Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                October 1, 2012

Alinsky's Sheen

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Our reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero, admitted in an interview with Steve Kroft that was broadcast on Sunday, September 23, 2012, the Seventeenth Century and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Linus, on the Columbia Broadcasting System television network's 60 Minutes program that there were times when his campaign advertisements contained errors and went "overboard" in its claims against his hapless opponent from the false opposite of the naturalist "right," Willard Mitt Romney. This rather revealing admission from the ultimate son of Niccolo Machiavelli by way of the Marxist "community organizer" Saul Alinsky was omitted from the 60 Minutes, although correspondent Kroft did place it on the network's website after the broadcast:

It’s an undisputed fact that the American people have a high level of distrust for the mainstream media — just look at the startling Gallup numbers released last week. A recent decision by CBS News to omit a portion of an interview with President Barack Obama in which he admitted mistakes and blunders in campaign ads is likely to add to the lack of public confidence in mainstream outlets.

In an interview for “60 Minutes,” Obama surprisingly contended that some of his campaign ads and contentions “go overboard” and have errors, but these admissions were omitted from the final interview that aired.

While the network left this portion of the president’s dialogue with Steve Kroft out, CBS did post it on its web site. Still, conservative critics are wondering why such a noteworthy admission was left out of the final interview.

After all, a candidate’s claim that he has put out misleading campaign advertisements that have “gone overboard” is certainly not something that would generally be cut from a broadcast interview — particularly when it’s a candidate who has prided himself on truth and transparency.

Titled, “False Advertising in the Presidential Race,” the clip appears on the CBS web site with an intriguing description: ”President Obama says some of his campaign ads might ‘go overboard’ or contain mistakes, but most of them simply highlight the differences between him and Gov. Romney.” (Obama Admits Going 'Overboard,' Campaign Ad Mistakes.)

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero a true "modern man" who believes that the ends justifies the means at all times. He is absolutely convinced that he possesses the totality of truth as to how to "better" society an the world. He believes that he has a "mission" that cannot be thwarted by the likes of narrow-minded political opponents who dare to to stop the programs and plans that he knows, omnisciently and infallibly, are for the "people's own good." Obama/Soetero's is convinced that it is his "mission" to "change the minds of the people." He has all of the "evangelical zeal," if you will, that should prompt Catholics to seek to change the minds of their fellow citizens by planting the seeds for their conversion to the true Faith, something that most Catholics, especially those who are attached to the conciliar structures, believe is "impossible" or, at the very least, "unnecessary" or "imprudent."And perhaps Obama/Soetero can invoke Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" to explain how his still-evolving explanations of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, are consistent with each. Why not give it a try and see if it sticks.

The absence of the true religion as the guiding force of men and their nations must result in the rise of anti-religion and veritable figures of Antichrist such as Obama,. While it is true that there is as of yet thirty-six days to go before the current round of naturalist farce ends on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, and that it is still possible for Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan to defeat the tandem of Obama/Soetero and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., it also remains true that men who are committed to false belief are better able to communicate to "the people" than those who believe in little except their own electoral success and who will govern cautiously in order to maintain themselves in power once elected. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, A System Based on Lies Still Produces Liars. It will always produce liars, men caught up in one naturalist deceit after another after men persist in in their sins in the name of "civil liberty" and as God is blasphemed by the public promotion of false religion, irreligion and a daily cascade of blasphemes and assault against the lives of the innocent at all times (see Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death").

Barack Hussein Obama fashions himself as smarter than the average bear, to borrow a term from our daughter's favorite cartoon character (watched only, of course, on digital video discs, not on the devil's box called television). He has called himself the "LeBron James" (whoever he is) of the farce that is politics in this lands of naturalism and pluralism and religious indifferentism. Obama is very happy that he is rallying his leftist political base with his demonizing of his hapless political opponents. His political strategists knows that demographics of this country have changed dramatically in the past thirty-two years since the election of former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan on Tuesday, November 4 1980.

As has been noted in several recent articles, America's concentration camps and the mass media (news, sports, "entertainment" and other bread and circuses), have aided and abetted in no small part by the false "doctrines" of the conciliar revolutionaries and their sacramentally barren liturgical rites, have done a superb job of programming between two-fifths and one-half of the American population to accept "leftism" of one sort or another as the means to the "better life." This is just part of the natural process of degeneration that must occur in a nation founded on false, anti-Incarnational, naturalistic religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero is only the end product of this process of degeneration.

Ah, but Obama/Soetero is also the "gift" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the "new principles inaugurated in 1789." He was groomed by true ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries in the Archdiocese of Chicago, who shared with him a commitment to "reshape" society by means of the methods and the goals of the atheistic mocker of religion, Saul Alinsky, whose "rules for radicals" perfectly describes the tactics that Obama/Soetero has used throughout his life to achieve his goals, tactics that he believes can be used--and even admitted publicly-- to accomplish the end "necessary" for the "changing" of the United States of America: his re-election:

Opening page - Dedication


“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....

     "The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your functionto agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.)


This is exactly what Obama had done throughout his political career. It is what he is doing at this time. What Catholics must remember, however, is that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero has been enabled in his use of the methods of Saul Alinsky, who, of course, was enabled by true Catholic bishops and priests even in the years before the "Second" Vatican Council.

Alinsky's Deep Involvement with Catholic Officials Prior to and After the "Second" Vatican Council, Acquiring His Sheen in the Process

The Marxist Saul Alinsky represented his ideas to the likes of French philosopher Jacques Maritain, who served as the French ambassador to the Holy See from 1945 to 1948, as an alternative to the Bolshevism of the Josef Stalin and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was sweeping many parts of Italy, especially the industrial city of Turin, in the years after World War II. Maritain recommended Alinsky to the Archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Battista Montini, the future "Paul VI," a man who had been banished from the Secretariat of State's office because he betrayed Catholic priests working behind the Iron Curtain, sending them to their deaths:


An elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.

The extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI. (From Mary Ball Martinez, The Undermining of the Catholic Church, as cited by Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p.1156.)

Deal Wyatt Hudson's biography of Jacques Maritain contained the following very revealing passages about Saul Alinksy's beliefs:

Saul Alinsky was an agnostic Jew for whom religion of any kind held very little importance and just as little relation to the focus of his life's work: the struggle for economic and social justice, for human dignity and human rights, and for the alleviation of the sufferings of the poor and downtrodden. He loved crowds, the more unruly the better. His gestures and language were muscular, and he used the vernacular of a tough street fighter. Alinsky's primary tactic was to stir up nonviolent conflict, "to rub raw the resentment of the community; fan latent hostilities . . . to the point over expression," to see cities and neighborhoods on edge, to incite municipal jitters; and the soul of this tactic was a healthy, vocal, and aggressive irreverence. He loved to tweak the noses and to pluck the beards of the establishment, of those who pretended to power. One commentator called him "part stuntman," whose "method depends to a great degree on the element of surprise, calculated to outrage." (Deal Wyatt Hudson, Understanding Maritain: Philosopher and Friend, p. 40.)


One will see from this description the precise method used by such inflammatory agitators of Al Sharpton and Barack Hussein Obama. It is the Alinsky method that inspired in "Call to Action," a group of true ultra-progressive revolutionaries that formed in the Archdiocese of Detroit in 1975 under the tutelage of John Cardinal Dearden, who fostered a nest of perverted clergymen, and took particular root in the Archdiocese of Chicago under the direction of a Monsignor John Egan, who also worked closely with Alinsky in the city that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero chose to make his base of political power:

During his three years as French ambassador to the Vatican, Maritain, as he had always done, sent Alinsky copies of books and articles he had written, and Alinsky in turn always sent Maritain copies of his new speeches and kept his friend informed of all activities. Msgr. John Egan said in an interview that Maritain was always pushing and encouraging Alinsky in his work with the downtrodden, always asking him what he was doing, what he was planning. He added that Alinsky was always sure to have something to tell Maritain, even if the project were only vaguely planned for the future, so as not to disappoint the friend he loved so much for whose feelings he had a delicate sensitivity. (Deal Wyatt Hudson, Understanding Martian: Philosopher and Friend, pp. 45.46. As the text of this book must be transcribed by hand as it cannot be copied and pasted, readers can scroll down from page forty to find this text.)

Monsignor Egan worked closely with Alinsky, a fact is attested to in a tribute to him found on the website of DePaul University, which was founded by the priests of the Congregation of the Mission, the Vincentians, in 1898:

The austere environment and rigors of classes all in Latin at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein where he trained to become a priest could have proved claustrophobic, but instead the world opened up to Egan who joined the orbit surrounding Reynold "Rynie" Hillenbrand. Hillenbrand was an intellectual rector who had a powerful influence on many idealistic young priests of that generation and at a time when Chicago led Catholic Church in the United States. A cornerstone of Hillenbrand's philosophy was the dominant role he envisioned for laity in church affairs.

When Egan was ordained a priest on May 1, 1943 he made "something close to a vow that two things would have precedence in my life," Frisbie wrote. "I will try to work for the enhancement of the lay role in the Church and, wisely or not, I will never say no to anyone."

Egan's eagerness to fill the gaps in his own education and his genius at identifying instructors emerged early. When he felt inadequate counseling parishioners in his first assignment out of the seminary at St. Justin Martyr Parish on the South Side, he turned to the eminent therapist Carl Rogers at The University of Chicago. Rogers taught him that people change only at their own pace, from within, when they know that they are respected, Frisbie recounted.

A sojourn through France to learn what priests there were teaching about marriage brought him into discussions with theologians who would lead the way in opening up and reforming the Catholic Church through the Vatican II Ecumenical Council. For three years, Egan spent his summer vacations in Rome so he could listen in on the historic debates taking place there. From Saul Alinsky, another close friend, he got a challenging course in the nuts and bolts of community organizing.

But his high-profile career never obscured Egan's original vows. He could butt heads with clergy and hierarchy within the Church and even part ways with mentors, but he was able to adhere to the boundaries his vocation imposed. "He was born to be a priest. He loved being a priest, It was in his bones," Roach said simply.

"He was a very humble man," said community organizer Robert Squires. Egan recruited Squires in 1959 to work with Alinsky out of a settlement house on the West Side and he later baptized Squires' two daughters. "Egan was a charmer," he recalled. "The man would come in, and the light would shine." He credits him with making the corporate world aware of the need for social justice. "He challenged the power structure to be fair" said Squires. "He was ambitious to get things done, but not for himself. He hated to see poverty - poverty and oppressing the poor. He thought people should be treated equal. (Monsignor John J. Egan, 1916-2001. For a review of how the "psychology" of Dr. Carl Rogers destroyed Catholic priests and sisters, see Appendix A below.)

"Things" just didn't go "bad" with at the "Second" Vatican Council, you see. No. The revolutionary roots of the counterfeit church of conciliarism had been planted long before, which is why the conciliar revolutionaries were able to "tear down the bastions" of Catholic doctrine and liturgy and parishes and schools and universities and chancery offices with such ease in the 1960s as they were all awaiting the death of Pope Pius XII, who was so preoccupied with World War II and the rebuilding of Europe that occurred thereafter as the threat posed by Josef Stalin to Western European nations as to be unaware of the nest of revolutionaries he had helped to put in power in the Vatican and elsewhere, men who "bred their own," shall we say, in local chancery offices. Modernists within the structures of the Catholic Church in the post-World II years learned how to "organize" amongst themselves and then to "mobilize" the "people" to push for "change" once they were given the signal to do so.

