Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                August 17, 2012

Fake, Phony, Sanctimonious Fraud

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Much of this article will seem familiar. Very familiar. Terribly familiar. Repetitive.

Well, what you are going to do? Stop sending those envelopes to the post office box?

Look, there are times when it is necessary to repeat what is written before as even recent articles can fade into the consciousness, especially when one considers that many readers go to an assortment of sites and may retain only a small amount of what they read and/or not recall which particular author wrote a specific article. Thus it is that is article contains a lot of material posted eleven days ago. Doing so serves a purpose as I think will be made clear to the satisfaction of most readers, some of whom don't have the time to check the links that I provide to previous articles as they are busy with their own lives an cannot spend all day reading one author's articles. The links, though, are provided to give those who do have a bit of time an opportunity to review earlier articles.

Fair enough?

All right. Just fine and dandy.

What is this commentary about? Well, it's more of a "who is this commentary about?" rather than a "what is this commentary about?" kind of commentary.

Got it.


This commentary is about the fake, phony, sanctimonious fraud (all right, all right, I've added the word "sanctimonious" to one of the standard lines of one Robert Gigante, aka "Bob Grant," who has been a radio talk show host for over fifty years) who believes himself to be the Catholic archbishop of New York, Timothy Michael Dolan.

Yeah, remember him?

Well, here are those pesky links again to remind you in case you have had a memory lapse or have overdosed on Professor Pepperwinkle's anti-memory spray (hey, Philips Tead was a fine actor, doing a magnificent job as the befuddled Professor Pepperwinkle in The Adventures of Superman in the 1950s) about the background this apostate from Saint Louis, Missouri, by way of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who might even get a few votes from the non-cardinals at the next conciliar conclave to select a new chief apostate of the counterfeit church of conciliarism: Making Everyone Happy Except God, Whatever You Want, SilenceExtra! Extra! Read All About It! Dolan Finally Speaks The Truth, Ominous Offenders Offending Ominously, Memo To David Axelrod And Other Social Engineers, John Carroll's Caesar, Victims of Compromise, Taking A Figure Of Antichrist At His Worthless Words, Prisoners Of Their Own Apostasy, Timothy Dolan, Meet Timothy Dolan (And Friends), Still Celebrating Half A Century Of Apostasy, Candidate For Man Of The Year?, From John Carroll To James Gibbons To Timothy Dolan and To Help The Children?.

That last article, To Help The Children?, dealt with an effort that had been undertaken by Mrs. Randy Engel, the founder and president of the U.S. Coalition for Life, to cancel the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner that is scheduled to take place at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on Thursday, October 18, 2012.  I noted that the effort, which is certainly commendable in light of the invitation that had been extended to the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero, was going to be rejected out-of-hand as the dinner is the big fund-raising event for for the Alfred E. Smith Foundation and is top Catholic social event in the greater New York City metropolitan area. An entire table to sit down and have some rubber chicken while listening to the yuk-feast costs $25,000. That's twenty-five thousand dollars. No, no, no. Such an event is not going to be canceled.

Visibly offended by what he termed the "judgmentalness" of those who have criticized his invitation to Barack Hussein Obama, Timothy Michael Dolan has published a "definitive" refutation of his critics that I will endeavor to tear to smithereens, thank you so very much.

I will divide his conciliar drivel and naturalistic pap into segments.

Excerpt One

Last week I was out in Anaheim for the annual Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus. It was, as usual, a most uplifting and inspirational event.

In his rousing address to the thousands of delegates, representing 1.8 million knights, Dr. Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight, exhorted us to a renewed sense of faithful citizenship, encouraging us not to be shy about bringing the values of faith to the public square. This duty, he reminded us, came not just from the fact that we are Catholic, but also from the fact that we are loyal Americans.

He then went on to announce a promising initiative of the Knights of Columbus to foster civility in politics. Quoting a very recent study, he noted that over 80% of Americans are fed up with the negativity, judgmentalism, name-calling, and mudslinging of our election-year process, and eagerly want a campaign of respect, substance, amity — civility!

For seven decades, the Al Smith Dinner here in New York has been an acclaimed example of such civility in political life. As you may know, every four years, during the presidential election campaign, the Al Smith Dinner is the venue of history, as it is the only time outside of the presidential debates that the two presidential candidates come together, at the invitation of the Al Smith Foundation, through the archbishop of New York, for an evening of positive, upbeat, patriotic, enjoyable civil discourse.  This year, both President Obama and Governor Romney have accepted our invitation. I am grateful to them. (Timothy Michael Dolan on the 2012 Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner.)


Brief Commentary

Although I have dealt with the "public square" argument before, let me do so again for the sake of newer readers and those who may not remember points made in past articles.

First, the "religion in the public square" argument is pure Americanism. It has been advanced by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. It has been advanced by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. It has been advanced by the late "Father" Richard John Neuhaus and others in First Things. It has been advanced by the conciliar "archbishop" of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Charles H. Chaput, O.F.M., Cap.

