from the Holy See for the clergy and the religious to wear lay clothing, thereby avoiding that crisis of conscience:

When the "anti-garb" campaign was waged in North Dakota in 1948, Bishop Ryan led in the defense of the rights of those wearing religious garb to teach in the public schools of the state. The opposition was well organized and had carried on vigorous campaign before the Catholics of the state were aware of their activities. Bishop Ryan rose to the challenge, and his efforts to defeat this measure were very nearly successful. In conjunction with Bishop Leo Dworschak of the Fargo Diocese, he appealed to the Holy See for permission for the sisters to teach in lay clothing. The victory for the anti-Catholics and the bigots was rendered empty when the Holy See granted their request. Friends and enemies alike had a new admiration for Bishop Ryan following this campaign. (History of Bishop Vincent J. Ryan.)

Moreover, Catholic bishops supported statists such as Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a virulent anti-Catholic and the thirty-third degree Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt time and time again. After all, it was the "party" that mattered.

Oh, it was too bad that Wilson supported the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico. Catholics just voted for the Democratic Party, which permitted Franklin Roosevelt, who, unlike his statist predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, in whose administration he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, cultivated friendships with Catholic prelates in order to coopt them into supporting his own statist plans, to unleash a veritable campaign team of Catholic bishops and priests, starting with Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967. to denounce any "conservative" Catholic who dared to criticize his policies. As noted in We're Not in Kansas Any More in January of 2009, Roosevelt unleashed the "Right Reverend New Dealer," Monsignor John A. Ryan, to denounce the courageous Father Charles Coughlin for him during his re-election campaign in 1936. And Francis Cardinal Spellman was known as "FDR's errand boy in a miter."

It was, however, after World War II that fissures began to break in the solid Catholic support for the Democratic Party. The threat posed by the spread of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe and the fall of China to the forces of Mao Zedong in 1949 led some Catholics to turn more and more to the Republican Party, convincing themselves that they could purge that stronghold of anti-Catholic Masons and nativists and transform it into a bastion of "conservatism" to turn back the New Deal and to win the Cold War.

The fissures in Catholic support became more pronounced in the years after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, especially during the years of the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Having convinced themselves that electoral politics was the means to "transform" the country, well-meaning Catholics of the "conservative" bent engaged in what could be termed a Manichean struggle with Catholics of the "leftist" bent, each side armed with "bishops" who supported their own particular brand of Americanism, each convinced that the "other" side was composed of "bad guys" as they represented the '"true" interpretation of the Constitution and the "rights" of Catholics in a pluralistic society.

Just as Democrats and Republicans agree on the basic naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding, disagreeing on the specifics as to the conduct of public policy in light of those principles, so is it the case that "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics accept those same false principles as they diverge on the specifics of public policy according to the political "camp" which they believe represents the best means of achieving various goals. Both "liberal" and "conservatives" Catholics are as one in rejecting these simple truths of the Catholic Faith as binding upon their consciences and that they apply to the concrete circumstances to be found in the United States of America, believing that their naturalistic or non-denominational ideas and plans and strategies can "win the day" for their respective cause.

The fissures between the false opposites of the “left” and the “right” were reflected after the “Second” Vatican Council in the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism here in the United States of America as the “social justice” “bishops” fought the “pro-life” “bishops” at the annual meetings of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference (now called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). The “social justice” types (Joseph Bernardin, Francis Mugavero, Howard Hubbard, John Dearden, Thomas Gumbleton, Roger Mahony, Peter Rosazza, Donald Wuerl, Raymond Hunthausen, Rembert Weakland, Matthew Clark, Joseph Sullivan of Brooklyn, John Raymond McGann, Joseph Imesch, Daniel Leo Ryan, Joseph Fiorenza, William Borders, Thomas Kelly, John Roach, John May, et al.) made sure to hire all manner of lay bureaucrats who were of like mind, including many who supported the agenda of the homosexual collective and/or were active participants in it, feminists, and out-and-out pro-aborts. Each was a statist to the core in support of an increase in the size, the scope, and the power of the Federal government of the United States of America.