Giovanni Montini/Paul VI learned Alinsky's revolutionary ways very well, thanks to the introduction given him by Jacques Maritain:

“It is true that Pius [XII] did not make Montini [the future Paul VI] a cardinal and that the See of Milan is usually ruled by a cardinal. However the explanation, as revealed by subsequent events, lay in the fact that the Pope did not want Montini to be available for election to the papacy in a conclave he knew could not be far off. Montini must be spared the brunt of what was going to be a severe shock to the faithful, namely the Council he was planning. Meanwhile the message sent to the new Archbishop at the time of his installation was glowing with warmth, gratitude and praise.

“Msgr. Montini seems to have taken to the new more independent life in Milan with zest. Initiating what would become an eight-year sojourn in the Lombard capital with a dramatic gesture, hitherto unknown among Catholic prelates, that of kissing the ground on arrival, he went on to play host to a succession of men whose influence would weigh heavily on the future of the Church. There were successive delegations of non-Catholic theologians staying at the Episcopal palace, most of them members of the Anglican Communion. There was Jacques Maritain whose ‘integral humanism’ Montini and Pacelli had been promoting for the past twenty years. By the mid-1950s the Maritain theory had become the hidden life of the Church only awaiting the Council to insert itself into the lives of the faithful. Following his wartime years as a refugee in Canada the French philosopher had spent three years in Rome as Ambassador to the Holy See and had now returned to France in order to dedicate all his time to writing.

One summer Maritain brought to Montini’s residence an American whom he said he considered to be ‘one of only three revolutionaries worthy of the name, indeed, one of the few really great men of this century’. It was Saul David Alinsky. The self-styled ‘professional radical’ was to spend an entire week with Archbishop Montini discussing the church’s relations with the powerful local Communist trade union. ‘It was an interesting experience,’ Alinsky told his biographer, M.K. Sanders, ‘There I was, sitting between the Archbishop and a beautiful grey-eyed blonde Milanese Communist union official, exploring the common interests bridging communism and capitalism.’

“As for religion, Saul Alinsky explained his attitude to Playboy a few years later. He said he had turned away from his strict Jewish family in order to join the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Going on to develop his theory of ‘People Power’ he said that it was after meeting Jacques Maritain that he began to see how revolution could become part of the Catholic Church. He preferred to call it, however, the ‘Church of Today and Tomorrow’ and it was a church which he felt must become quite free of dogma. ‘I detest and fear dogma. Nobody owns the truth and dogma, whatever form it takes, is the ultimate enemy of human freedom.’ Alinsky, Montini and Maritain expressed serene accord that the Church Militant must give way to the Church Loving. (Mary Ball Martinez, The Undermining of the Catholic Church.)

Modernism was kept alive and well in the "underground" after Pope Saint Pius X suppressed it. Modernism did not go away, though, and it was Jacques Maritain who helped to introduce the theological and liturgical revolutionaries to the "organizing" principles of Saul Alinsky, who by the 1960s was a welcomed figure in one chancery office after another in the United States of America:

This aggressive and imaginative irreverence was so much a part of his makeup that sometimes the threat of it alone was enough to bring about capitulation. Father Charles Curran tells us that Alinsky organized the black ghetto community in Rochester, New York, an targeted the Eastman Kodak Company and the local power establishment,

"one suggested topic was to buy one hundred tickets to the opening performance of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra, a cultural jewel highly prized in the city. The tickets would be given to one hundred ghetto blacks, who would first be entertained at a dinner party lasting three hours, served in the ghetto and consisting entirely of baked beans. In the end, Alinsky never carried through on the tactic, but the threat alone accomplished much." (Deal Wyatt Hudson, Understanding Maritain: Philosopher and Friend, pp. 40-41.)

"Aha," I said to myself upon reading this. "Charlie Curran? Rochester? Well, well, well. Yes, Saul Alinsky had acquired quite a Sheen in the years after the "Second" Vatican Council:

He brought changes and inevitable controversy to the diocese, which prompted one priest to remark "Bishop Sheen is shaking us up. Sometimes we wonder whether he's our bishop."

He shook up some suburban parishes by his concern for the inner city and especially the appointment of Father David Finks as the episcopal vicar in charge of the city's urban problems, such as employment, education, health, social justice, etc. Finks had alienated some Catholics because of his involvement in FIGHT (Freedom, Integration, God, Honor--Today) a group developed by Saul D. Alinsky, Chicago "social action" organizer.

The appointment and the bishop's support of an Alinsky social action group inspired many Roman Catholics to drop buttons instead of cash in the collection plate. The new, bishop, however, refused to back down.

He has also reformed the diocesan seminary by the appointment of seven lay persons to pass on the suitability of candidates for the priesthood. A testing program has begun so those who are unfit emotionally or spiritually may be "removed from the path of the priesthood." (Bishop Sheen: Undimmed Star At 73, Milwaukee Sentinel, September 14, 1968.)

Yes, Saul Alinsky had his tentacles everywhere. The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen had known of Alinsky's methods for a long time, and he made use of them in Rochester with his appointment of Father David Finks, who later left the priesthood and then wound up writing the very first published biography of Saul D. Alinsky:

David Finks, 79, a resident of Carolina Trace for 15 years, died Wednesday (6/10/09) at the E. Carlton Powell Hospice Center in Lillington after months of declining health.

He was born in Rochester, NY, the son of Perry D. and Frances Gillard Finks on Feb. 28, 1930, graduated in 1956 from St. Bernard’s Seminary in Rochester and served as a priest of the Rochester Diocese until 1973. In addition to two parishes, he taught theology and social ethics in high school and college.

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen appointed Finks vicar of urban ministry and executive director of the office of social ministry. In that role, he worked with Saul Alinsky, the creator of community organizing, who had been hired by the Christian churches to help Rochester’s black community organize. Finks later wrote the first biography of Alinsky, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky. During three years on the staff of the U.S. Catholic (Bishops) Conference in Washington D.C., Finks helped create the Campaign for Human Development, the national church’s primary funding source for social justice work. (A Renewed Community of Faith: Finks, P. David.)

It was not without just cause that my wonderful seminary professor, friend and confessor, Father John Joseph Jackie Boy Sullivan, a product of Saint Bernard's Seminary in the late 1930s prior to his ordination as priest of the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut, on May 22, 1941, spoke with complete scorn of Bishop Sheen's time in Rochester, which included taking the steps that would result ultimately in the closing of his beloved "Rock," Saint Bernard's Seminary, which featured the great opponent of Modernism and confidante of Pope Pius XII, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, as a professor for a time. 

It should be noted as well, of course, that Bishop Sheen did nothing to discipline Father Charles Curran when he, supported by Planned Parenthood and related organizations, helped to organize Catholic priests and religious sisters and scholars in opposition to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, which gave the illusion both to "opponents" and "supporters" of "maintaining" the "old" teaching when it was actually a revolutionary overthrowing of the ends of marriage that led an anti-family "population control" group's leader to coin the term "natural family planning" that has nothing at all to do with the teaching found in Pope Pius XII's Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951 (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)

Why is this all relevant to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero?

Well, priests such as Father David Finks, who got married two years after he ceased functioning as a priest, networked with like-minded brethren across the United States of America to make use of the conciliar revolution to advance the Alinsky social and to provide funding taking from the weekly collections and annual "bishops's appeals" programs to support groups promoted to one socialistic, anti-family and pro-death cause after another. Finks was, as noted in his obituary, one of the creators of the so-called Campaign for Human Development when he worked at the then-named United States Catholic Conference in the 1970s. And it was in this capacity that he worked closely with Alinsky allies all across the nation, including Monsignor George Higgins of the Archdiocese of Chicago and the then Archbishop Joseph Bernardin of Cincinnati, who, of course, would team up directly with Higgins when he, Bernardin, succeeded John Cardinal Cody as the conciliar archbishop of Chicago in 1982:

But David did more. He used his considerable skills to reach out to priests, religious and parishes to involve them in the cause of justice and many joined the effort.

David’s work in Rochester was soon recognized nationally, first as he served on national committees that shaped the Catholic Church’s social mission, and then when he left Rochester to work full-time for the U.S. Catholic Conference. David’s considerable writing and organizational skills and his ability to articulate the vision of Vatican II and the cause of social justice were widely recognized.

He was invited to prepare speeches for some of the leading Catholic leaders of the time such as Msgr. George Higgins in Chicago and Cardinal Bernardin, head of the U. S Catholic Conference.

Through his scholarly work and personal involvement, David participated in some way in virtually every major decision regarding the social mission of the American Catholic Church during this period. His writing and considerable charm and diplomacy helped shape the discussion and response of the Catholic Church on race, the plight of the country’s poor and the power and responsibility of the Church and community organizations to further social justice. His fingerprints were everywhere.

David’s leaves an enormous legacy. He helped found what became the multimillion-dollar Campaign for Human Development. He helped nurture progressive community organizations all over the country.  He gave encouragement to thousands of priests, nuns and former nuns and lay people committed to social change and the Church’s transformative power. (Corpus - A Renewed Community of Faith: Finks, P. David.)


It was under Bernardin's doctrinally, liturgically and morally corrupt regime that young Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero was given a free airline ticket to travel to Los Angeles for "training" in the Alinksy methods that he has used relentlessly as president and is using at present against Willard Mitt Romney and Paul Davis Ryan (see  Conciliar Church Paid for Obama to Take Alinsky Training).

Yes, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen helped to promote the career of a priest trained in the ways of Saul Alinsky, "networking" with his fellow revolutionaries to convince Catholics that the principal work of Holy Mother Church was "social work," not the sanctification and salvation of souls. Alinsky exploited the Americanist penchant for "activity" as the means to "change" the world, thereby showing us once again the prophetic nature of Pope Leo XIII's condemnation of Americanism's dismissive basis of what were called "passive virtues" (prayer, fasting, penance, mortification) to assert the primary of the "active virtues" of the sort exemplified by Alinsky's "Industrial Areas Foundation" that have been funded by the now-named "Catholic Catholic for Human Development" for over four decades now:

Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser 'of his own gifts. "The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth." -- John iii, 8.

"And to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ." -- Eph. iv, 7.

And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs- and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. "For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who give's unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit."-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.

Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. "He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase."-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God's loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.

For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, "What dost Thou wish me to do?" yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: "Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do."

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one's self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself? (Pope L:eo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

Saul Alinsky simply exploited the Americanism's mania for "activity" (we have to "do" something without leaving much, if any, time for prayer, study and reflection) that fuels everything about public life in the United States of America, including the farce of elections between competing sets of false "opposites." Barrack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero, you see, is a true son of Modernity. He is also also a true son of the spirit of Modernism. (Mrs. Stephanie Block, who is the most dogged researcher alive concerning the conciliar church's involvement with Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, explained four years ago that Obama/Soetero's nomination was simply a case of The Chickens Coming Home to Roost.)

Once Again, Do Not Get Lost in the Trees

As interesting as all of this information is, however, it is important to remember that it represents only the "details" of naturalism's corrupting influence on men and their nations. No supposedly "lesser evil" naturalist has any intention of even retarding the influences of naturalism as such a person believes that he can oppose and defeat the "greater evil" by the use of naturalism as those who are "relieved" when a supposedly "lesser evil" realizes a transitory victory over a "greater evil" go to sleep thinking all is well again when it is actually the case that more and more evils are being advanced and institutionalized. This is what must happen when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign as King over men and their nations. This is the only logical result of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of one naturalist "ideology" and "philosophy" after another that have sprung from the ethos of Judeo-Masonry. (See Devils Without Tails, Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils and Mr. Hugh Akins's superb Mitt Romney Definitely NOT the Moral Choice for Christians.)

