As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town
by Thomas A. Droleskey
One of the oldest dog and pony shows by the "bishops" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the United States of America is but a continuation of the dog and pony shows of their Americanist predecessors in the Catholic Church who indemnified anti-Catholic, pro-statist career politicians, such as Presidents Thomas Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, at almost every turn. Many also were the true bishops, such as the late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who helped to "reproduce" themselves, if you will, by training their non-bishop successors to be full-throated supporters of the statist policies (War on Poverty, Great Society) of President Lyndon Baines Johnson even as most of them opposed American involvement in the Vietnam War.
The mixture of true bishops and faux bishops that existed in the 1970s refused to discipline Supreme Court of the Untied States of America Associate Justice William Brennan, a Catholic, for his vote in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, and then enabled one Catholic office-holder after another of the Democratic Party who switched his position from "pro-life" to pro-death. Among the most prominent of these Catholics were the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), then United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), and United States Representative Hugh Leo Carey (D-Brooklyn, New York). There were many others.
The case of Hugh L. Carey, who proclaimed in 1974 when he ran for the Democratic Party nomination for Governor of the State of New York against the first Chairman of the City of New York Off-Track Betting association, Howard Samuels, that he was "personally opposed to abortion but that he could not 'impose' 'his' morality upon others," is particularly interesting. Carey, who is still alive of the age of ninety-one, served in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1975, to the time that he was elected as New York Governor on November 5, 1974, serving as Governor of New York from January 1, 1974, to December 31, 1982.
Carey's pro-abortion stand during his gubernatorial years were never challenged by the conciliar bishop of Brooklyn, New York, from September 12, 1968, to February 20, 1990, the late Francis Mugavero, an open supporter of the "rights" of those steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, or by the conciliar bishops of Albany, New York, during his term in office, Edwin Broderick, a true bishop (March 19, 1969, to June 3, 1976), and Howard Hubbard, whose reign began on March 27, 1977, is still destroying the Faith in the ultra-progressive, pro-perversity stronghold that is the Diocese of Albany. Carey announced in 1989 that he was mistaken to have supported abortion and that he regretted doing so. This has not prevented him from endorsing every pro-abortion Democratic Party candidate for president of the United States of America since that time (William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., John Frederick Kerry, and Barack Hussein Obama). Carey also endorsed the egregious Elliot Spitzer in his election campaign for Governor of New York in 2006. So much for any electoral worth of his 1989 "conversion."
Carey played a particular role in helping to convince Mario Matthew Cuomo to change his own position from "pro-life" to the "personally opposed" euphemism for being pro-abortion, something that I detailed in article from 2008:
Remember, as I have noted on this site in the past, Mario Matthew Cuomo said in a debate held in Albany, New York, on August 25, 1974. among the three individuals vying for the Democrat Party lieutenant governorship nomination (Anthony Olivieri and Mary Anne Krupsak were Cuomo's opponents), that he would have voted against the 1970 bill that decriminalized surgical baby-killing in the first trimester of life in the State of New York if he had been a member of the New York State Legislature at that time. And it was the case that Cuomo, then an attorney with an office on Court Street in Brooklyn, New York, was called upon by the Diocese of Brooklyn to speak against abortion to various parish organizations and other groups as its official representative.
Defeated in his bid to be the Democrat Party lieutenant governor nominee in 1974, Cuomo learned to parrot the line that had been mastered by his political mentor, then United States Representative Hugh Leo Carey, who was elected as Governor of the State of New York in 1974 and served two terms, that he was "personally opposed to abortion, but would never impose" his "morality upon others." Cuomo, was appointed by Carey to be the Secretary of State of the State of New York in January of 1975, used this line repeatedly when he ran unsuccessfully for the Democrat Party nomination for the Mayoralty of the City of New York in 1977 and when he ran in the general election that year as the nominee of the Liberal Party of the State of New York against the pro-abortion Democrat nominee, then United States Representative Edward Irving Koch, and the Republican Party nominee, the pro-abortion New York State Senator Roy Goodman, and the Conservative Party nominee, radio talk show host Barry Farber.
Defeated by Koch in the general election for Mayor of the City of New York in 1977, Cuomo won the Democrat Party nomination for lieutenant governor in 1978 (then Lieutenant Governor Krupsak, also a pro-abortion Catholic, challenged her pro-abortion Catholic Governor, Hugh Carey, unsuccessfully in a primary that year), and was Carey's heir apparent in 1982 when the latter chose not to seek a third term. Cuomo termed the tables on his old adversary Koch, defeating him in hard fought primary in 1982 for the Democrat Party's gubernatorial nomination, going on to defeat Rite Aid magnate Lew Lehrman, the nominee of the Republican and Conservative parties, and the Right to Life Party nominee, Robert Bohnar. Cuomo loudly defended "abortion rights" during that 1982 general election campaign, and was known to telephone priests in various conciliar parishes if he got wind of any criticism uttered about him from pulpits during sermons.
Cuomo's support for "abortion rights" came to the national forefront in 1984 after the conciliar "bishop" of Scranton, John Joseph O'Connor, was appointed to be the conciliar "archbishop" of New York. Even before his "installation" at Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Monday, March 19, 1984, O'Connor told longtime WNBC-TV newsman Gabe Pressman that he, O'Connor, "was sick and tired" of politicians who say that they are "personally opposed" to abortion while supporting a nonexistent "right" of a woman to choose to kill her preborn baby. This inflamed Cuomo, who has quite a temper, who started a war of words with the new "archbishop." Things escalated rather rapidly, and O'Connor refused to recognize Cuomo's presence at his installation "Mass" on March 19, 1984, while recognizing Mayor Koch of the City of New York, the Mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, and the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, William Wilson. Cuomo was livid. I know. I saw him process out of Saint Patrick's Cathedral as he walked right in front of where I was sitting in the right transept. He was not a happy camper.