These “social justice” bishops enabled one pro-abortion Catholic politician after another in the decades after the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, but Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa gave no attention to this at all precisely because it is their own intention—and that of Jorge Mario Bergoglio—to indemnify the very sorts of figures in public life such as the ones named just above.

Actually, the process of soothing the consciences of Catholic in public life who wanted to remain au courant and not pose as a sign of contradiction by their complete fidelity to the Sign of Contradiction, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church has deep roots in the heresy of Americanism, although the groundwork for moral relativism began a year before the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, as a number of leading Modernists, including the late Father Robert “Father Death” Drinan, S.J., himself met at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, to discuss how the Kennedys could accept the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children under cover of the civil law while still claiming to be “good Catholics” who were simply following their “consciences”:

For faithful Roman Catholics, the thought of yet another pro-choice Kennedy positioned to campaign for the unlimited right to abortion is discouraging. Yet if Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of Catholics John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, is appointed to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, abortion-rights advocates will have just such a champion.

Ms. Kennedy was so concerned to assure pro-abortion leaders in New York, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Dec. 18, that on the same day Ms. Kennedy telephoned New York Gov. David Patterson to declare interest in the Senate seat, "one of her first calls was to an abortion rights group, indicating she will be strongly pro-choice."

Within the first week of her candidacy, Ms. Kennedy promised to work for several causes, including same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In responding to a series of 15 questions posed by the New York Times on Dec. 21, Ms. Kennedy said that, while she believes "young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults," she would oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. On the crucial question of whether she supports any state or federal restrictions on late-term abortions, Ms. Kennedy chose to say only that she "supports Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk." Presumably Ms. Kennedy knows that this effectively means an unlimited right to abortion -- including late-stage abortion -- because the "health of the mother" can be so broadly defined that it includes the psychological distress that can accompany an unintended pregnancy.

Ms. Kennedy's commitment to abortion rights is shared by other prominent family members, including Kerry Kennedy Cuomo and Maryland's former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Some may recall the 2000 Democratic Convention when Caroline and her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, addressed the convention to reassure all those gathered that the Democratic Party would continue to provide women with the right to choose abortion -- even into the ninth month. At that convention, the party's nominee, Al Gore, formerly a pro-life advocate, pledged his opposition to parental notification and embraced partial-birth abortion. Several of those in attendance, including former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, had been pro-life at one time. But by 2000 nearly every delegate in the convention hall was on the pro-choice side -- and those who weren't simply kept quiet about it.

Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race. But this was not always the case. Despite Ms. Kennedy's description of Barack Obama, in a New York Times op-ed, as a "man like my father," there is no evidence that JFK was pro-choice like Mr. Obama. Abortion-rights issues were in the fledgling stage at the state level in New York and California in the early 1960s. They were not a national concern.

Even Ted Kennedy, who gets a 100% pro-choice rating from the abortion-rights group Naral, was at one time pro-life. In fact, in 1971, a full year after New York had legalized abortion, the Massachusetts senator was still championing the rights of the unborn. In a letter to a constituent dated Aug. 3, 1971, he wrote: "When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

But that all changed in the early '70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.

In some cases, church leaders actually started providing "cover" for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion."  ( See - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma. David Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, ultimately chose another pro-abortion Catholic, Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been the junior senator of the State of New York since January 26, 2009. For a review of David Paterson's moral corruption, see Little Caesars All (Pizza! Pizza!)

Even these notorious Modernist theologians, though, had received inspiration of a sort from two true archbishops, one of the, Francis Cardinal Spellman, had been a prince of the Catholic Church prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. Accompanied by the notorious Kennedy-family sycophant, Richard “Cardinal” Cushing, Spellman used a visit of Puerto Rico to cut the legs out from under the Catholic bishops of Puerto Rico at a time they were opposing a popular referendum to endorse contraceptives and sterilization:

In 1960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. The Catholic resistance was led by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national political party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.

When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U.S.-based contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization experimental programs, became increasingly concerned for their own political futures. Then unexpected help arrived in the unlikely person of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York.