In other words, only the names change from year to year as the results remain the same. Naturalists of one stripe or another win elections every time in this country. And each and every naturalist running for the Republican Party nomination next year would be mystified if they were told that all of their plans to retard the statism of Barack Hussein Obama will fail even if they get elected as no country whose civil laws permit grave evils and foster conditions injurious to the common temporal good and thus to the eternal welfare of souls can be "saved" unless its people convert to the true Faith.

Consider these passages from the Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers:

The social reign of the Heart of Jesus is God in His place in the reason, in the conscience, in the heart and in the public life of man; the social reign of Satan, is God excluded from religion, from the conscience, from the heart and from the public life of man; it is humanity laicized and adoring itself.

"There is no middle ground; one must choose. The liberals, the liberals who say to themselves that they are and believe themselves to be Catholic, do not want to choose; they repudiate the social reign of the Heart of Jesus, they accept the social reign of Satan. Despite their verbal protestations, their work is founded on Freemasonry; they are of the party of Satan against the Heart of Jesus" (Canon Gaudeau, La Maison actuelle de Sainte Marguerite Marie, p. 25, de St. Just, pg. 201.) [Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 5-8.]

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism? ("Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, p  22.]


The spirit of Judeo-Masonic naturalism was dissected very well by Pope Leo XII in Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824:

But at what are these remarks aimed? A certain sect, which you surely know, has unjustly arrogated to itself the name of philosophy, and has aroused from the ashes the disorderly ranks of practically every error. Under the gentle appearance of piety and liberality this sect professes what they call tolerance or indifferentism. It preaches that not only in civil affairs, which is not Our concern here, but also in religion, God has given every individual a wide freedom to embrace and adopt without danger to his salvation whatever sect or opinion appeals to him on the basis of his private judgment. The apostle Paul warns us against the impiety of these madmen. "I beseech you, brethren, to behold those who create dissensions and scandals beyond the teaching which you have learned. Keep away from such men. They do not serve Christ Our Lord but their own belly, and by sweet speeches and blessings they seduce the hearts of the innocent."

Of course this error is not new, but in Our days it rages with a new rashness against the constancy and integrity of the Catholic faith. Eusebius cites Rhodo as his source for saying that the heretic Apelles in the second century had already produced the mad theory that faith should not be investigated, but that each man should persevere in the faith he was raised in. Even those who put faith in a crucified man were to be saved, according to Apelles, provided that they engaged in good works. Rhetorius too, as We learn from St. Augustine, used to claim that all the heretics walked on the right road and spoke truth. But Augustine adds that this is such nonsense that he cannot believe it. The current indifferentism has developed to the point of arguing that everyone is on the right road. This includes not only all those sects which though outside the Catholic Church verbally accept revelation as a foundation, but those groups too which spurn the idea of divine revelation and profess a pure deism or even a pure naturalism. The indifferentism of Rhetorius seemed absurd to St. Augustine, and rightly so, but it did acknowledge certain limits. But a tolerance which extends to Deism and Naturalism, which even the ancient heretics rejected, can never be approved by anyone who uses his reason. Nevertheless -- alas for the times; alas for this lying philosophy!-such a tolerance is approved, defended, and praised by these pseudophilosophers.

Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.

But Oh! the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible His judgments! God, who destroys the wisdom of the wise, has clearly given the enemies of His Church, who despise supernatural revelation, a perverted mind corresponding to the symbol of iniquity which was written on the forehead of the wicked woman in the Apocalypse. For what greater iniquity is there than for those proud men not only to abandon true religion, but also to seek to ensnare the imprudent by criticisms of every sort, in speech and writings filled with all deceit! Let God arise and restrain, make futile and destroy this unbridled license in all its manifestations. (Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824.)


Concilairism has simply made more possible the triumph of statism as personified in the policies and programs of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero by its false doctrines and by its false liturgical rites that, having robbed the world of the plentiful supply of Sanctifying and Actual Grace, have taken down the bastions to allow the barbarians to turn on them as happens, of course, in all revolutions when those who have been funded and enabled by guilt-ridden "humanitarians" kill off the hands that have fed them in order to be the sole directors of what constitutes revolutionary change.

"But a tolerance which extends to Deism and Naturalism, which even the ancient heretics rejected, can never be approved by anyone who uses his reason." And what is your excuse for approving the naturalism of the midget naturalists amongst others, no less enabling them with your time and money? Was Pope Leo XII wrong?

May we pray to the saint whose feast is celebrated today, October 1, 2012, Saint Remigius, the Bishop of Rheims who baptized King Clovis of the Franks on December 24, 496 A.D., as the prayers of Clovis's wife, Saint Clotilde were answered, intercede for us to be champions of Christ the King, Who reigned so gloriously in France in the persons of Charlemagne and, most especially, in the person of Saint Louis IX, King of France, as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, especially during this month of the Our Lady of the Rosary, the month of October, as we endure the chastisements of the moment with joy, love and gratitude while refusing to be agitated by the agitators who carry around with them the mantle of Saul Alinsky or of the men who had a founding hatred for Christ the King,

"The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end."

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

Saint Remigius, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Dr. William Coulson on the Mission of Dr. Carl Rogers to "Reprogram" Catholic Priests and Religious Sisters


(Published Originally in The Latin Mass Magazine 1994 and republished with introductory and concluding notes by Eternal Word Television Network)

A contrite Catholic psychologist's disturbing testimony about his central role in the destruction of religious orders.

Dr. William Coulson was a disciple of the influential American psychologist Carl Rogers, and for many years a co-practitioner of the latter's "nondirective" therapy. In 1964 he became chief of staff at Rogers' Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, Ca., where, he says, as the resident Catholic it became his task to "gather a cadre of facilitators to invade the IHM community" of nuns-and later some two dozen other orders, among them the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of Providence, and the Jesuits. It was only in 1971 that he began to "back away" from his belief in psychotherapy, when its destructive effects on the religious orders-and on the Church and society in general- became apparent to him.

Having abandoned his once-lucrative practice, Dr. Coulson now devotes his life to lecturing to Catholic and Protestant groups on the dangers of psychotherapy. He is also founder and director of the Research Council on Ethnopsychology, where he can be reached (P.O. Box 134, Comptche, CA 95427). He and his wife Jeannie have seven children.

In the following interview with Dr. William Marra, Dr. Coulson discusses his role in the destruction of Catholic religious orders, and his subsequent change of mind Additional copies of this magazine are available for $4 each, first-class postage included, from: The Latin Mass, 1331 Red Cedar Circle, Ft. Collins, CO 80524.

TLM: The story begins with your graduate education, doesn't it?

COULSON: Oh, yes. I went to Notre Dame in the late '50s, for a doctorate in philosophy, and wrote my dissertation on Carl Rogers' theory of human nature. There was an interesting controversy at the time, about whether Rogers, who was probably the most prominent American psychologist of his day, believed that every man is totally good. So I wanted to compare Rogers with B. F. Skinner, the famous behaviorist, and with Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis.

TLM: Stop right there. Were you a Catholic at the time?

COULSON: Oh, yes.

TLM: And Notre Dame was Catholic?

COULSON: Notre Dame was Catholic! I got a good education in Thomistic philosophy.

TLM: Didn't it occur to you that as a faithful Catholic you couldn't buy the idea that men are basically good? Didn't original sin mean anything to you?

COULSON: It wasn't my task then to be a critic of Rogers' theory. I wanted to find out what he taught; and having read everything that I could get my hands on, I  contacted him at the University of Wisconsin.

TLM: I see; okay.

COULSON: At the time Rogers was at the University of Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute. He had gotten a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health, to test his theory of nondirective counseling.

TLM: Now put that in plain English.

COULSON: Okay. At the University of Chicago, where Rogers had done his most significant work, he had found that young people he was counseling didn't really need him to give them answers- that they had answers within them. In retrospect, I understand that these were bright, well-brought-up young people, or they couldn't have gotten into the University of Chicago. They were able to figure things out, but they hadn't been able to hear themselves think, so responsive had they always been to people telling them what they should do.

So Rogers had the idea that to help these neurotics, we should refer them to the source of authority within them-in other words, refer them to their consciences. Notice the assumption that in fact people have consciences! Well, he was dealing with University of Chicago students in the '40s and '50s, who had grown up in the Midwest; and, sure enough, they had consciences.

TLM: -and therefore it would make sense for a therapist to say, "Well, what do you think? Use your own basic convictions."

COULSON: But Rogers wouldn't be so directive as to say, "Use your own convictions about ethical law." Rather, he would say, "I guess I get the feeling that what you are saying is...." This has become a caricature since, of course; it makes you laugh; but it really was Rogers' locution. It worked. He could disappear for people, and leave them in the presence of their consciences.

You see, as a practicing Catholic layman, I thought that was pretty holy: that God was available to every person who had a decent upbringing, that he could self-consult, as it were, and hear God speaking to him. I was thinking of William James's idea that the conscience can provide access to the Holy Spirit.

TLM: Notre Dame's not all that far from Wisconsin; did you drive over to meet Rogers?

COULSON: I wrote to him; and it proves that he was generous, or perhaps reckless, that he said to me, "Why don't you come up and spend some time here with us? I'll get you a government fellowship." He didn't know me from Adam. But maybe he saw that I could put a sentence together, so he did get a federal research fellowship for me, so that I could join his staff at the Psychiatric Institute, and sit at his feet and write my dissertation. So it turned out that there was very little of Skinner and Freud in my dissertation, compared to the Rogers that got into it.

TLM: How was Rogers as a person?

COULSON: A terrific human being. We used to make jokes about him, though, because one makes jokes to keep one's sanity when one is in graduate school.

For example, when I arrived on Rogers' doorstep in 1963, at the University of Wisconsin, Rogers was off in California. When he finally got back to Wisconsin, and I got a chance to shake his hand, to tell him how pleased I was finally to make his acquaintance personally, I said, "I'm very glad to meet you"; and he looked at me and he said, "I can see that." I mean, in ordinary discourse you exchange greetings: "Well, I'm pleased to meet you, too." But Rogers thought maybe I could use a little bit of therapy.

It works, you know; one tumbles pretty easily into this. We corrupted a whole raft of religious orders on the west coast in the '60s by getting the nuns and priests to talk about their distress.

TLM: Tell us about that. This can be the open confession of Catholic psychologist William Coulson.

COULSON: You don't have the power to absolve me at the end, do you?

Once I got to Wisconsin, I joined Rogers in his study of nondirective psychotherapy with normal people. We had the idea that if it was good for neurotics, it would be good for normals. Well, the normal people of Wisconsin proved how normal they were by opting out as soon as they knew what it was we wanted. Nobody wanted any part of it. So we went to California.

TLM: That would do it.

COULSON: I knew you were going to say that. That was my first mistake, looking for normal people in California. But we found the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the IHMs. They agreed to let us come into their schools and work with their normal faculty, and with their normal students, and influence the development of normal Catholic family life. It was a disaster.

TLM: Now what year are we talking about, roughly?