Cuomo sought to provide "intellectual muscle" to the "I'm personally opposed to abortion" position in the address that he gave at the behest of Hartford's Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard P. McBrien, then the Chairman of the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, on Thursday, September 13, 1984:
The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or nonbeliever, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us.
This freedom is the fundamental strength of our unique experience in government. In the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies, its preservation must be a persuasive and dominant concern. . . .
As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created. We thought church doctrine was clear on this. Life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That—to my less subtle mind—by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed . . . reverence.
But not everyone in our society agrees.
And those who don’t—those who endorse legalized abortions—aren’t a ruthless, callous alliance of anti-Christians determined to overthrow our moral standards. In many cases, the proponents of legal abortion are the very people who have worked with Catholics to realize the goals of social justice set out in papal encyclicals: the American Lutheran Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, B’nai B’rith Women, the Women of the Episcopal Church. There are just a few of the religious organizations that don’t share the church’s position on abortion.
Certainly, we should not be forced to mold Catholic morality to conform to disagreement by non-Catholics, however sincere or severe their disagreement. Our bishops should be teachers, no pollsters. They should not change what we Catholics believe in order to ease our consciences or please our friends or protect the church from criticism.
But if the breadth, intensity, and sincerity of opposition to church teaching shouldn’t be allowed to shape our Catholic morality, it can’t help but determine our ability—our realistic, political ability—to translate our Catholic morality into civil law, a law not for the believers who don’t need it but for the believers who reject it.
And it is here, in our attempt to find a political answer to abortion—an answer beyond our private observance of Catholic morality— that we encounter controversy within and without the church over how and in what degree to press the case that our morality should be everybody else’s, and to what effect.
I repeat, there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule, for spreading this part of our Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals.
And so the Catholic trying to make moral and prudent judgments in the political realm must discern which, if any, of the actions one could take would be best. (American Rhetoric: Mario Cuomo --"Religious Belief and Public Morality)
Apart from the disregard of the facts of biology that young attorney Mario Matthew Cuomo used to provide to groups before which he spoke as a representative of the Diocese of Brooklyn in the 1960s, Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo--Mario Pilate/Pontius Cuomo, an admirer of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., had the audacity to refer to "our" morality when referring to the immutable and eternally binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that proscribe the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human being. God's laws apply to everyone without regard to whether anyone accepts them. Civil law must be conformed to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls, and Catholics have the positive moral obligation to work in behalf of such a conformity. Catholics are not permitted to privately hold one thing while publicly speaking and acting in a contradictory manner.
Pope Leo XIII made this abundantly clear in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:
Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.
End of argument, Mario. End of argument. You and your fellow Pilates lose.
Along with other Catholic pro-aborts in public life, Cuomo supported the legal "right" of mothers to support the execution of their babies under cover of law, attempting to cover himself in a mantra of not seeking to "impose" "his" morality upon others, while doing precisely that when it came to the issue of capital punishment. Cuomo said that it was his moral duty as a Catholic to oppose capital punishment even though a majority of the citizens of the State of New York desired its restoration. What hubris. What incredible arrogance to consign the innocent preborn to cruel, merciless deaths under cover of law while criminals convicted of heinous crimes after the exhausting of the levers of due process of law are considered to be above the ultimate punishment for their crimes.
Cuomo was unbent in his support for abortion by the time that the pro-abortion Baptist, then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, was nominated by the Democrat Party for President of the United States of America in 1992. Cuomo said the following in the principal nominating speech at Madison Square Garden in the City of New York in behalf of Clinton's nomination on July 15, 1992:
America needs Bill Clinton for still another reason. We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt, through laws and through the courts, to tell us what god to believe in, and how to apply that god's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and our bodies. (Nominating Speech by Mario M. Cuomo)
Just as an aside, the then New York Governor also said this about then Governor Clinton:
He was born and raised with all the personal attributes needed for leadership: God-given intelligence; vitality. And an extraordinary quality of character that allowed him to survive the buffeting and the trauma of a difficult youth. (Nominating Speech by Mario M. Cuomo)
I know. Stop laughing.
Cuomo's use of hyperbole makes that of the late President Richard Milhous Nixon's seem tame by comparison. Yet Mario Matthew Cuomo remains a "Catholic" in good standing in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, although one fairly prominent conciliar monsignor, who was Cuomo's pastor at Saint John the Evangelist Church around 1997, said that Cuomo did not present himself for what purported to be the distribution of Holy Communion during the Novus Ordo service, indicating, the monsignor said, that "Cardinal" O'Connor might have told him to refrain from doing so. Cuomo has not been "excommunicated" by conciliar authorities. He is unrepentant in his support for baby-killing under cover of law, although he did say to the 1994 Right to Life Party nominee Bob Walsh, "Bob, I’m pro-life! I have to say I’m pro-choice in order to get elected," prior to one of their televised debates. (Mr. Walsh asserted this in a presentation he gave to a graduate course on political parties that I was teaching at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall of 1996.)