"Archbishop" Chaput took issue two years ago now with the late President Kennedy's strict separationist approach to religion in the "public square," arguing that the founders did not mean to exclude believers from participating as "believers" in issues of public policy, citing as proof that some of the state governments



Early in his remarks, Kennedy said: “I believe in an America where the separation of Church and state is absolute.”  Given the distrust historically shown to Catholics in this country, his words were shrewdly chosen.  The trouble is, the Constitution doesn’t say that.  The Founders and Framers didn’t believe that.  And the history of the United States contradicts that.  Unlike revolutionary leaders in Europe, the American Founders looked quite favorably on religion.  Many were believers themselves.  In fact, one of the main reasons for writing the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause – the clause that bars any federally-endorsed Church – was that several of the Constitution’s Framers wanted to protect the publicly funded Protestant Churches they already had in their own states.  John Adams actually preferred a “mild and equitable establishment of religion” and helped draft that into the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution.

America’s Founders encouraged mutual support between religion and government.  Their reasons were practical.  In their view, a republic like the United States needs a virtuous people to survive.  Religious faith, rightly lived, forms virtuous people.  Thus, the modern, drastic sense of the “separation of Church and state” had little force in American consciousness until Justice Hugo Black excavated it from a private letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association.4   Justice Black then used Jefferson’s phrase in the Supreme Court’s Everson v. Board of Education decision in 1947. (http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489.)

So much Americanism. So much conciliarism. There are more similarities than differences between the views of John Kennedy and "Archbishop" Chaput, whom I had visited in Rapid City, South Dakota, in 1991 and saw again briefly in Saint Peter's Square in Rome in 1993 (we also exchanged correspondence on two issues when I was writing for The Wanderer in the 1990s), as the ideas of the American founding, premised on the belief that men could know personal and social order absent a due submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, have splintered just as much as the falsehoods of Protestantism have in the past nearly five hundred years.

Although some of the founders looked favorably on "religion," false religions are no foundation of personal and social order. The extent to which those in false religions are able to live upright lives is the result of the Actual Grace made present in the world by each valid offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We have seen a sharp decline in the moral behavior of all Americans, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, as a direct result of the atrophying of Actual Grace in the world caused by the false sacramental rites of the false church, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, making it necessary yet again to turn to these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.


A generic attachment to "religion" is of the essence of Judeo-Masonry, not Catholicism. That it is "good enough" for the lords of conciliarism, including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and "Archbishop" Charles Chaput, makes relevant once again this warning about Masonry and its ethos given us by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)


Second, Timothy Michael Dolan's use of emotional cliches (judgmentalness, mudslinging, civility) to wrap himself up in a mantle of sanctimonious piety is beneath contempt.

Was Pope Pius XI guilty of judgmentalness when he wrote the following in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930?


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.)

Pope Pius XI was merely discharging his duties as the Vicar of Christ on earth to warn those who supported one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, willful murder, that had to face Christ the King in the face as their Divine Judge if they did not repent before they died.

No conciliar "archbishop" of New York has used such language, although it should be pointed out that a wonderful priest who believed himself to have been an auxiliary "bishop" in the Archdiocese of New York, the late Monsignor Austin Vaughan, who was truly one of the kindest, most charitable priests I have ever met and a fearless opponent of baby-killing who was arrested numerous times during Operation Rescue, did so in 1990 when he warned the then Governor of the State of New York, Mario Matthew Cuomo, that he risked the fires of Hell for all eternity if he did not quite his support for the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs. This is what Monsignor Vaughan said in his first sermon after he was released from a ten day jail sentence in Albany, New York, after blocking an entrance to a baby-killing mill in "Bishop" Howard Hubbard's backyard (see Memo To Howard Hubbard: Public Scandal Is Never A Private Matter):



''All I was saying is what he learned, and I learned, and all of you learned in the first grade. If you commit a serious sin and die without repenting, you go to hell.'' (Bishop Austin B. Vaughan, 72; Criticized Cuomo on Abortion.)

Putting aside the issue of the illegitimacy of the conciliar bishops, Monsignor Austin Vaughan understood the obligations imposed upon the soul of one who believed himself to be a bishop. He knew that he had an obligation to warn a wayward sheep of the eternal peril into which he placed himself for supporting one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a fundamental act of true Charity on the part of any Catholic. Monsignor Vaughan had no more "damned" Mario Cuomo to Hell, as Cuomo demagogically charged at the time, than a physician "condemns" an obesely overweight patient to death if he warns him that he, the patient, runs the risk of shortening his physical life by refusing to lose weight. Demagogues always prefer to denounce their critics than to accept criticism with grace and gratitude.