COULSON: '66 and '67. There's a tragic book called "Lesbian Nuns, Breaking Silence', which documents part of our effect on the IHMs and other orders that engaged in similar experiments in what we called "sensitivity" or "encounter." In a chapter of "Lesbian Nuns", one former Immaculate Heart nun describes the summer of 1966, when we did the pilot study in her order-

TLM: "We" being you and Rogers?

COULSON: Rogers and I and eventually 58 others: we had 60 facilitators. We inundated that system with humanistic psychology. We called it Therapy for Normals.

TFN. The IHMs had some 60 schools when we started; at the end, they had one. There were some 615 nuns when we began. Within a year after our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves.

TLM: Who's that on the cover of that book [<Lesbian Nuns>]?

COULSON: This is Sister Mary Benjamin, IHM. Sister Mary Benjamin got involved with us in the summer of '66, and became the victim of a lesbian seduction. An older nun in the group, "freeing herself to be more expressive of who she really was internally," decided that she wanted to make love with Sister Mary Benjamin. Well, Sister Mary Benjamin engaged in this; and then she was stricken with guilt, and wondered, to quote from her book, "Was I doing something wrong, was I doing something terrible? I talked to a priest--"

Unfortunately, we had talked to him first. "I talked to a priest," she says, "who refused to pass judgment on my actions. He said it was up to me to decide if they were right or wrong. He opened a door, and I walked through the door, realizing I was on my own."

TLM: This is her liberation?

COULSON: This is her liberation. Now, her parents had not delivered her to the IHMs in order for her to be on her own. She was precious to them. She describes the day in 1962 when they drove her in the station wagon to Montecito, to the IHMs' novitiate. How excited they were, to be delivering someone into God's hands! Well, instead they delivered her into the hands of nondirective psychology.

TLM: But to mitigate your own guilt, Dr. Coulson, psychologists don't know what they are doing when it comes to the inner depth of the human person; and one would think the Catholic Church, with 2,000 years' experience, does know what it is doing. This priest was a co-culprit. Had he nipped this in the bud-but he sounds like Rogers: "Well, it seems to me that perhaps you might perhaps do this or that."

COULSON: "What does it mean to you?" not "What does it mean to me?" Or to God. The priest got confused about his role as a confessor. He thought it
was personal, and he consulted himself and said, "I can't pass judgment on you." But that's not what confession is. It is not about the priest as a person, making a decision for the client; rather it's what God says. In fact, God has already judged on this matter. You are quite right to feel guilty about it. "Go thou and sin no more." Instead he said she should decide.

TLM: Okay. Now, why did you choose the IHM order in the first place? Or did they choose you?

COULSON: Well, they hustled us pretty good. They were very progressive to begin with. A shoestring relative of one of Rogers' Wisconsin colleagues was a member of the community. By then we were at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute (WBSI) in La Jolla, which is a suburb of San Diego; as a Catholic, I was assigned to exploit the connection. I spoke to the California Conference of Major Superiors of Women's Religious Orders, and showed them a film of Carl Rogers doing psychotherapy.

TLM: And Rogers' reputation had already grown.

COULSON: Oh yes. Rogers had a great reputation. He was former president of the American Psychological Association; he won its first Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award. And WBSI was also the home of Abraham Maslow, the other great figure in humanistic psychology.

TLM: What do you mean by humanistic psychology?

COULSON: Well, it's also called third-floor psychology. Maslow referred to it as Psychology Three. By that he meant to oppose it to Freud, which is Psychology One, and Skinner and Watson, the behaviorism which is Psychology Two. We Catholics who got involved in it thought this third force would take account of Catholic things. It would take account of the fact that every person is precious, that we are not just corrupted as Freud would have it, or a <tabula rasa>, which is available to be conditioned in whatever way the behaviorist chooses; but rather we have human potential, and it's glorious because we are the children of a loving Creator who has something marvelous in mind for every one of us.

TLM: That could be very seductive even for Catholics who could reject the other two with a simple wave of the hand. Okay, continue now with the story of the IHMs.

COULSON: As I said, the IHMs were pretty progressive, but some of the leadership was a little bit nervous about the secular psychologist from La Jolla coming in; and so I met with the whole community, some 600 nuns gathered in the Immaculate Heart High School gymnasium, in Hollywood, on an April day in 1967. We've already done the pilot study, we told them. Now we want to get everybody in the system involved in nondirective self-exploration. We call it encounter groups, but if that name doesn't please you, we'll call it something else. We'll call it the person group.

So they went along with us, and they trusted us, and that is partly my responsibility, because they thought, "These people wouldn't hurt us: the project coordinator is a Catholic." Rogers, however, was the principal investigator. He was the brains behind the project, and he was probably anti-Catholic; at the time I didn't recognize it because I probably was, too. We both had a bias against hierarchy. I was flush with Vatican II, and I thought, "I am the Church; I am as Catholic as the Pope. Didn't Pope John XXIII want us to open the windows and let in the fresh air? Here we come!" And we did, and within a year those nuns wanted out of their vows.

TLM: How did you do this-just with lectures?

COULSON: Yes, there were lectures; and we arranged workshops for their school faculty, those who would volunteer. We didn't want to force anybody to do this, which was a symbol of how good we were.

TLM: But at first you had a plenary session of all 600.

COULSON: That was <my> lecture. I told them what we wanted to do, and I showed them a film of an encounter group; and it looked pretty holy. The people in that film seemed to be better people at the end of the session than they were when they began. They were more open with one another, they were less deceitful, they didn't hide their judgments from one another; if they didn't like one another they were inclined to say so; and if they were attracted to one another they were inclined to say that, too.

Rogers and I did a tape for Bell and Howell summarizing that project; and I talked about some of the short-term effects and said that when people do what they deeply want to do, it isn't immoral. Well, we hadn't waited long enough. The lesbian nuns' book, for example, hadn't come out yet; and we hadn't gotten the reports of seductions in psychotherapy, which became virtually routine in California. We had trained people who didn't have Rogers' innate discipline from his own fundamentalist Protestant background, people who thought that being themselves meant unleashing libido.

Maslow did warn us about this. Maslow believed in evil, and we didn't. He said our problem was our total confusion about evil. (This is quoting from Maslow's journals, which came out too late to stop us. His journals came out in '79, and we had done our damage by then.) Maslow said there was danger in our thinking and acting as if their were no paranoids or psychopaths or SOBs in the world to mess things up.

We created a miniature utopian society, the encounter group. As long as Rogers and those who feared Rogers' judgment were present it was okay, because nobody fooled around in the presence of Carl Rogers. He kept people in line; he was a moral force. People did in fact consult their consciences, and it looked like good things were happening.

TLM: But once you had those 600 nuns broken down into their encounter groups, how long did it take for the damage to set in?

COULSON: Well, in the summer of '67 the IHMs were having their chapter. They had been called, as all religious orders were, to reevaluate their mode of living, and to bring it more in line with the charisms of their founder. So they were ready for us. They were ready for an intensive look at themselves with the help of humanistic psychologists. We overcame their traditions, we overcame their faith. Bud Kaiser, Father Elwood Kaiser, a Paulist priest, producer of "Insight," I think you may know him-

TLM: Enough said.

COULSON: Okay. He wrote a book last year called <Hollywood Priest>. He's got a chapter in there about his romantic involvement with one of our nuns, with one of the IHMs. Father Kaiser explains that as "Genevieve," as he calls her, got in the spirit of Rogerian nondirective encounter, she propositioned him sexually. He refused her, because he didn't see how he could have something going with her and still be a good priest; but she got sexually involved with her Rogerian therapist. We were referring the nuns who opened up too much in our encounter groups to therapists who were on the periphery.

TLM: At least this was a male therapist.

COULSON: He got her involved in sex games, in therapy. Rogers didn't get people involved in sex games, but he couldn't prevent his followers from doing it, because all he could say was, "Well, I don't do that." Then his followers would say, "Well, of course you don't do that, because you grew up in an earlier era; but we do, and it's marvelous: you have set us free to be ourselves and not carbon copies of you."

TLM: Marvelous, indeed. How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart order?

COULSON: It took about a year and a half.

TLM: Of the 615, how many are left?

COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the mother house in Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood-

TLM: They're hardly survivors.

COULSON: No, they're not a canonical group.

TLM: But the order as a whole, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which ran all those schools?

COULSON: There are a few of them in Wichita whom I visited recently, who are going to make a go of it as traditional teaching nuns; and there are a few doing the same in Beverly Hills. There may be a couple of dozen left all together, apart from whom, <kaput>, they're gone.

TLM: And the college campus-

COULSON: The college campus was sold. There is no more Immaculate Heart College. It doesn't exist. It's ceased to function, because of our good offices. One mother pulled her daughter out before it closed, saying,"Listen, she can lose her faith for free at the state college."

Our grant had been for three years, but we called off the study after two, because we were alarmed about the results. We thought we could make the IHMs better than they were; and we destroyed them.

TLM: Did you do this kind of program anywhere else?

COULSON: We did similar programs for the Jesuits, for the Franciscans, for the Sisters of Providence, of Charity, and the Mercy Sisters. We did dozens of Catholic religious organizations, because as you recall, in the excitement following Vatican II, everybody wanted to update, everybody wanted to renew; and we offered a way for people to renew, without having to bother to study. We said, we'll help you look within. After all, is not God in your heart? Is it not sufficient to be yourself, and wouldn't that make you a good Catholic? And if it doesn't, then perhaps you shouldn't have been a Catholic in the first place. Well, after a while there weren't
many Catholics left.

TLM: Now, you mentioned that the religious orders had received a mandate from Vatican II to renew themselves according to the original spirit of their founders, which would have been wonderful.


TLM: For example, the original spirit of the Jesuits was Saint Ignatius Loyola...

COULSON: That's right. Speaking of Saint Ignatius, I brought with me a letter that Carl Rogers got, after we did a workshop at a Jesuit university in the summer of '65. One of the young Jesuits, just about to be ordained, wrote as follows about being with Rogers at an encounter group for five days: "It seemed like a beautiful birth to a new existence. It was as if so many of the things that I valued in word, were now becoming true for me in fact. It is extremely difficult to describe the experience. I had not known how unaware I was of my deepest feelings, nor how valuable they might be to other people. Only when I began to express what was rising somewhere deep within the center of me, and saw the tears in the eyes of the other group members because I was saying something so true for them, too-only then did I begin to really feel that I was deeply a part of the human race. Never in my life before that group experience, had I experienced <me> so intently; and then to have that <me>< so confirmed and loved by the group, who by this time were sensitive and reacting to my phoniness, was like receiving a gift that I could never-"

TLM: "Reacting to my phoniness"?

COULSON: "My phoniness." But what is his phoniness? Well, his phoniness is among other things his Catholic doctrine. Because if you look withinc yourself, and you find the Creed, for example, you can imagine someone saying, "Oh, you're just being a mama's boy, aren't you? You're just doing what you were taught to do; I want to hear from the <real> you."

The proof of authenticity on the humanistic psychology model is to go against what you were trained to be, to call all of that phoniness, and to say what is deepest within you. What's deepest within you, however, are certain unrequited longings, including sexual longings. We provoked an epidemic of sexual misconduct among clergy and therapists-

TLM: And it seemed to be justified by psychology, which is supposed to be a science. Now, the documents of Vatican II are never read, but they include beautiful and profound things. One can also find very naive things, including the statement that theology should profit from the insights of contemporary social science. I don't know which document that was, but it gave you people <carte blanche>.