What is particularly interesting about Mario Cuomo's nominating speech in behalf of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on July 15, 1992, is that it came about five months after Clinton himself verified the authenticity of the phone conversations that had been taped without his knowledge by his "friend," Gennifer Flowers, as he apologized to Cuomo for the following exchange he had with Flowers:
The male voice also describes Mario Cuomo as being a "mean son of [expletive deleted] " and when Flowers says, "I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have some Mafioso connections," the reply is: "Well, he acts like one," followed by a chuckle.
Speaking of the press, the voice tells Flowers: "If they ever hit you with it, just say no and go on. There's nothing they can do. I expected them to look into it and come interview you. But if everybody is on record denying it, no problem." Richard Nixon couldn't have said it better. (The Progressive Review, "Whitewater and Clinton Scandal Clips: Part 1: February 1992-March 1994. I am not linking to this article directly as it contains direct quotes from Bill and Hillary Clinton that are vile and vulgar, unfit for the eyes of my readers. It's the only place, however, where I could find a direct quote of the Flowers-Clinton reference to Cuomo and his thuggish ways.)
Mario Matthew Cuomo has not been excommunicated. His legacy continues to live on in the form of his own son, New York State Attorney General and former Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo, who is as rabidly pro-abortion as he is. Andrew Cuomo, barring a direct nuclear strike on the State of New York prior to the general election on November 2, 2010, will be elected to succeed the pro-abortion Catholic incumbent in the governor's office in the Empire State, David Paterson, with somewhere between sixty-one and sixty-eight percent of the vote against the thoroughly incompetent, disorganized and hapless campaigner who is the Republican gubernatorial sacrificial lamb, former United States Representative Rick Lazio, himself a pro-abortion Catholic.
That Rick Lazio himself is of the first generation of pro-abortion Catholics (along with George Elmer Pataki and Rudolph William Giuliani and Susan Collins and Susan Molinari) adhering to the Republican brand of naturalism is the direct result of the inaction taken by the conciliar bishops, both true and faux, in the 1970s against the likes of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Hugh Carey, and others of the Democrat brand naturalism in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The formal excommunication by the conciliar authorities then would have put a stop to most, although not all, defections thereafter. Such are not the ways of conciliarism, however. Such are not the ways of a false church.
Look at how the insidious William Brennan, who voted repeatedly to reaffirm "abortion rights" between the time of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and his retirement on July 20, 1956, was given permitted by James "Cardinal" Hickey, the conciliar "archbishop" of the Archdiocese of Washington, District of Columbia, to have a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Matthew the Apostle Cathedral in our nation's capital on July 29, 1997. The pro-abortion, pro-Communist, pro-Fidel Castro, pro-South Central Los Angeles rioters United States Representative Maxine Waters was so impressed by that travesty, which featured an auxiliary "bishop," William Lori, now the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in attendance as the official representative of the archdiocese, that she asked that its program be inserted into the Congressional Record (see Appendix A below).
One of those who gave a "eulogy," a tribute that is forbidden, at least formally, by the rules of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, at this travesty was then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy did so as well. Another feature eulogist was none other than Father "Death" himself, the pro-abortion Reverend Robert Drinan, S.J., who was himself buried as a Catholic priest in "good standing" in the conciliar structures following his death on January 20, 2007.
There was a particular irony in Kennedy and Drinan having been eulogists at Brennan's "Mass of Christian Burial" as Drinan was one of several "theologians" who advised the Kennedys in the summer of 1964 as to how they could adopt a pro-abortion position while remaining members of what they thought to be the Catholic Church:
In some cases, church leaders actually started providing "cover" for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."
The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.
Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."
Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion." (WSJ.com - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma.)
"A Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion." That, as our friend Mrs. McOsker is wont to say, is quite a statement.
Let's see what Pope Pius XI had to say about that contention:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Petty politicians, including those of the libertarian bent, who have traded their Faith for the blood votes of the mob or for what so many consider to be an admirable adherence to a false concept of human liberty that does not recognize and accept the fact that true human freedom comes only from the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and that it can be maintained only by a submission to the Deposit of Faith that He, Christ the King, has entrusted to His true Church, scoff when such words are presented before their eyes. They know better. They have the approval of the crowd. They are doing the "will" of the "people," who are, after all, the "sovereign" whose "will" must be obeyed above all "denominational" considerations. They hold judgeships. They have prestigious academic seats and grants. The immutably binding Social Teaching of the Catholic Church does not bind their consciences. Why? Because they say so.
Such people believe in diabolical myths. They will answer to God at the moment of their deaths for their betrayal of Catholic truth and their active propagation of the belief that Catholicism is not the singular foundation of personal and social order. They can enjoy their "heaven" here. The words of Pope Pius XI apply to them. Let them heed the warning and reform and quit their false beliefs and their indifference to, if not active participation in, the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law that occurs in the "land of the free." "Liberty and justice for all"? Not for the preborn, and, for that matter, not for the rest of us (see King George III Is Looking Pretty Good These Days).
One of those who was heedless of Pope Pius XI's warning was the very Archbishop of Boston in whose archdiocesan boundaries the conference of abortion apostates had taken place in the summer of 1964. Richard "Cardinal" Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston from September 25, 1944, to September 8, 1970, gave full episcopal blessing to the "personally opposed" position that had been condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885 (see the passage included the material about Mario Cuomo earlier in this article), when he made the following remarks in radio interview at a time when the Massachusetts General Court (the state legislature) was debating a bill that had been introduced by State Senate Michael S. Dukakis (yes, that's right, M-1 Mike) to permit the sale of contraceptive pills and devices:
Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. . . . In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, 'An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,' and effectively scuttled the opposition. Cardinal Cushing announced: 'My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position upon those of other faiths'. Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that 'I could not in conscience approve the legislation' that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, 'I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others.' So there it was: the 'personally opposed' argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to 'impose' his opinion. Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. 'But my thinking has changed on that matter,' he reported, 'for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do'. . . . Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: 'If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church.' Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the 'personally opposed' politician had his rationale." (Catholic World Report, 2003. Many of you have seen this news item quoted on this site in the past. There is a purpose for my doing so yet again.)