One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions. While on the island, Spellman agreed to meet with CAP's major political rival, Governor Luis Munoz Marin, leader of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and a supporter of federal population control programs for Puerto Rico.

In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics from voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts. Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said.

Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never been a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cushing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might overflow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for the White House.

The national election turned out to be a political disaster for CAP. Munoz and the PDP won by a landslide. Bishop Davis was forced to end the tragic state of confusion among the Catholic laity by declaring just before the election that no penalties would be imposed on those who voted for PDP.  

Two years later, with the knowledge and approval of the American hierarchy and the Holy See, the Puerto Rican hierarchy was pressured into singing a secret concordat of "non-interference" in government-sponsored birth control programs--a sop being that the programs would now include instruction in the "rhythm method." While insisting on their right to hold and express legitimate opposition to such programs, the Puerto Rican bishops promised they would "never impose their own moral doctrines upon individuals who do not accept the Catholic teaching."

When the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo this same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 647-649)

Perhaps this is the kind of "religious influence" that is acceptable to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his apologists, Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa.

It was five years after this travesty that “Cardinal” Cushing told a Boston radio station that he could not interfere with the “consciences” of state legislators as they considered whether to support or to oppose a bill in the Massachusetts General Court (the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). This made it far easier for the Kennedys and the Careys and Cuomos and the Bidens and the O’Neills, among others, to support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in the 1970s with the full support of the ultra-progressives in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, one of whose leaders, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, another true bishop, invented the “consistent ethic of life” (“the seamless garment) slogan to provide pro-abortion Catholics with the cover of “respectability” as long as they opposed the death penalty and supported one statist measure after another to confiscate wealth and then to redistribute it to the poor while “empowering” illegal immigrants at the same time:

Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. (As a matter of historical interest, the repeal effort was sponsored by a young state representative named Michael Dukakis, who would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the US presidency 23 years later.) In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, "An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,” and effectively scuttled the opposition.

Cardinal Cushing announced:

“My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position—moral beliefs or religious beliefs—upon those of other faiths.”

Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that "I could not in conscience approve the legislation" that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, "I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others."

So there it was: the "personally opposed" argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to "impose" his opinion.

Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. "But my thinking has changed on that matter," he reported, "for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do."

(Notice that the Catholic position is reduced still further here, to a matter of purely sectarian belief—as if it would be impossible for a non-Catholic to support the purpose of the Birth Control law. The cardinal did not explain why that law was enacted in 1899 by the heirs of the Puritans in Massachusetts, long before Catholics came to power in the legislature.)

Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: "If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church."

Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the "personally opposed" politician had his rationale. (Cushing's Use of The "Personally Opposed" Argument.)

Today’s Pontius Pilates with whom "Pope Francis" has so much in common had lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s and 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to support each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

It is no accident that the “peace and justice” crowd at the now-named United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose work had been “divided,” so they say, in 1966 between the so-called National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference, associated with one pro-abortion and pro-sodomite group after another, many of which received funding from both Catholic Charities and the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development (see the following two news stories of the past decade, although like examples abound today all around the world: Signs of Apostasy Abound and Randy Engel on Catholic Relief Services.)

Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa’s contention that it was only with the rise of “evangelical fundamentalists” that religion played more of a role in American politics and public policy decision-making is a reprehensible feat of intellectual dishonesty that they have committed in order to make it appear that the alliance of some Catholics with “evangelical Protestants” is something “evil.” One of the ironies about this alliance, however, is that it arose precisely because the “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and their “bishops,” many of whom have long supported pro-abortion and, more recently, pro-perversity statists for elected office, have done nothing to discipline Catholics in public life who support sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Many “conservative” and even fully traditional Catholics in the past forty years have looked to the likes of the late Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or James Dobson for “guidance” as to how to vote to turn back the tide in support of decriminalized baby-killing and the acceptance of the unspeakable perversity that is “marriage” for those engage in unnatural acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The “bishops” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are responsible for this alliance as the ultra-progressives among their ranks have been promoting one leftist scheme after another while support the statist agenda of such nefarious evil-doers as William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., John F. Kerry, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and, among so many others, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

What these revolutionaries who hate the past would have their readers believe, however, is that anyone who allies with “evangelical fundamentalists” to oppose “social issues” while ignoring the supposed “reality” of “climate change” and the nonexistent “right” of noncitizens to enter one’s country illegally is guilty of agreeing with these Protestants’ endorsements of segregation and their inherent support of Protestant “dominionism.” This is demagoguery worthy of their master, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and is to advance his agenda that Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa wrote their article for La Civilta Cattolica.