COULSON: That's right. I'll tell you what Rogers came to see, and he came to see it pretty quickly, because he really loved those women. They were a wonderful order, unconventional in the best sense, for example going around in their old habits playing Mozart for Catholic school kids; and that doesn't exist any more.

Rogers came to call it, "this damned thing." I'm going to quote him in a tape that he and I made in '76: "I left there feeling, Well, I started this damned thing, and look where it's taking us; I don't even know where it's taking me. I don't have any idea what's going to happen next. And I woke up the next morning feeling so depressed, that I could hardly stand it. And then I realized what was wrong. Yes, I started this thing, and now look where it's carrying us. Where is it going to carry us? And did I
start something that is in some fundamental way mistaken, and will lead us off into paths that we will regret?"

TLM: That's a credit to him, that he at least had pangs of conscience; whereas these other orders, like the Jesuits, even when they saw that the IHMs were almost extinct, nevertheless they invited the same team in.

COULSON: Oh, yes. Well, actually we started with the Jesuits before we started with the nuns. We did our first Jesuit workshop in '65. Rogers got two honorary doctorates from Jesuit universities. They thought we were saviors. I don't know whether you remember, but in '67 the Jesuits had a big conference at Santa Clara, and there was a lot of talk about the"Third Way" among the Jesuits.

TLM: You were involved with that, too? It had to do with lifestyle.

COULSON: Yes, lifestyle. We did not consult directly on that conference, but we were cheerleaders.

TLM: What is this Third Way?

COULSON: The first two ways are faithful marriage and faithful celibacy. But now there was this more humane way, a more human way-all too human as I see it today. The idea was that priests could date. One priest, for example, defined his celibacy for me as, "It means I don't have to marry the girl."

TLM: Only a Jesuit could have said that.

COULSON: As a matter of fact that wasn't a Jesuit. I think the Jesuits are capable of bouncing back because they had such strong traditions of their own, and God willing they will. A good book to read on this whole question is Fr. Joseph Becker's <The Reformed Jesuits>. It reviews the collapse of Jesuit training between 1965 and 1975. Jesuit formation virtually fell apart; and Father Becker knows the influence of the Rogerians pretty well. He cites a number of Jesuit novice masters who claimed that the authority for what they did-and didn't do-was Carl Rogers.

Later on when the Jesuits gave Rogers those honorary doctorates, I think that they wanted to credit him with his influence on the Jesuit way of life.

TLM: But do you think there were any short-term beneficial effects? Did it seem as if you were getting somewhere in the good sense?

COULSON: Well, priests and nuns became more available to the people that they worked with; they were less remote.....

But we didn't have a doctrine of evil. As I've said, Maslow saw that we failed to understand the reality of evil in human life. When we implied to people that they could trust their impulses, they also understood us to mean that they could trust their evil impulses, that they weren't really evil.

But-they were really evil. This hit home again for Rogers in the 1970s, when rumors began to circulate about a group that had spun off from ours. By then we had become the Center for Studies of the Person in La Jolla, having spun off from WBSI; and at the same time there spun off another group called the Center for Feeling Therapy in Hollywood. Well, charges were brought against the guys at the Center for Feeling Therapy-one of three founders of that, by the way, being a Jesuit who had left the order-and among the things that the State of California was perceptive enough to charge them with was killing babies. Eleven times, women who became pregnant while they were in the compound, the Center for Feeling Therapy, were forced to abort their babies. The State of California charged them with this crime-

TLM: Was this before <Roe v. Wade>, then?

COULSON: No, this happened after <Roe>, but the State Medical Board held that it was unethical for those men to force the women to have abortions, because those woman wanted their babies.

TLM: And this is a result of psychological feeling therapy?

COULSON: Yes. The idea behind it is that you can't really listen to yourself, if you hear the baby cry. If the baby needs to be fed, or you find yourself being distracted with what the baby is doing, you're not going to be able to deal with yourself.

Humanistic psychotherapy, the kind that has virtually taken over the Church in America, and dominates so many forms of aberrant education like sex education, and drug education, holds that the most important source of authority is within you, that you must listen to yourself. Well, if you have a baby you're carrying under your heart, get rid of it. Women who came into the Center for Feeling Therapy with children were forced to put them up for adoption. The only person who was allowed to have a baby, in an eerie preview of David Koresh, was the principal founder of the institution. All the other babies were killed, or sent away, in the name of getting in touch with the imperial self.

TLM: Did Rogers write the book, <Becoming a Person>?

COULSON: <On Becoming a Person>. Later there was a book of Catholic sex education called <Becoming a Person>, which translates Rogers' insights on the importance of being yourself into the Catholic sexual setting.

TLM: So you're not a person unless you're yourself?

COULSON: That's right. And if we were angels, maybe it would be okay; if there were not original sin, maybe it would be okay. Maslow did see this: Abe Maslow, a self- proclaimed happy atheist, but a Jew who understood evil because Hitler had tried to destroy his people. Maslow warned us not to do our study on the west coast, because he had tried Rogerian encounterish things with his students at Brandeis, and they had promptly become unteachable. Maslow wrote in his journal, "My students have lost the traditional Jewish respect for learning, for knowledge and for teachers."

He also saw it as the destruction of professions. He said you cannot become a chemist, or a doctor, or even a plumber, in an encounter group. You have to be <taught>. Well, it destroyed profession in another sense: it destroyed Catholic religious profession, just as it would destroy the practice of medicine if medicine took seriously the idea that all the answers are within the students; so, too, did it destroy the vows of the nuns. There were many priests who didn't even bother to get laicized. They just left, saying, "My vows don't count for anything, because they came from somewhere else; they didn't come from within."

TLM: You know, sex education launched me on my own speaking career. I was living in the woods, near a Catholic school, a Catholic church; and my wife and I thought we'd live happily ever after till sex ed came into the Catholic school. What's your experience with it?

COULSON: We pulled our kids out of the Catholic schools when they began to be corrupted.

TLM: Even while you were still a Rogerian psychologist?

COULSON: Yes, Jeannie had common sense all the while-

TLM: Your wife?

COULSON: My wife. Now, I'm not saying we did the best thing for our kids; but at least we were properly alarmed early on. It wasn't so much that it was there yet, as that we saw it coming. The kids would get an experiential education if they stayed in that setting; they would not get a Catholic education.

TLM: --in religion or in morals.

COULSON: Yes. Who carries the day, in experiential education? If you park a group of kids in a circle to talk about their sexual experiences, who's going to have the most interesting stories to tell? The most experienced child.

TLM: Exactly.

COULSON: Where is the direction of influence going to run? It's going to run-and the research confirms this again and again-it's going to run from the experienced to the inexperienced. The net outcome of sex education, styled as Rogerian encountering, is more sexual experience.

TLM: You know, one of the time bombs in Vatican II was a single line: "As they advance in years, children should be given a positive and prudent education in sexuality." It in no way said we needed school-based sex ed. But on the basis of that one wretched line, the entire Catholic school system has been inundated with the stuff.

COULSON: One problem is that kids don't have an adult intelligence They used to, because we would lend them ours. We'd lend them our eyes; we'd say, "See the world as we see it, cautiously, cautiously. Hear what we hear, cautiously." But now they are teaching children that they can make wrong right by choosing it, as long as they are sincere in their choice.

TLM: I think many reading this are beginning to understand the ravages done to children by the so-called professionals.

COULSON: Yes. You know, one sign of what happened when humanistic psychology moved into the Catholic religious orders was that priests and nuns became bachelors and bachelorettes. They started thinking about conquest, I'm afraid. One would be well-advised to stay away from a conference of the National Catholic Education Association, where you get the impression that people are on the make. They see themselves now as"whole persons," and they justify their sexualized behavior on the basis of that theory. It was better when we were more repressed-so says the psychologist.

TLM: You don't get invited to these things any more, I'll wager.

COULSON: No, but I used to get invited a lot of places. I spoke to the National Federation of Priests' Councils. In 1970 I spoke to the National Catholic Guidance Conference.

TLM: And you told them they had to be "authentic."

COULSON: Yes, and I'm ashamed of that.

TLM: How would you say Carl Rogers and his followers influenced education in general, and Catholic education in particular?

COULSON: The basic message is that education, classroom education, is a variant on group psychotherapy.

In '69, he did a book called <Freedom to Learn>, which has been called the Bible of humanistic education. In it, he says, "I make no apologies for the fact that this chapter is cast in the framework of therapy. To myv mind the best of education would produce a person very similar to onev produced by the best of psychotherapy." He says he means "...an exploration of increasingly strange and unknown and dangerous feelings inv oneself, this exploration proving possible only because the individualc gradually realizes that he is accepted unconditionally."

Now, this helps account for a lot of what goes on in Catholic youth retreats these days, and Catholic sex education, where the kids sit in circles, and talk about their feelings. They explore what Rogers honestly characterized as increasingly dangerous feelings.

TLM: And the retreat masters no longer master but rather <facilitate>.

COULSON: Sure....

TLM: You know Dr. Paul Vitz; he wrote a book, <Psychology as Religion>, which was an attack on the humanistic psychologists.

COULSON: Yes, a very fine book.

TLM: Vitz tells me that there's a lot of soul searching going on now in the profession of psychology; he says they're exhausted. Would you agree with that, that they are at a dead end?

COULSON: Indeed, they've had to turn to New Age psychologies. You remember Maslow coined the term "the third force" for humanistic psychology. But Maslow quickly came to see that there was something on the horizon which he called the fourth force. It has since come to be known as transpersonal psychology. It's the fastest growing field of psychology; but it is primarily New Ageism, because it doesn't want to endorse traditional religious faith. It is psychology trying to be religion, because ii understands that humanistic orientation is inadequate.

TLM: The title of Vitz's book suggests that humanistic psychology sometimes acts like a religion, or even is one in some sense. Did Maslow go that far in his criticism, and in what sense do you think it's true?

COULSON: Well, Maslow wrote a book in '64, <Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences>, in which he offered the Hollywood kind of thing (although he didn't refer to it that way) as a better religion. Even toward the end of his life, he wrote in his journals, "They're not religious enough for me," referring to what he called the priests and ministers. Maslow in his atheism believed that he was more religious than the people of the institutional religions. Rogers put it this way: "I'm too religious to
have a religion," by which I think he meant, "I'm more religious than you are because I don't go to church, I don't feel obliged, I don't follow a creed, I make my own."

TLM: Can you unpack that? What <do> they mean by religion?

COULSON: Their religion was sort of Tillichian: the courage to <be>, the importance of taking risks, the importance of inventiveness. I think the fact that Maslow was a Jew enabled him to see some of of tribe. He had a people whom he knew were being hurt by this, and as an elder of the tribe he had an obligation not to allow it to continue. Rogers had no such sense. Rogerians have no tribe, except for everybody; and everybody is too large to give any sense of definition, of limit.

TLM: And from your own point of view?

COULSON: It was my Catholic faith that finally caught up with me.

TLM: Vitz has suggested that we ought to add or integrate old-fashioned values like duty and honor and responsibility into psychology. Is this practical? Or are they by nature kind of antithetical thought processes?

COULSON: Psychology today is predominantly therapeutic psychology; and in that sense they're antithetical, because in therapy, you don't ever want to tell a person how they should be, particularly in the moral dimension, or they will never reveal to you how bad things are from that perspective.