There it is. An Americanist bishop, one who enabled the political careers of the Kennedys at every turn, invited Catholics who served in the Massachusetts General Court to betray the Faith in order to please their constituents and thus save their precious careers. It is all right there. (For an article describing Cushing's support for Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy's plans to enter into a sacramentally invalid marriage with Aristotle Onassis, please see Appendix B below).
Richard "Cardinal" Cushing had been created a "created" on December 15, 1958, in the first consistory of the first conciliar "pope," Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, an admirer of socialism and of the French Sillon that had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. Also created a "cardinal" in Roncalli/John XXIII's first consistory was the Archbishop of Venice, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini, who had received some support in the papal conclave that was held after the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, so that he could in line to succeed his patron "pope" at the next conclave, which is what happened on June 30, 1963. It was only twelve days after that conclave that Roncalli/John XXIII personally consecrated Father Albino Luciani, the future "Pope" John Paul I, as a bishop. "Papa" Roncalli, who suffered from stomach cancer, knew that his time was short. He was only meant to be an "interim" "pope." He used that time to advance the revolution that he thought would bring forth, quite literally, a second Pentecost for the Church. It is case, however, that "Papa" Roncalli's revolution produced a "pentecost" that consisted of different spirits than God the Holy Ghost.
Richard "Cardinal" Cushing was a close Americanist ally of the Archbishop of New York from May 23, 1939 to December 2, 1967, Francis "Cardinal" Spellman, who was frequently called "FDR's errand boy in a miter." Both were priests of the Archdiocese of Boston. Spellman was ordained to the priesthood on May 14, 1916, in Rome after studying at the North American College there. Cushing was ordained to the priesthood in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 26, 1931, and was selected to replace Spellman as an auxiliary bishop of Boston after the latter had been appointed as the archbishop of New York by Pope Pius XII, who had a fond place in his heart for men. Our last true pope did indeed put into place the men who turned out to be full-throated supporters, if not front-line agitators, of the conciliar revolution that was to follow him. All happens in the mysterious workings of God's Holy Providence.
Cushing and Spellman were quite as one in 1960 when opposing efforts by the Catholic hierarchy of Puerto Rico to pass a referendum to repeal the commonwealth's legislation permitting the sale of contraceptives in a once Catholic land that had been corrupted by the influences of American pluralism and "religious liberty" after its seizure during the Spanish-American War in 1898. The introduction of Protestantism and Masonic lodges in Puerto Rico, which were also introduced into The Philippines after the American seizure of that former Spanish colony during the same Spanish-American War, resulted over time in the "education" of a "intelligentsia" that was fully supportive of the Margaret Sanger form of social engineering that had been championed by her friend, Rexford Guy Tugwell, who was in favor of a "voluntary" program of the mutilation of the women on Puerto Rican by means of sterilization when he was the appointed territorial governor there from 1941 to 1946. The man who was the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's first elected governor, Luis Munoz Marin, started to implement these programs himself, evidently with the full blessing of the Americanists Cushing and Spellman:
In 1960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. The Catholic resistance was lead by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national political party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.
When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U.S.-based contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization experimental programs, became increasingly concerned for their own political futures. Then unexpected help arrived in the unlikely person of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York.
One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions. While on the island, Spellman agreed to meet with CAP's major political rival, Governor Luis Munoz Marin, leader of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and a supporter of federal population control programs for Puerto Rico.
In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics from voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts. Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said.
Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never been a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cushing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might overflow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for the White House.
The national election turned out to be a political disaster for CAP. Munoz and the PDP won by a landslide. Bishop Davis was forced to end the tragic state of confusion among the Catholic laity by declaring just before the election that no penalties would be imposed on those who voted for PDP.
Two years later, with the knowledge and approval of the American hierarchy and the Holy See, the Puerto Rican hierarchy was pressured into singing a secret concordat of "non-interference" in government-sponsored birth control programs--a sop being that the programs would now include instruction in the "rhythm method." While insisting on their right to hold and express legitimate opposition to such programs, the Puerto Rican bishops promised they would "never impose their own moral doctrines upon individuals who do not accept the Catholic teaching."
When the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo this same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 647-649)
Thank you, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, the allegedly "traditionalist" "pope" because he liked Latin (!), for undermining the faithful Catholic Catholics of Puerto Rico who had not been corrupted by the influences of American-style pluralism.
Thank you, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII for supporting Francis Spellman and Richard Cushing, who once boasted shortly before he died that he had never made a single convert in his entire priestly life, and their utterly false belief that it is wrong to insist that the very binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication are the only foundation of just civil laws.
These laws have been inscribed on the very flesh of our hearts by God Himself and it is our duty to insist that they be observed with rigor. What did "Papa" Roncalli and "Cardinals" Cushing and Spellman believe? That it was an "imposition" of "moral doctrines," that just happen to be part of the nature of things and are not more "imposed" on us than, say, the law of gravity, "upon individuals who do not accept [the] Catholic teaching" in the minds of these apostates should explain that the heresy of Americanism was becoming the foundation of conciliarism even before the First Session of the "Second" Vatican Council convened on October 11, 1962.