As I have noted in my own many commentaries on the farce of naturalism that masquerades as “elections,” none of those who have been supported by Spadaro’s and Figueroa’s “ecumenism of hatred” (Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush) in the past did anything substantive to retard the advance of evils that are but the consequence, proximately speaking, of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, And Donald John Trump is led this way and that at a moment’s notice as he has no true core beliefs of any kind, which is why, incidentally, neoconservatives such as Generals John Kelly and James Mattis, are working with National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster to use Trump as a Trojan horse to continue the “global war against terrorism” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The alleged “ecumenism of hatred” has simply enabled one set of naturalists as opposed to another. Nothing good ever comes from naturalism.

Indeed, far from waging any kind of “Manichean” campaign against Mohammedanism, which is evil in and of itself as it is a false religion and is based on a blasphemous text called the Koran that calls for the death of infidels, America’s “war on global terrorism” is all about seeking to make the world safe for the Zionist State of Israel and for the American military-industrial complex. George Herbert Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro each called Mohammedanism a "religion of peace." Bush the Lesser's "axis of evil" was not aimed at Mohammedanism. 

Noting this, though, takes nothing away from Spadaro and Figueroa’s accurate description of the essential beliefs of the various strands of “evangelical Protestantism,” each of which is false in and of itself, of course, because Protestantism itself is false and is thus evil in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. There is no redeeming value to Protestantism of any stripe as each of its sects has contributed mightily to the decay of the Western world in the past five hundred years.

Ecumenism of hatred?

Well, let's face facts, starting with the fact that a world steeped in the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity must produce more conflict, more hatred and more violence than has ever existed in the world before.

Admitting that ethnic and national hatreds existed during the era of Christendom as a result of Original Sin and the Actual Sins, the rise of various “nationalist” groups and the true hatred that they have for those they blame for social problems of one sort or the another is the result of the lack of unity in the world that has been caused by Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King (see From Luther to Sanger to Ferguson and Innocent Blood Must Flow Absent Christ the King). Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Everything else is evil, including the false religious beliefs that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew of blaspheming revolutionaries who indemnify every kind of wicked deed and perverse sin imaginable want Catholics to accept without question as consonant with belief in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio heads a false religious sect that hates Catholic truth, and this is a hatred of God Himself, He Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, and of the souls of whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem. Bergoglio has used various individuals, including Oscar Andres Maradiaga “Cardinal” Rodriguez and Christoph “Cardinal” Schonborn, to serve as his “wing men” in his serial acts of deception as circumstances necessitate. The Argentine Apostate believed that current circumstances “necessitated” a hit piece on the American president, a man who knows next-to-nothing and is steeped in one naturalist error after another while serving frequently as his own worst enemy, and this is what Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa provided him.

Where is all of this leading?

The following: 

(1) the loss of souls for all eternity in Hell;

(2) the further promotion of sin under cover of the civil law and thus more social ruin;

(3) more revolutionary changes in the nature of the conciliar "papacy" and is relationship with the conciliar "bishops" than we have seen thus far in the past nine months;

(4) women "cardinals" and deaconesses;

(5) a communion of "love" and "brotherhood" with the heretical and schismatic Orthodox;

(6) the continued proliferation of the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics who lack even a decree of nullity from conciliar chancery offices according to the “teaching” expressed in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016 (see  Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief OverviewJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief OverviewJorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part threeThe Conciliar Chair of Disunity and DivisionJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part fourInspector Jorge Wants to See DocumentsJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part fiveJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part sixJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part sevenJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eightJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nineJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!).