I have no doubt, because Paul is a very bright and able and moral person, that he could do what he is suggesting needs to be done, and that is to integrate traditional moral concepts with therapy. But I see therapy as being fundamentally opposed to the civilized life. It's a little bit like asking a competent pianist what he's doing with his fingers. In the course of the answer the music stops, because he <doesn't know> what he's doing with his fingers.

And in order to analyze it, the music has to stop. If civilization is a kind of music, it stops when everybody gets therapy. Unfortunately we assume now that everybody needs to get therapy. Even Maslow said so, in a 1968 interview for <Life>. It was surprising that that late in his career he was still saying things like that, because when you look at his journals he didn't believe it. He understood what a destructive suggestion
it was.

TLM: I quite see what you mean about stopping the music, but why is that not also an objection to the traditional Catholic examination of conscience, confession, and advice from a good spiritual director?

COULSON: Well, because this examination of conscience is done with a constant reference to what we know is right. It is not something yet to be invented, but something that has been known for almost 2,000 years. The examination is guided by what I call Catholic equipment. The list that I used to consult as a young Catholic in the '50s told me in advance what I should be looking for. I knew venial and mortal sins inside and out, not because I had discovered this knowledge within my own experience, but because it was provided for me by the Church, which had my best interests at heart.

TLM: Sure.

COULSON: Therefore I could yield to this external knowledge. Today's young Catholics don't have the advantage of having learned how to work the equipment. They don't know how to pray the rosary. If they went to a Latin Mass they wouldn't know how to turn the pages in the missal. They don't understand that lists of mortal and venial sins are serious, and not to be made fun of.

TLM: Is there an assumption in humanistic psychology, a modernist, Teilhardish kind of assumption, that human nature has altered, and therefore old values, old models, don't apply?

COULSON: I don't think that humanistic psychology assumes any alteration of human nature, but rather John Dewey's idea that because we live in times of rapid social change, what we've always done is precisely what we should no longer do.

TLM: Sure.

COULSON: Now the odd thing is, we've been living in terms of Dewey's theory for almost a hundred years now. We're living in Dewey's past, and not in our own present. That's what makes a movement like Roger McCaffrey's and Bill Marra's so progressive: it doesn't pretend that the last fifty years have worked out very well.

This article appeared in Vol. 3, No. 1, January-February 1994 issue of"The Latin Mass." (We overcame their traditions, we overcame their faith.)

Appendix B

The Role of the Industrial Areas Foundation in the Stealing of United States Representative Robert K. Dornan's Re-Election in 1996

(With non-indented text of my own as found in Tone Deaf)

Thirty years of parades, demonstrations, side-walk counseling, civil disobedience, educational campaigns and annual letters from the Catholic bishops have not only failed to bring forth a Human Life Amendment but have left entrenched abortion as a right deeper in the culture.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the Catholic bishops themselves, with a few exceptions, constitute the Secret Weapon of the Democrat Party which functions as the chief advocate and protector of the abortion industry. This conclusion resulted from an examination not of the Catholic bishops' pro-life rhetoric but of their spending.

The fact remains that the great bulk of the work and leadership in the cause of Life came from the Catholic laity. In general, the Bishops have done less than nothing. A few examples from the Chicago area serve to illustrate this point.

Joe Scheidler has been leading pro-life demonstrations, training pro-life activists and educating through public appearances since Roe v Wade in 1973. His work at abortion clinics cut deeply into the abortionists' expected revenues and undermined the ideology of sexual liberation which defined abortion as a political right. Joe Scheidler, a devout Catholic, husband and father, did such damage to the abortion industry that the National Organization of Women (NOW), an instrument of the Democrat Party, sued him in federal court, under RICO statutes, for racketeering. They demanded millions of dollars in judgment and imposed on him burdensome legal costs.

Joe Scheidler was, and is, doing God's work. Furthermore, he was doing the Church's work. Yet, in all that time, the Archdiocese of Chicago provided him with no financial help, even when NOW had put him under their legal guns.

Conrad Wojnar lived through a similar story. He quit his job as a social worker and dedicated his amazing organizing skills to helping women avoid abortion as a solution to personal problems. A devout Catholic husband and father, Wojnar put together The Women's' Center, a place where women with problem pregnancies can find sympathetic counseling, learn the facts about abortion, receive medical referrals and find material help. The Women's' Center provides such services in an atmosphere of Catholic piety and morals. Wojnar has even set aside space in the building for a chapel where priests come almost every day to offer Mass.

NOW also sued Wojnar for racketeering, threatening to take his home and leave him destitute. He too does God's work, which is supposed to be the Church's work. As with Scheidler's Pro-Life Action League, Wojnar's Women's' Center has no financial help from the Archdiocese of Chicago.

In another part of the Chicago area, AID for Women operates in a similar manner to that of The Women's' Center. The Archdiocese has likewise failed to help this organization, as it has failed to help other pro-life organizations like the Illinois Citizens for Life.

This ecclesiastical failure cannot be understood without reference to the political situation. The political fact relevant here is that the Republican Party has officially taken up the cause of Life. [A brief editorial note from Thomas Droleskey: Mr. Kocan is most mistaken here. The Republican Party's office-holders promote surgical abortion under cover of law in the "hard" cases and it funds the chemical assassination of children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs. The Republican party also nominates scores of completely pro-abortion candidates around the country. The belief that the naturalist fraud that is any more "pro-life" than the naturalist fraud that is the Democrat Party is a self-serving myth that empirical evidence has show without any fear of contradiction is indeed the case.] It has become the home of many former Democrats who saw their party taken over by social revolutionaries, change-agents who have nothing but hostility for Catholic teaching and morality. What the Catholic bishops have done is place the interests of the Democrat Party over the lives of unborn children. They accomplished this by protecting Democrat candidates from defeat at the polls over abortion and other family issues. They enlarged Democrat power by funding organizations and organizers that advanced Democrat political fortunes. The Catholic bishops in collaboration with change agents and community activists, devised a scheme by which devout, church-going Catholics, including serious pro-lifers, mostly Republicans, would fund the agenda and protect the political power of the Democrats.

The Catholic bishops created a funding vehicle known as the Campaign for Human Development, later known as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). They collect money from the faithful in church the Sunday before Thanksgiving Day in November. The acronym should more properly stand for the Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats.

What makes this funding vehicle extraordinary is that it, in its by-laws, prohibits giving money to organizations that actually feed, clothe or house needy persons. The funds must go to organizations that foster "social change". Not coincidentally such organizations had already come into being, tailor-made, to carry out the mission that the CCHD had specified. These organizations follow a structure and philosophy established by the Industrial Area Foundation (IAF).

The IAF embodies the beliefs and practices developed by its founder, Saul Alinsky. In the course of time, he trained many organizers who have gone on to successful careers in politics and "social change" organizations. Perhaps the most famous of his proteges is the pro-abortion feminist Hillary Clinton. She actually wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on the radical politics of Saul Alinsky. She later became the First Lady when her Democrat husband Bill was elected President of the U.S. and then became the Democrat Senator from the State of New York. Alinsky trained other famous political figures, among them Cesar Chavez, who forced Mexican grape-pickers into his union in California, and Dick Morris, the Clinton's political consultant, who helped them win the White House.

Social agitation, confrontation, and personal attacks characterize Alinsky-style political organizing. It betrays a strong Marxist influence. This philosophy opposes fundamental Christian principles, because it divides persons into antagonistic groups, the "haves" and "have-not's". It follows an ideology of "class struggle", where one side is considered the enemy. The dehumanization of "the enemy" results in certain ethical consequences: persons lose their dignity as children of God and become means to an end: the end justifies the means. As Alinsky wrote, "Ethics are determined by whether one is losing or winning." He also wrote, "He who fears corruption, fears life."

Alinsky advocated and practiced what we now term, "the politics of personal destruction." The Democrats use this most effectively in destroying the reputations of their enemies, prominent political figures like Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and most recently, Rush Limbaugh. He wrote it down in his books, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapons" and "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it."

Considering Alinsky's ethics, it should come as no surprise that he actually dedicated one of his books, "Rules for Radicals," to Lucifer. What could be more fitting? Lucifer carried out the ultimate rebellion. He too championed "social change", as he does today. He too rejects God's moral law, as Alinsky rejects the authority of the Catholic Church and the morality that it teaches. Alinsky opposes the very fundamentals for which the Pope and the bishops have always stood.

Whereas the Church teaches a dogmatic theology, Alinsky protests, "I detest and fear dogma." Whereas the Church defends eternal truths, Alinsky insists, "Truth is relative and changing." Whereas the Catholic bishops have publicly declared that abortion goes against God's law, Alinsky proclaims, "I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights."

Alinsky's theory of rebellion has a history. He did not just make this stuff up. It goes back at least as far as the time before the French Revolution, where the socio-sexual revolutionaries sought to overthrow Throne and Altar. They specifically wanted to overthrow the moral order that protected marriage and children. Pat Buchanan pointed out that during, "the French Revolution, the Paris mob used the high altar at Notre Dame Cathedral to canonize the town tramp as their Goddess of Reason."

Their rejection of the moral order was so radical that many of them turned to Satanism as a religion. Good evidence exists that Karl Marx, himself, the founder of the Communist Party, was a Satanist. He wrote poems praising Satan.

His own son-in-law, Edward Eveling, gave lectures on, "The Wickedness of God" and himself wrote a poem in praise of Satan. Frederick Engels, Marx's partner in communist revolution, expressed the rebellious spirit thus, (Communism) "abolishes eternal truths, abolishes all religion, and all morality."

A colleague of Marx was a German poet, Heinrich Heine, who spoke well of Alinsky's role model, Lucifer, saying, "I called the Devil and he came." Marx's follower Mikhail Bakunin, another rebel, expressed similar sentiments, "Satan is the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and emancipator of worlds." Bakunin also wrote, "In the revolution we will have to awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up their basest passions."

A fellow socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, also worshipped Satan and praised him, writing, "God is stupidity and cowardice...God is evil." And yet, amazingly, Catholic bishops bragged about their friendship with Saul Alinsky.

For thirty years the Bishops have been paying lip-service to the right to life, while putting Catholic money into Alinsky-style organizations like the IAF, using CCHD as a funding scheme. They gave IAF itself a million dollars. They gave a million to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) where Hillary Clinton learned her trade. Not too long ago, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin gave a million to fund the Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors (CMS) (while shutting down parochial schools) so that it could hire IAF to organize and train persons to staff what eventually became known as United Power for Action and Justice (UPAJ). When the Cardinal was criticized for giving so much Catholic money to this group, he answered that the money did not really belonging to the Church. Someone gave it to him for the purpose of funding CMS. No one in authority has yet pointed out that donating money in such a manner constitutes the essence of money-laundering.

This child of CMS, UPAJ, is an effort to induce Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Jewish and Moslem Republicans living in Chicago suburbs to funnel money, just as the Catholics do, into the organizing projects of the Democrat Party. It is of course no coincidence that the traditional allies (Perhaps "agencies" is a better word.) of the Democrat Party, the labor unions, energetically sponsored the CMS. These include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Illinois Education Association (IEA).

AFSCME is one of the organizers of a march on Washington being planned for spring 2004 in defense of abortion "rights." Other organizers are NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The IEA is affiliated with the National Education Association, a reliable organ of the Democrat Party and an aggressive proponent of abortion, feminism, homosexuality and other evils long denounced by Catholic tradition.

In California, Catholic Charities and CCHD-funded IAF organizations stole the election of Republican Congressman Robert Dornan, by means of documented immigration and election fraud. Hundreds of invalidly naturalized persons were driven from getting their citizenship papers directly to the polling places.