It was not terribly long after this that New York State Senator Edward Speno, a Catholic, felt as though he could vote in favor of the bill decriminalizing surgical baby-killing in the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy or at any time thereafter if a mother's life was said to be "endangered." Speno had been a strong advocate of state aid to parochial schools, making him a favorite of the bishops of my native state. It was his bet, it appears, that he could vote for the baby-killing law and retain his "good standing" in what he thought was the Catholic Church.
Terence "Cardinal" Cooke, the conciliar archbishop (and a true bishop who was consecrated by Cardinal Spellman himself on December 13, 1965, after his appointment as an auxiliary bishop) of New York from April 4, 1968, to October 6, 1968, did not believe that the bill had much chance of passage and did little to pressure legislators prior to the vote, although he did condemn with vigor the passage of the bill in the New York State Senate on March 18, 1970, by a vote of thirty-one to twenty-six and in the New York State Assembly on April 9, 1970, by a vote of seventy-six to seventy-three (which came about after the initial vote, which was tied at seventy-four to seventy-four, changed when one assemblyman, Democrat George Michaels of Auburn, New York, switched his vote and was joined by the Assembly Speaker, Republican Perry B. Duryea of Montauk, Long Island, to provide the requisite number of votes, a majority of the chamber's membership of one-hundred fifty, necessary to pass the bill). Nelson Rockefeller signed the bill into law the next day, April 10, 1970.
To his credit, "Cardinal" Cooke led the effort to repeal the New York State baby-killing law. The repeal effort, helped by a strategic letter by then President Richard Milhous Nixon, who was entirely pro-abortion (making that clear in 1992 shortly after Patrick J. Buchanan's Culture Wars speech at the Harris County Domed Stadium--The Astrodome--during the Republican National Convention on August 17, 1992), to "Cardinal" Cooke, succeeded legislatively in 1972. The New York State Assembly voted to repeal the baby-killing law on May 9, 1972, by a vote of seventy-nine to sixty-eight and the State Senate did so on May 10, 1972, by a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. The pro-abortion, pro-population control Governor of the State of New York at the time, the philandering Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, who served in that office from January 1, 1959, to December 18, 1973, vetoed the bill on May 12, 1972.
This is what Rockefeller said as he vetoed the repealer legislation:
"I do not believe it right for one group to impose its vision of morality on an entire society," the governor said. "Neither is it just or practical for the state to attempt to dictate the innermost personal beliefs and conduct of its citizens. The extremes of personal vilification and political coercion brought to bear on members of the Legislature raise serious doubts that the votes to repeal the reforms represented the will of a majority ...
"The truth is that this repeal of the 1970 reforms would not end abortions. It would only end abortions under safe and supervised medical conditions. The truth is that a safe abortion would remain the optional choice of the well-to-do woman, while the poor would again be seeking abortions at a grave risk to life in back-room abortion mills.
"The truth is that, under the present law, no woman is compelled to undergo abortion. Those whose personal and religious principles forbid abortion are in no way compelled against their convictions. Every woman has the right to make her own choice." (Repealing the abortion law, May 1972.)
Nelson Rockefeller had learned to use the language of "imposing morality." You can say this about Rockefeller, however: he was consistent. He supported both baby-killing and and the death penalty, which is, of course, part of the Natural Law. Each of his three successors--the Catholic pro-aborts Hugh Carey, Mario Cuomo, and George Pataki--supported baby-killing, which they said that they "opposed" personally. Carey and Cuomo opposed the death penalty by citing that they must, as public servants, follow their conscience on matters of life and death and that they would not follow "majority will" in such cases.
In other words, they felt free to impose their false "morality" upon the majority on the death penalty, which is the exact thing that they said they could not do when it came to the issue of baby-killing. George Pataki remains in perfectly good standing in the conciliar structures (after a few years in the 1990s spent going to Episcopalian services). So has Cuomo. So has the current pro-abortion Catholic Governor of New York, David Paterson, who doesn't even offer the pretense of being "personally opposed" to surgical baby-killing; he, like his hideous and thoroughly disgraced (except in the eyes of Cable News Network, that is) pro-abortion predecessor, Elliot Spitzer, who is an adherent of the Talmud, is just an out-and-out pro-abort. Paterson, much like Carey and Cuomo, opposes the death penalty, for "spiritual reasons," not exactly citing the counterfeit church of conciliarism's opposition to the death penalty as the poor ignoramus, admitted cocaine user and admitted serial philanderer (and possibly witness intimidator; What? Is Kenneth Starr investigating the allegations of witness tampering against Paterson? What's taking so long.) is most likely entirely unaware that the conciliar "hierarchy" in the United States of America is adamantly opposed to the death penalty.
New York State Senator Edward Speno who voted for the original baby-killing law in New York on March 18, 1970, maintained his "good standing" what he thought was the Catholic Church. His bishop, Bishop Walter Philip Kellenberg, who was named by Pope Pius XII as the founding bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre on April 16, 1957, did not discipline him in the slightest. God, however, had other plans for Speno, who died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of fifty, less than a year after he voted to permit baby-killing under cover of the civil law in the State of New York. This is the section from Speno's obituary in The New York Times:
Although the Senator, a Catholic, was identified with his church on school aid, he broke with the hierarchy last year and voted for abortion liberealization. He explained his stand by saying that he did not want to impose his personal beliefs on others. (The New York Times, "Senator Edward Speno Dies; Favored Parochial School Aid, February 17, 1971. This is one of those articles that I had to purchase to get the exact quote that I wanted before typing in the text manually. I may not be--and have never claimed to be an intellectual., great or otherwise. I am, however, a pretty decent researcher.)