(7) more lay involvement in ecclesiastical decision-making and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service;

(8) a "reconciliation" of sorts with Lutherans in 1517 in time later this year for the five hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther's posting his ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31 of that year;

(9) a "reconciliation" of sorts with the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect along the lines of those that will be effected with the Orthodox first; and

(10) the further mainstreaming of the agenda of the Homosexual Collective in the very fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, something that has been occurring with lightning speed within the past four years, five months since Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s ascent to power as the sixth in the current line of antipopes.

Where does this lead?

To the coming of the Antichrist as Jorge Mario Bergoglio preaches a false gospel of false joy contradicts the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church. Bergoglio's false gospel of false joy and false “mercy” leads straight to Hell.

What does he care about this?

Not very much at all.

One day, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is going to have to face Christ the King as his Divne Judge. The little reprobate from Buenos Aires is entirely unprepared for this judgment, heedless as he is of how his own public hatred of Catholic truth and the harm that he has done to souls has earned him, objectively speaking, the deepst and darkest pit in hell.

Bergoglio and his friends Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa would do well to readSaint Alphonsus de Liguori's Sermon the Particular Judgment, which this great Doctor of the Church and Patron of Moral Theology explained it as follows: 

7. "The judgment sat, and the books were opened. ”(Dan. vii. 10.) The books of conscience are opened, and the judgment commences. The Apostle says, that the Lord”will bring to light the hidden things of darkness." (1 Cor. iv. 5.) And, by the mouth of his prophet, Jesus Christ has said: ”I will search Jerusalem with lamps." (Soph. i. 12.) The light of the lamp reveals all that is hidden.

8. ”A judgment," says St. Chrysostom, ”terrible to sinners, but desirable and sweet to the just." (Hom. iii. de Dav.) The last judgment shall fill sinners with terror, but will be a source of joy and sweetness to the elect; for God will then give praise to each one according to his works. (1 Cor. iv. 5.) The Apostle tells us that on that day the just will be raised above the clouds to be united to the angels, and to increase the number of those who pay homage to the Lord. ”We shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air." (I Thess. iv. 16.)

9. Worldlings now regard as fools the saints who led mortified and humble lives; but then they shall confess their own folly, and say: "We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints." (Wis. v. 4, 5.) In this world, the rich and the noble are called happy; but true happiness consists in a life of sanctity. Rejoice, ye souls who live in tribulation;”our sorrow shall be turned into joy." (John xvi. 20.) In the valley of Josaphat you shall be seated on thrones of glory.

10. But the reprobate, like goats destined for the slaughter, shall be placed on the left, to await their last condemnation. ”Judicii tempus," says St. Chrysostom, ”misericordiam non recipit." On the day of judgment there is no hope of mercy for poor sinners. “Magna," says St. Augustine, "jam est poena peccati, metum et memoriam divini perdidisse judicii." (Serm. xx. de Temp.) The greatest punishment of sin in those who live in enmity with God, is to lose the fear and remembrance of the divine judgment. Continue, continue, says the Apostle, to live obstinately in sin; but in proportion to your obstinacy, you shall have accumulated for the day of judgment a treasure of the wrath of God “But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart , thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath” (Rom ii. 5)

11. Then sinners will not be able to hide themselves but, with insufferable pain, they shall be compelled to appear in judgment. "To lie hid” says St. Anselm, “will be impossible to appear will be intolerable." The devils will perform their office of accusers, and as St. Augustine says, will say to the Judge: “Most just God, declare him to be mine, who was unwilling to be yours. ” The witnesses against the wicked shall be first, their own conscience. "Their conscience bearing witness to them, ”(Rom. ii. 15); secondly, the very walls of the house in which they sinned shall cry out against them”The stone shall cry out of the wall," (Hab. ii 11); thirdly, the Judge himself will say "I am the judge and the witness, saith the Lord." (Jer. xxix 23 ) Hence, according to St. Augustine, "He who is now the witness of .your life, shall be the judge of your cause. ” (Lib. x. de Chord., c. ii.) To Christians particularly he will say: "Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida; for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes”(Matt. xi. 21.) Christians, he will say, if the graces which I have bestowed on you had been given to the Turks or to the Pagans, they would have done penance for their sins; but you have ceased to sin only with your death. He shall then manifest to all men their most hidden crimes. "I will discover thy shame to thy face. ” (Nahum iii. 5.) He will expose to view all their secret impurities, injustices, and cruelties. ”I will set all thy abominations against thee”(Ezech. vii. 3.) Each of the damned shall carry his sins written on his forehead.