Catholic money helped steal an election away from a devout Catholic and patriotic man, with a perfect voting record on the right to life and other moral issues, on behalf of a woman with an anti-life and anti-family Democrat agenda, Loretta Sanchez, a Clintonite radical with campaign support from the usual allies of the Democrat Party: the NOW, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), the homosexual advocacy group Human Rights Campaign and other such groups.

The Illinois Leader, an internet newspaper (www.illinoisleader.com) found that 75% of the Catholic priests in the Chicago Archdiocese have officially registered as Democrats. Thus they ally themselves with the party of "social change", the party of permanent revolution, the party of abortionists, homosexuals, pornographers, adulterers, fornicators and perjurers.

According to Block, "The Catholic members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, of which there are well over a hundred, cast more votes in favor of abortion than not. In fact, Catholic politicians - whose Church teaches the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception - have demonstrated a worse voting record on life issues than their Presbyterian and Methodist counterparts."

Francis Cardinal George recently called for changes in U.S. immigration policy that dovetail with Democrat political objectives and echo the work of IAF operatives in defeating the election of Bob Dornan in California. These include the legalization of undocumented residents and the discharge of the U.S. "blockade" at our borders.

This latest pronouncement from George shows how he and other Catholic bishops are working to advance the Democrat Party. Immigrants vote for Democrats not Republicans. Liberalization of immigration laws sits high on the Democrat agenda.

George also failed to stop the pro-abortion candidate for the Democrat Party's Presidential nomination Al Sharpton from speaking under Archdiocesan auspices at St. Sabina's parish, where the Fr. Michael Pfleger serves as Pastor.

Many of the Chicago area priests hold membership in another Alinsky-inspired organization, Call to Action. It not only follows the organizational principles Alinsky developed but also embraces his revolutionary world view, taking the Democrat ideology of moral revisionism into the very heart of the Catholic Church.

Do the Catholic bishops oppose CTA or prohibit it in any way from operating in their dioceses? Not at all. CTA has complete freedom to organize and promote its agenda of dissent which seeks to destroy the papacy and the Church hierarchy, to win acceptance for divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, priestesses, liturgical abuses, a married clergy, and the abolition of property rights. Bishops have actually appointed CTA dissenters as pastors in their parishes.

Catholic bishops gave a million dollars to organizations whose world view excludes everything Catholic, to ACORN, to IAF, to CMF but not a cent to struggling Catholic operations like Joe Schiedler's Pro-life Action League or Conrad Wojnar's Women's' Center. They withhold support to the cause of life and the family because that would undermine Democrat power and the revolutionary ideology which drives it.

Stephanie Block put it best, "This year, when the collection plate comes around, remember that you can sabotage Church teaching with a flick of your wrist. You can shoot it down by paying for organizations to fight for health clinics that dispense contraceptives and make abortion referrals. You can shoot it down by paying for organizing that supports pro-abortion politicians. You can shoot it down by paying for organizing that trains Catholics to dissent. Just don't be surprised by the blood on your hands." Catholic Citizens


With all due respect to our friend Mrs. Block, who accepts the legitimacy of the conciliar officials as she exposes their misdeeds with her meticulous, irrefutable research, no, the way to deal with "Catholic" Charities and the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development is to refuse to have anything to do with the counterfeit church of conciliarism that helps to fund such programs and whose essential social philosophy, especially at the "grassroots" level of individual chancery offices and national episcopal conferences, is identical to that of Saul Alinsky and the scores of Industrial Areas Foundations that he helped to spawn and continue to spread to this very day. One cannot fund the work of apostates each Sunday if one seeks the refuge provided by true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs

Injustice Takes Place, Aided and Abetted by the Alleged Merchants of Justice and Peace in the Conciliar Structures and their Alinsky Friends

The case of former United States Representative Robert K. Dornan is quite instructive here. The Immigration and Naturalization Service conducted an investigation of the 1996 general election between Dornan and Sanchez-Brixey and discovered that over 4,000 voters voted without proper documentation. That was not enough, however, for investigators working for the United States House of Representatives, to which Dornan had appealed his "loss" to Sanchez on the grounds of election fraud, because the "fix," was in, as an article in The American Spectator reveals:

A recap, in case you're interested in that long-ago Republican surrender: If you can lay your hands on a recording or a transcript of Michael Reagan's radio show from the night of and the day after the November 1996 elections, you'll hear Reagan interviewing Dornan. Dornan told Reagan he'd been assured by the then-congressional leaders that they'd get to the bottom of the illegal voting that had put Sanchez Brixey in Dornan's rightful seat, and that they'd give Dornan whatever support he needed. After this phone-in interview ended, Reagan resignedly informed the listeners that he himself had spoken to the congressional leaders, who'd confided to Reagan they had no intention of a serious investigation into Sanchez Brixey's illegal "win," and confirming that they had been outright lying to Dornan. For one thing, she was a "double-whammy mammy" -- both Hispanic and female, and the Republicans had no ... uh, "stomach" for refuting false cries they were racist and sexist. Second, then-House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich was attempting to craft a relationship of comity with Bill Clinton, and Dornan had been one of Clinton's fieriest critics. The American Spectator


A National Review article from 1997 provides more details into the way in which Bob Dornan's 1996 election was stolen from him with the help of an Alinsky-based organization that had ties to "Catholic" Charities of the Diocese of Orange and received funding from the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development:

Ousted Republican Congressman Robert Dornan claims, with considerable justification, that his narrow loss in the Nov 96 election to Loretta Sanchez is due to ballots cast by ineligible voters. The election fraud investigation could lead to a new election in the Orange County, CA district.

A MID January ad in the Washington Blade, a paper for the capital's homosexual community, announced the "Red Ribbon Inaugural Gala," organized by AIDS lobbyist Tom Sheridan. The aim: to aid Loretta Sanchez, the new Democratic congresswoman from Orange County, whose social-issue liberalism gets gay activists cheering almost as robustly as they boo the man she upset on November 5.

The ad described the Red Ribbon affair as a "benefit for Loretta's legal defense against Bob Dornan's continued challenge to overturn his defeat. Let's send him home once and for all."

Five weeks later, that goal of Dornan's foes looks increasingly elusive. Attorneys and investigators working with the ousted nine-term congressman continue to pile up evidence of fraud in an election decided by fewer than one thousand votes. Try as some of them might, journalists in a competitive, two-newspaper county haven't been able to ignore the smell of something rotten in the ballot results. And the Orange County district attorney is on the case.

In short, Miss Sanchez might have need of a few more fundraisers before it's all over -- and even then, there's a real chance that she, not Dornan, could be the one sent "home once and for all."

Dornan's people have compiled a knapsack full of what you might call standard-issue irregularities, the kind that made Cook County famous, and that California's lax election rules, which don't require identification from would-be voters, seem to invite in abundance. Dornan points, for instance, to at least 38 double voters, 128 absentee ballots turned in illegally, and more than 900 ballots for which there are no corresponding names on the county registrar's computer tape which is supposed to indicate who voted. Does that numbers gap reflect clerical error -- or ballot-box stuffing? Or a bit of both?

Most investigation so far has focused on noncitizens allegedly recruited to the polls by the Latino advocacy group Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, which is a sub-contractor providing citizenship classes for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The law says you must be a citizen to register to vote, a fact declared prominently, and repeatedly, on registration forms in California. Yet the Los Angeles Times reported on February 8 that 600 resident aliens were signed up to vote through the efforts of Hermandad, and that 407 of those people went on to cast ballots on November 5.

In addition, the paper found 105 apparently illegal aliens who also voted after registering through Hermandad.

In an affidavit produced to get a warrant to search Hermandad's Santa Ana offices, the D.A. quotes five unnamed informants, all noncitizens who were registered to vote by Hermandad. Two of them say that every person who completed an INS interview at Hermandad's headquarters was then registered to vote by Hermandad employees, before any of these registrants had become a citizen.

If that is true, it could mean hundreds or thousands more illegal votes, because as many as 12,000 people went through Hermandad classes in the months prior to the election.

The investigators working on behalf of Dornan's election challenge are frustrated that the INS won't release the citizenship status of voters, or, apparently, won't do any investigating on its own. "If the INS would be open and forthright enough to give us this data, we could get this investigation over with in a couple of days," attorney Michael Schroeder, who heads Dornan's effort, told me in early February.

On Valentine's Day, Schroeder's wish was partially fulfilled -- but not courtesy of INS officialdom. Rather, he was visited on the quiet by an INS agent who angrily complained that the agency acquiesced in illegal voting. The whistleblower brought thousands of names of people who had been enrolled in citizenship classes in Dornan's district -- many of whom hadn't become citizens by November 5. Hermandad was not the only group giving citizenship classes under INS contract. And, the whistleblower claims, Hermandad wasn't the only organization that registered noncitizens.

The Dornan team is now cross-checking the names delivered by this INS Deep Throat against the voter-registration rolls. The number of verifiably illegal votes cast in the 46th district seems certain to climb.

One of the most astute -- and cautious -- members of the Dornan investigative squad has said to me, without qualification, "We've won." He cites four developments that he believes will eventually guarantee that a new election will be called.

First, he sees indications that the district attorney's office isn't conducting a narrow inquiry, but is casting its net beyond Hermandad to other immigrant-activist groups that might have registered people illegally.

Second, the House Oversight Committee seems poised to act aggressively on Dornan's election challenge. Chairman Bill Thomas personally signed a subpoena ordering the D.A.'s office to share with the panel all data it got from its January 14 search of Hermandad's headquarters.

Third, Dornan's people are now empowered to issue their own subpoenas as part of the election-challenge process. And last, there is the stealthy assistance they're getting from INS staffers who allege that their agency was turned into a tool for the Democratic election machine.

On February 24, a subcommittee of Rep. Thomas's oversight panel is due to make an initial decision on how to handle the Dornan case. At some point it could conduct a trial-like hearing in Orange County, calling witnesses and sifting evidence, and present its judgment to the full committee, and ultimately, the full House.

Meanwhile, another House panel -- the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, chaired by Dan Burton of Indiana -- might pay a visit of its own to Orange County. Among its concerns: the millions in federal dollars showered on Hermandad and other immigrant-rights groups that have 501(c)3 tax-exempt status but nevertheless push an openly partisan agenda. (Hermandad's newspaper, for instance, carried endorsements of Clinton and Sanchez.)

Did Loretta Sanchez know anything about noncitizens registering and voting? "I want to see her asked that question under oath by one or more House committees," a local GOP congressman told me.

Some observers doubt that she was in the loop. But her record isn't hound's-tooth clean. The Los Angeles Times, no friend of Dornan, stayed neutral in the November congressional election. It declined to endorse Sanchez because she showed "questionable judgment" in becoming a business associate with Howard O. Kieffer, a Democratic activist sentenced in 1989 to five years in prison for swindling the Federal Government out of more than $200,000. Sanchez even used his office as her campaign headquarters in last March's primary.

The potency of Dornan's challenge can be gauged by the fact that a counter-offensive against investigators has begun. Hermandad supporters have picketed the Los Angles Times each time it has run stories exposing noncitizen voting. And the group's attorney accused the D.A.'s office of "strong-arm" tactics for seizing citizenship-class lists when the search-warrant was served on the group's offices.