Edward Speno did not "want to impose his personal beliefs on others." He was reminded at the moment of his own Particular Judgment that morality exists in the very nature of things. The tenets of the Natural Law are knowable by reason. The Catholic Church is merely the eternal guardian and infallible explicator of those tenets so as to remove confusion from the minds of men so clouded by, at least in some instances, Original Sin (and its vestigial after-effects in the souls of the baptized) and Actual Sins to aid them in understanding the Natural Law more clearly and to strengthen their wills by means of Holy Mother Church's sanctifying offices to speak up in their defense. There also happens to be Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
As Pope Leo XIII explained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 11, 1890:
Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.
Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters, for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.
As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men." This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
Did Edward Speno know this? Well, perhaps he was taught this at Niagara University, which is under the control of the Congregation of the Mission (the Vincentian Fathers of Saint Vincent de Paul) when he studied there from 1938 to 1944. Perhaps. He sure did not learn it from his own bishop, Walter P. Kellenberg (who was the bishop who confirmed me at Saint Aloysius Church on March 21, 1961). Why not? Well, the bishop who consecrated Father Walter P. Kellenberg, a native of the Borough of the Bronx in the City of New York, as a auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of New York on October 5, 1953, was none other than Francis Cardinal Spellman.
Although Bishop Walter Kellenberg did not insist that the pastor (whose name I simply do not have at my fingertips to use, sad to say) of Saint Raphael's Church in East Meadow, New York, who refused Speno a "Mass of Christian" Burial reverse himself, he did permit such a service" to be staged at Sacred Heart Church in North Merrick, New York. This was the first known instance, at least to me, of a Catholic who cooperated formally in making surgical baby-killing "available" under cover of the civil law receiving what purported to be a Catholic funeral service. Many have been the occasions since this that this has been done, scandalizing "pro-life" Catholics and "pro-life" non-Catholics alike. Apart from William Brennan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Thomas P. O'Neill and Edward Moore Kennedy (Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions just in case you have forgotten what happened over ten months ago now).
Why, then, why, oh why, oh why are so many otherwise rational, sane, intelligent and dedicated pro-life Catholics in the conciliar structures shocked--as in really stunned--that the conciliar "bishop" of Wheeling-Charleston, West Virginia, Michael Bransfield, issued the following laudatory statement upon the death of the late United States President Pro-Tempore, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia), who was a complete and total pro-abort to the core of his Masonic (and former Ku Klux Klan member) being? There is no rational foundation for anyone to be "shocked" by the lavish praise offered to Byrd by "Bishop" Bransfield:
Statement from the Most Rev. Michael J. Bransfield, Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston, on the death of Senator Robert C. Byrd, who died on June 28, 2010:
“Today our nation marks the passing of a great statesman and public servant, Senator Robert C. Byrd. While we will prayerfully reflect on his decades of scholarship, hard work, and dedication to the people of West Virginia, we must also celebrate the future that Senator Byrd helped shape."
“Senator Byrd led the transformation of West Virginia’s highways, and technology, health care, education and criminal justice systems, which will advance the quality of life in our beloved state for generations to come."
“The Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston offers its most sincere condolences to the Byrd family, and we pray during this difficult time that family and loved ones will remember that Senator Byrd is now at peace with the Risen Lord and, with his late wife Erma Ora Byrd, is experiencing Perfect Joy. (Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston)
Perhaps Michael Bransfield would like to read the passage from Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii cited above to reconsider his remarks? Maybe? Just perhaps? I'll paste it again so that he can review it with ease once you send this article to him:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
How do you square that, "Bishop" Bransfield, with your having stated with certitude that a non-Catholic, who had no intention of converting to what you think is the Catholic Church, who supported one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance--willful murder of the preborn--has attained "Perfect Joy" with his non-Catholic wife?
"Bishop" Bransfield also praised Byrd for his having "led the transformation of West Virginia’s highways, and technology, health care, education and criminal justice systems, which will advance the quality of life in our beloved state for generations to come."
Does any of this, all of it accomplished in direct violation of the Seventh Commandment's injunction against stealing the property of others by means of the confiscatory taxing power of the Federal government of the United States of America to redistribute personal wealth to fund unconstitutional Federal subsidy programs, redeem his support of the shedding of the blood of the innocent preborn and his ceaseless, unremitting support in behalf of members of his own political party of naturalism who were themselves complete and thorough supports of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law?
How can the common temporal good, which must be pursued by those who hold the reins of civil government as to advance the Last End of men (the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven), be pursued when men favor temporal welfare over the binding nature of eternal truths? Perhaps "Bishop" Bransfield would like to read these words of the late Silvio Antonio Cardinal Antoniano as quoted in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
The late Senator Robert C. Byrd's true legacy is written in the blood of the innocent preborn, not in the highways and buildings and projects and jobs that he used his stolen pork barrel money to emblazon his own name on much of the physical infrastructure of his adopted state (he was born in North Carolina).
What will happen to Michael Bransfield? Will "Pope" Benedict XVI discipline him? Uh, I don't think so. Perhaps some of you "conservatives" out there might have forgotten this, but who remains in full splendor as the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, Massachusetts after the travesty represented by the Kennedy funeral service last year? Yes, I think his name is Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley, O.F.M. Cap. That's who it is. I am sure of it. (Yeah, this is just a bit of my New York sarcasm being shown late in the evening of July 5, 2010. Just a wee little bit. So atypical of me. I apologize.)