12. What excuses can save the wicked on that day? Ah! they can offer no excuses. ”All iniquity shall stop her mouth." (Ps. cvi. 42.) Their very sins shall close the mouth of the reprobate, so that they will not have courage to excuse themselves. They shall pronounce their own condemnation.

Third Point. Sentence of the elect, and of the reprobate

13. St. Bernard says, that the sentence of the elect, and their destiny to eternal glory, shall be first declared, that the pains of the reprobate may be increased by the sight of what they lost. ”Prius pronunciabitur sententia electis ut acrius (reprobi) doleant videntes quid amiserunt." (Ser. viii., in Ps. xc.) Jesus Christ, then, shall first turn to the elect, and with a serene countenance shall say: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ”(Matt. xxv. 34.) He will then bless all the tears shed through sorrow for their sins, and all their good works, their prayers, mortifications, and communions; above all, he will bless for them the pains of his passion and the blood shed for their salvation. And, after these benedictions, the elect, singing alleluias, shall enter Paradise to praise and love God eternity.

14. The Judge shall then turn to the reprobate, and shall pronounce the sentence of their condemnation in these words . ”Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire." (Matt. xxv. 41 ) They shall then be forever accursed, separated from God, and sent to burn for ever in the fire of hell. “And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just into life everlasting. ” (Matt. xxv. 46.)

15. After this sentence, the wicked shall, according to St. Ephrem, be compelled to take leave for ever of their relatives, of Paradise, of the saints, and of Mary the divine Mother. "Farewell, ye just! Farewell, O cross I Farewell, Paradise! Farewell, fathers and brothers: we shall never see you again! Farewell, O Mary, mother of God!”(St. Eph. de variis serm. inf.) Then a great pit shall open in the middle of the valley: the unhappy damned shall be cast into it, and shall see those doors shut which shall never again be opened. O accursed sin! to what a miserable end will you one day conduct so many souls redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. O unhappy souls! for whom is prepared such a melancholy end. But, brethren, have confidence. Jesus Christ is now a Father, and not judge. He is ready to pardon all who repent. Let us then instantly ask pardon from him. (On the General Judgment: Sermon for the First Sunday of Advent, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and apologists of his such as Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa do not  believe this, which is why they have no fear of their own Particular Judgment and its public manifestation on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living the dead.

Each of us must hate his sins for love of God. We must not take our own Particular Judgment for granted. 

Our Lady, she who was conceived without stain of Original Sin and thus never committed an Actual Sin, saw how the effects of sin caused her Divine Son, Christ the King, to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross. She suffered the effects of sin in her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as she suffered with Him as the Queen of Martyrs, she who is our Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix and Advocate.

We must rely upon Our Lady's assistance to send us the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through her hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces to be firm in resolve to have nothing to new with the counterfeit church of conciliarism and to recognize that to seek to "reconcile" conciliarism with Catholicism or to believe that no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter can believe in that which has been condemned by Holy Church, no less to seek to do so by publicly promoting as good that which is offensive to God, deleterious to the salvation of souls and thus disruptive of all true social order and authentic world peace.

May Our Lady, she who is Our Queen Assumed into Heaven, help us to love God, hate our sins and to pray for the conversion of one and all, starting with ourselves, so that she may stand as our protectress at the terrible moment of our own Particular Judgment after a life of serving her Divine Son as His consecrated slaves through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, especially by the fervor with which we assist at Holy Mass, if at all possible in this time of apostasy and betrayal, and pray her own Most Holy Rosary with fervor and devotion.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady, Queen Assumed into Heaven, 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.