Strong-arming? Hermandad might know a thing or two about that concept. Two of the confidential informants quoted in the D.A.'s affidavit asked to have their names withheld out of fear for their safety, according to the affidavit. One of them said, "Hermandad Mexican Nacional is very powerful and would harm [me] if it was known [I] was cooperating with law enforcement."

The affidavit also said Hermandad officials contacted individuals who had signed up to vote, "advising them not to cooperate with anyone who comes to their home asking questions about their citizenship."

There is much hyperventilating from Hermandad sympathizers about their "civil rights" being under siege.

But whose freedoms are really subverted when invalid ballots pollute the system? Surely not the polluters'.

"Hermandad is endeavoring to transmute the First Amendment into a sword to repulse legitimate criminal investigations and the prosecution of those who commit criminal acts," argued Deputy District Attorney E. Thomas Dunn Jr., in response to Hermandad's claim that the search of its offices violated constitutional protections.

Whatever else the Dornan challenge accomplishes, it will perform a service if it reminds us of the genuine civil-rights interest that attends the ballot box: the right of legitimate voters, of all colors, not to have their ballots diluted by the introduction of phony votes.

Bob Dornan never tires of recounting how he participated in the 1963 civil-rights march on Washington. Thirty-four years later, in challenging fraudulent voting, he is essentially singing another chorus of "We shall overcome."


A February 4, 1998, article by David Stout in The New York Times indicates that the investigation by the Ethics Committee of the United States House of Representatives did indeed whitewash the matter of election fraud in the Dornan-Sanchez Brixey race in 1996, although it did find evidence of such fraud, being unable to conclude that there was enough fraud to have changed the results of the election:

Her [Representative Sanchez Brixey's] joy notwithstanding, the task force's decision was not that clear-cut. Its chairman, Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Republican of Michigan, said tonight that ''an extremely thorough examination'' had shown there was considerable fraud, but that task force members ''could not conclusively prove there were enough illegal votes to vacate the seat or overturn the election.''

Other members of the panel were Representatives Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, and Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland.

Mr. Dornan, in a statement issued by his lawyer, Michael J. Schroeder, chairman of the California Republican Party, said: ''While I am disappointed that the committee will not call for a special election, nonetheless it is clear that the committee findings vindicated what I have stated all along, which is that the citizens of the 46th Congressional District were victimized by systematic, widespread voter fraud,''Mr. Schroeder said Mr. Dornan had a month until the filing deadline to decide whether to challenge Ms. Sanchez in November.

The task force will give its recommendation to the full Committee on House Oversight on Wednesday. The committee is virtually certain to go along with the task force and ask that the House drop the matter.

Mr. Ehlers said that his panel had found ''substantial voter fraud in the 46th District,'' but that there was no way to know exactly how many votes were illegally cast.

Mr. Dornan had argued unsuccessfully that the election in the 46th was replete with fraud, including voting by noncitizens. The charges infuriated many Hispanic people and helped focus a spotlight on Ms. Sanchez.

A California grand jury investigated the 1996 contest but found insufficient evidence to return indictments.


The nexus linking "Catholic" Charities and "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development with Hermandad Mexicana Nacional was much reported in the wake of the Dornan-Sanchez Brixey race of 1996. Mrs. Block sent the following information that she found in an article written by The Wanderer's Paul Likoudis. Here is part of her note containing that information.




The 5-8-97 Wanderer published an article by Paul Likoudis, "Catholic Charities, Parishes at Hub of Vote Fraud Schemes."  He writes that CC "claims to have distributed 16,000 voter registration forms to groups throughout Orange County and some officials boasted 'that they turned the election.'""

"We have a witness who says he heard a Catholic Charities worker boasting to Auxiliary Bishop Michael Driscoll [of Orange, CA] that they 'turned the election in the 46th district' -- that's my district, and we have further evidence that Catholic Charities passed out voter registrations that contained perjured statements."

Among the source documents I have in my files are papers - I think obtained by Dornan during the legal disclosure process -- that show CC of Santa Ana submitting and then resubmitting the same names (as new voter registrants gathered during the Active Citizenship Campaign) on two consecutive days.

Mrs. Stephanie Block also reports that various Alinsky-style groups are organizing most assiduously in advance of the 2008 elections. They are more cautious now, Mrs. Block reports, but are still intent on registering voters to advance the political agenda favored by the quasi-Marxists in the offices of "Catholic Charities and "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development. A relatively new Alinsky-style group, Faith in Public Life, has formed to advance the Judeo-Masonic and Marxist revolutionary agendas in behalf of naturalism, stating as its purposes as follows:

We have faith in public life. In other words, we have faith in the positive and significant role that faith should play in public life, and we have faith that public life will support justice and the common good. We believe the positive role for faith in public life is fulfilled when: (1) religious voices for justice and the common good impact public discourse and policies; and (2) those who use religion as a tool of division and exclusion do not dominate public debate. We also believe faithful contributions to public life should not, and need not, violate America’s central tenet of separation of church and state.


Mrs. Block wrote in the February, 2007, issue of Los Pequenos that many of the organizations affiliated with the Faith in Public Life network are the Alinsky-style organizations that "receive millions of dollars annually from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development." Having leaned the lessons from the Dornan-Sanchez Brixey race eleven years ago, these organizations are being much more careful about the registration of "undocumented" persons.

Appendix C

A Reader Comments on the Influence of Maritain on Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI

(With non-indented text of my own as found in A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work.)

Caritas in Veritate is indeed a continuation of the work of the Communist-sympathizer Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, a man who sold out Catholic priests behind the Iron Curtain and the man who sold out Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty in order to advance his Ostpolitik. Birds of a leftist feather do indeed flock together, as a very perceptive reader from England noted in an incisive commentary he has sent to me and has given me permission to use I choose. I choose to use it now:

I was alerted to the release of Professor Ratzinger’s lecture "Caritas in veritate", and decided to investigate its contents on the Vatican website. I found the document to read like a language lesson aimed at demonstrating the many different ways of composing a sentence containing the words "love" and "truth". It was a struggle to deal with the high-flown tediousness of it all, and, not surprisingly, I did truly fall asleep before I got to the end of the Introduction.

When I woke up I thought to find out what you had to say on the subject, and was glad to see that you have more stamina than I. I would like to thank you for your digest of this futile missive, and for saving me further trouble.

It happens that I was recently loaned a copy of "The Undermining of the Catholic Church" by the journalist Mary Ball Martinez (1991). The main thesis of the book is that the revolution that has overtaken the Church since Vatican II started well before that council—a point of view which you would probably subscribe to quite readily. Although some of the details presented in support of this thesis may be questionable (eg: doubt seems to be cast on the orthodoxy of the encyclical "Mystici Corporis"), nevertheless, the book is spot-on where the ideas of Jacques Maritain are brought into the discussion:-

"In 1926,… [Jacques Maritain] went to Rome where, thanks to his prestige as a Thomist scholar, he was able to talk privately both with the Pope [Pius XI] and the Secretary of State [Piero Cardinal Gasparri—a protégé of the nearly-pope Cardinal Rampolla]. … He left Rome with an assignment whether from the Pope or, as is more likely, from Secretary Gasparri, to gather his theories on what he called ‘integral humanism’ into a book. Ten years later the Church-shaking Maritain work appeared. Nearly simultaneously with the first French edition, an Italian version came out with the glowing introduction by its translator, Giovanni Battist[a] Montini." [p.65]


"Integral Humanism, not unlike the theories of Teilhard de Chardin, envisions religions of every kind converging towards a single human ideal in a world civilization where all men will be reconciled in justice, love and peace. Friendship among men will guide all life toward a mysterious accomplishment of the Gospel. As the French theologian Henry Le Caron explains: ‘Integral Humanism is a universal fraternity among men of good will belonging to different religions or none, even those who reject the idea of a creator. It is within this framework that the Church should exercise a leavening influence without demanding that it be recognized as the one, true Church. The cement of this fratenity is twofold, the virtue of doing good and an understanding grounded in respect for human dignity.





"‘This idea of universal fraternity’, continues Le Caron ‘is neither new nor original. It was already advanced by the philosophers of the eighteenth century and by the French revolutionaries of 1789. It is also the fraternity beloved of Freemasons and Marxists. What distinguishes Maritain’s humanism is the role it allocates to the Church. Within the universal fraternity the Church is to be the inspiration and the Big Sister and it goes without saying that if she is to win the sympathy of her little brothers she must neither be intrasigent nor authoritarian. She must learn how to make religion acceptable. She must be practicable rather than dogmatic.’" [p.66]

"That Fr Montini’s early enthusiasm for Maritain stayed with him throughout his life is described by the novelist and onetime Jesuit, Malachi Martin, ‘The Integral Humanism of Paul VI permeated the policy of his entire pontificate. What the philosophy has to say is that all men are naturally good, that they will respond to the good and reject the evil if they are shown the difference. The function of the Church is merely to bear witness by service to men in today’s world where a new society is being born.’" [p.67]

"Implementation of the Maritain doctrine can be recognised in document after document emerging from the Second Vatican Council and in most of the official exhortations and encyclicals that followed…" [p.67]

Various attempts have been made by Traditionalist Catholics to identify a single common theme underlying the teachings of Vatican II (eg: ecumenism, indifferentism, etc.), but "Integral Humanism" as it is described above, seems to me to accommodate them all, and to explain fairly succinctly the so-many things that, in the NO Church, run counter to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

What has prompted me to put these thoughts down in writing is the appearance in "Caritas in veritate" of the neologism that runs like a pinstripe through a bale of cloth, viz: "integral human development". This term occurs in the title and is repeated in the text a score or more times. Is this not Maritain’s and Montini’s "integral humanism" under a slightly different name? Yes, it is, for the latter term is reverted to in the conclusion. (See n.78)

I suggest that this encyclical is warmed up Montiniism served for the umpteenth time!


I thank the reader for this bright, cogent and very incisive remarks.

It could furthermore be asked who is Ratzinger/Benedict to be lecturing anyone about economic and financial "responsibility" when he, as the prefect of the counterfeit church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, presided over a systematic cover-up of priests and presbyters guilty of heinous crimes against the moral law that have cost Catholics attached to the conciliar structures over a billion dollars in their hard-earned donations?

Despite, therefore, a "disagreement" over "bioethical" issues and a pledge from Caesar Obamus to seek to "reduce" the number of babies being killed by means of surgical abortion and a pledge to have a "robust" conscience clause to protect health care workers from participating acts contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions, there is much "common ground" between the Obama administration and the conciliar Vatican, starting with the belief that it possible to create the "better" world and to forge "peace" among nations without a due subordination of all men and all nations to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. that is it not necessary for nations to recognize and to advance the cause of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen as the only true foundation of personal and social order.

Yes, indeed, there is much "common ground" between the conciliar Vatican and the Obama administration, enough for Ratzinger/Benedict to wish a "blessing" on the murderer, Barack Hussein Obama, and "all his work." This is the "pontiff" that the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X believe can be "converted" to the Faith? Since when does a true "pope" have to be "converted" to the Catholic Faith? Alas, I will reserve more commentary on this insanity for my next article.

Suffice it to say for the moment that those who are bereft of the Faith, those who do not fear to offend the honor and majesty and glory of God by esteeming the symbols of false religions and praising the "values" thereof, will be more than willing to accommodate like-minded statists and globalists even as they disagree with those statists and globalists on "bioethical" issues. It is, after all, pretty easy to respect those who Break the Fifth Commandment when one is accustomed to breaking the First Commandment.






© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.