What has happend to one "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch, the conciliar "archbishop" of Freiburg-Breisgau, Germany, and the president of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany, for having denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins? Where was the outcry from a single "conservative" Catholic "pro-life" leader? Where is even the smallest hint of the recognition that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI enables this heresy by his silence and inaction? As horrible as abortion is as one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, this terriblenightmare that is such a stain on the era of Modernity that is to praised by the concilairists is but a symptom of the larger sickness caused by Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King. The revolutions of Protestantism and Modernity, with which the early Modernists sought to make a "reconciliation" with the Faith, has produced our modern conciliar apostates who say they are "pro-life" while they mock the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity all to the deafeaning silence from the crowd of eager "conservatives" who want to maintaint their prestigious titles and their access to Vatican "power players."
Come on, look at the reality. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally offered a
"blessing" on Barack Hussein Obama and "all his work" almost exactly a year ago now (July 10, 2009). Part of that "work" includes having issued executive orders to use our tax dollars to kill babies at home and abroad, both by chemical and surgical means. And that's just part of his evil work. A blessing?
You think that "Pope" Benedict XVI is going to upbraid Michael Bransfield? Fine. You do know, of course, that there is a certain bridge, opened in 1883, that crosses the East River from what is now the Borough of Brooklyn (named the City of Brooklyn at the time of the bridge's completion and opening) to the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, that just might be for sale? Why don't you check that out and get back to me? You've got as much chance of having "Bishop" Michael Bransfield upbraided by "Pope" Benedict XVI for having praised the pro-abortion Robert C. Byrd after this death as you do of purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge from the pro-abortion Mayor of the City of New York, Michael Bloomberg (although with Bloomberg, however, the bridge might be sale!)
Surely, though, "Bishop" Bransfield might get a private admonition from the "pope" for saying that Robert Byrd and his late wife are enjoying "perfect joy," right? (Am I creating straw men to knock down by asking these rhetorical questions? You betcha! It's fun. It's entertaining. And there might be, believe or not, some people who might actually be "thinking" along such lines, which is why what appears to be straw men might indeed describe actual, living "conservative" pro-life Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures). A private admonition from the man who praised a non-Catholic syncretist in the following words after he was murdered by a devoted follower in Taize, France, on August 16, 2005?
"At this moment of sadness," the Pope said, "we can only commend to the Lord's goodness the soul of this faithful servant of his."
"Frère Schutz is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has attained eternal joy," the Holy Father added. "He invites and exhorts us to be faithful laborers in the Lord's vineyard, also in sad situations, certain that the Lord accompanies us and gives us his joy." (Benedict Mourns Murder of Taizé's Brother Roger.)
No Protestant is a faithful servant of Christ the King. Then again, neither are the conciliarists, who distort the nature of dogmatic truth itself in order to justify outrages against the Faith, including direct Mortal Sins, objectively speaking, against the First and Second Commandments by the likes of "Pope" Benedict XVI himself. And this is the point that so many actual, living, breath "pro-life "conservatives" and "papal" enthusiasts do indeed miss repeatedly: it is far easier for Catholics to get accustomed to the daily slaughter of the preborn their "pope" teaches them to accept the esteeming of the symbols of false religions and the terming of their places of false worship as "sacred." One cannot be, to alter a popular phrase, pro-eternal life and pro-sacrilege. Offenses against God Himself make it easier for sinful men to sin against others, including the innocent preborn.
What do you know? It's way past my new curfew again! This will concluded in part four, which will be much briefer than this, tomorrow.
Michael Bransfield's scandalous praise of Robert Byrd is just another conciliar dog and pony show come to town to divert us from the simple fact that the conciliarists are simply not members of the Catholic Church.
In the meantime, of course, as you wait with baited breath, keep praying your Rosaries and offering up your sacrifices and sufferings in reparation for your own sins and those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists, giving everything with joy and gratitude to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
The Program For William Brennan's "Mass of Christian Burial"
Mass of Christian Burial--The Honorable William Joseph Brennan, Jr., April 25, 1906--July 24, 1997 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997, Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle, Washington, DC)
Faith in Ordinary People `
`The Dream though old is never old, like the Poor Old Woman in Yeats' play Cathleen Ni Hoolihan:
[[Page H6016]] ``
`Did you see an old woman going down the path?' asks Bridget.
`No, I did not;' replies Patrick, who had just arrived after the old woman left. `But I saw a young girl' he said, `and she had the walk of a queen.' ''--The Honorable William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
Ministers of the Liturgy
Reverend Milton E. Jordan: Principal Celebrant. Reverend John T. O'Hara:
Homilist. Reverend Monsignor W. Ronald Jameson:
Rector of the Cathedral.
Priests of the Cathedral,
Concelebrants. Reverend Mr. Ulysses S. Rice, Reverend Mr. Lawrence C. Gordon, Reverend Mr. Bart Merella:
Deacons. Reverend James D. Watkins, Reverend Charles V. Antonicelli: Masters of Ceremonies.
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Law Clerks to Justice Brennan: Richard Arnold, Owen Fiss, Merrick Garland, John McInespie, Daniel O'Hern, Daniel Rezneck, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Clyde Szuch, Paul Washington: Pallbearers. Hugh Brennan, Nancy Brennan:
Lectors. William Joseph Brennan IV:
Reader of the Intercessions. Mary Anne Gaffney, Constance Phelps: Giftbearers.
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist of the Cathedral. Seminarians of the Archdiocese of Washington,
Altar Servers of the Cathedral:
Servers. Ushers of the Cathedral:
Ministers of Hospitality.
Jay R. Rader, Cathedral Organist,
Conductor; Jennifer Muller,
Cantor; Ann Kramschuster, Assistant Organist;
Members of the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle Chorale: Ministers of Music.
The Order of Celebration
Prelude Jesu dulcis memoria (Jesus, the sweet thought of you)-- Tomas Luis de Victoria. O taste and see.--Ralph Vaughan Williams.
Entrance Procession Joyful, Joyful, We Adore You.--Henry Van Dyke; Ludwig van Beethoven; Tune: Ode to Joy:
Joyful, joyful, we adore you, God of glory, Lord of love; Hearts unfold like flowers before you, Opening to the sun above.
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness; Drive the dark of doubt away; Giver of immortal gladness, Fill us with the light of day!
All your works with joy surround you, Earth and heav'n reflect your rays, Stars and angels sing around you, Center of unbroken praise; Field and forest, vale and mountain, Flowery meadow, flashing sea, Chanting bird and flowing fountain, Praising you eternally!
Always giving and forgiving, Ever blessing, ever blest, Wellspring of the joy of living, Ocean depth of happy rest! Loving Father, Christ our brother, Let your light upon us shine; Teach us how to love each other, Lift us to the joy divine. Mortals join the mighty chorus, Which the morning stars began; God's own love is reigning o'er us, Joining people hand in hand.
Ever singing, march we onward, Victors in the midst of strife; Joyful music leads us sunward In the triumph song of life.
Greeting and Sprinkling with Holy Water.
Liturgy of the Word
Liturgy of the Eucharist
Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts
Memorial Acclamation Great Amen From Mass of Creation by Marty Haugen.
Communion Rite Lord's Prayer
Sign of Peace
Breaking of the Bread
Agnus Dei Music
During the Communion Procession How lovely is thy dwelling place--from Requiem by Johannes Brahms.
Prayer After Communion
Eulogies final commendation
Invitation to Prayer Song of Farewell: Come to His Aid--Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J., Louis Bourgeois; Tune: Old Hundredth. (Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 109, Tuesday, July 29; for a truly brilliant and very funny article on the Brennan travesty, please see InsideCatholic.com - Speaking Well of the Dead by a well-known conciliar presbyter who was in my own acquaintance, however casual and most intermittent, for about twenty years).
Richard Cushing's Endorsement of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy's Invalid Marriage to Aristotle Onassis
This idea of saying she's excommunicated, that she's a public sinner—what a lot of nonsense. Only God knows who is a sinner and who is not. Why can't she marry whomever she wants?
The speaker defending Jackie Kennedy's marriage to Aristotle Onassis was no gossip columnist or pundit—indeed, few society reporters were so disposed. He was Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Prince of the Holy Roman Church and—as it turned out last week—foremost a friend in need.
The cardinal made his defense of Jackie at a meeting of Boston's Caritas Guild, composed of the city's licensed beverage executives, and he chose that platform to stress caritas—charity. As Cushing knows, it is one of the most elusive of virtues. Two days after his speech, he announced that the volume of hate mail he had received as a consequence, some of it "in the language of the gutter," had persuaded him to resign his see at the end of this year instead of his previous target date, August 1970.
The emotional defense of Jackie by Cushing—who had presided at her first wedding in 1953 and at John Kennedy's funeral ten years later—was not very well received in Rome either. Before Cushing spoke out, the Vatican's chief press officer, Monsignor Fausto Vallainc, had expressed the church's official view that Jackie had "knowingly violated the law of the church" and was ineligible to receive the sacraments. Although reluctant to dispute a cardinal, Vatican theologians simply reiterated their interpretation of the church's law after Cushing's statement
Totally Unpredictable. In announcing his decision to resign well ahead of schedule, Cushing complained that 98% of the mail he had received since his statement to the Caritas Guild had condemned his stand. The cardinal sentimentally pointed out that his own sister had married a Jew outside the church and that, while Mrs. Onassis might not be able to receive the sacraments, "she should continue all the private devotions she had as a Catholic."
It was the third time that Cushing had publicly announced his intention to resign. A product of Boston's once-Irish urban ghetto, he was named Archbishop of the city in 1944, and subsequently proved to be one of the great school and church builders of American Catholicism. Affectionately human and totally unpredictable, Cushing was, more importantly, a pioneer ecumenicist in the open style of Pope John, a maverick prelate who found it possible, at various times, to endorse both the John Birch Society and the N.A.A.C.P. In poor health for many years—and, at 73, only two years away from the age limit suggested for episcopal resignations by Pope Paul—Cushing had good reason to ask to be relieved of duty. The Pope is said to have a high regard for Cushing and may well decide to refuse his resignation. On the other hand, if the cardinal mentioned illness or fatigue in his formal request to Paul, that might persuade the Vatican this time to accede to his wishes. (Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article.)
[Thomas A. Droleskey note: Cushing's resignation in 1968 was not accepted by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI at the time. Cushing did not retire until September 8, 1970, after he had turned seventy-five years of age. He died nearly two months later, on November 2, 1970. Oh, by the way, Cushing endorsed the John Birch Society because of its anti-Communism and because its leading founder, the late Robert Welch, believed that Communism had to be fought with Americanism, not, of course, the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King as we pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in fulfillment of her Fatima Message to defeat the anti-Incarnational forces at work in the work. Cushing, a thorough Americanist, thought that this was all just peachy keen swell.