Timothy Michael Dolan is no Achille Ratta, Pope Pius XI, and he is no Austin Vaughan. He is just as much a demagogue as the pro-abortion, pro-perversity "Catholic" Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., whose "counsel" he has sought from time to time, in trying to make it appear as though his own critics are engaged in "mudslinging" when they are merely pointing out that a man who supports the American genocide of the preborn and has issued executive orders and signed legislation to facilitate such killing is unworthy to appear at any function that has an association, no matter how "unofficial," with what is believed by most people to be the Catholic Church. Such a man is to be shunned while prayers are offered for his conversion.


How civil is it, Timothy Michael Dolan, to kill an innocent baby in his mother's womb?

How civil is it, Timothy Michael Dolan, to sign executive orders to facilitate the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn?

How civil is it, Timothy Michael Dolan, to mandate that all employers, including Catholics, fund the chemical assassination of preborn children and other "family planning" services?

You oppose such a mandate, Timothy Michael Dolan, on the very false premises that gave rise to the likes of baby-killing under cover of the civil law and the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Willard Mitt Romney, who supports baby-killing in three so-called "hard" cases and run apologetically as an open supporter of a woman's nonexistent "right to choose" to kill her own child before he decided to run for the presidential nomination of the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the "right" in 2007, the premises of "religious liberty."

Your opposition, Timothy Michael Dolan, is hollow as the Catholic Church rejects the heresy of "religious liberty."

Your opposition, Timothy Michael Dolan, is hollow as you support the concept of government-mandated health insurance as a matter of principle even though it is a violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity.

You are a fake, phony, sanctimonious fraud.

Excerpt Two

The evening has always had a special meaning, as it is named after Governor Al Smith, the first Catholic nominated, in 1928, as a candidate for president, who was viciously maligned because of his own Catholic faith. Smith was known as The Happy Warrior, because while he fought fiercely for what he believed was right, he never sought to demonize those who opposed him. And, the dinner named in his honor is truly life-affirming as it raises funds to help support mothers in need and their babies (both born and unborn) of any faith, or none at all.

The Al Smith Dinner has never been without controversy, since, as Carl Anderson reminded us, politics can inspire disdain and negativity as well as patriotism and civility.

This year is surely no exception: I am receiving stacks of mail protesting the invitation to President Obama (and by the way, even some objecting to the invitation to Governor Romney).

The objections are somewhat heightened this year, since the Catholic community in the United States has rightly expressed vigorous criticism of the President’s support of the abortion license, and his approval of mandates which radically intruded upon Freedom of Religion. We bishops, including yours truly, have been unrelenting in our opposition to these issues, and will continue to be.

So, my correspondents ask, how can you justify inviting the President? Let me try to explain.

For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.

Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.

Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States.  And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences.  What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?


Brief Comment

First, Alfred Emanuel Smith did indeed suffer at the hands of anti-Catholic bias when he was the president nominee of the Democratic Party in 1928. He faced such bias, however, even as he ran away from Pope Pius XI's Quas Primas, December 11, 1925. Or do you know this, Timothy Michael Dolan? Do you care? (see Still Cut From The Same Cloth). Alfred Emanuel Smith was a typical Americanist Catholic.

Second, Catholics do not engage in "conversations" with those who obstinately support evils under cover of the civil law and who seek to demonize those who seek to defend the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. As noted before, Catholics pray for the conversion of such people. There is, however, nothing to "discuss," especially at an event wherein Catholics are supposed to put aside "partisanship" in order to demonstrate "civility" and "patriotism.

Catholics are never to forget or to put aside the simple fact that we are partisans, Timothy Michael Dolan, at all times. We are partisans of Christ the King and His Social Reign over men and their nations. Would have yukked it up with Plutarco Elias Calles as Will Rogers did the very day after the assassination of Father Miguel Augustin Pro in the name of civility and partisanship? Probably so. Probably so.

Our "loyalties" are not "political." They belong exclusively and jealously to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself to us solely through the Catholic Church. We love what He loves. And we hate what He hates: sin, yes, sin in our own lives and sin in the life of our nation. For true "patriotism" wills the good of one's nation, Timothy Michael Dolan, the ultimate expression of which is to seek her conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no personal salvation and without which there can be no true social order, as the common temporal good is pursued in light of man's Last End, 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.

You do not believe any of that because you are ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the right ordering of the civil state, which has a duty from God Himself to recognition the true religion and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws.

No, Timothy Michael Dolan, this is not the "opinion" of the crazy, "schismatic" sedevacantist, Thomas Albert Henry Droleskey. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from time immemorial, a teaching that Pope Leo XIII saw fit to remind the American bishops about in Longinqua Oceania, January 6, 1895:

Writing specifically about the American constitutional regime, Pope Leo XIII made this precise point in Longinqua Oceani, January 6, 1895. After praising what he could of the natural virtue of George Washington and that the Constitution of the United States of America placed no obstacles to the practice of the Faith, he then reminded the American bishops that the growth of the Faith in this country was result of the fecundity of God's graces, not because of the precepts of the Constitution, whose religious indifferentism he condemned in no uncertain terms:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)


Third, it is precisely the rejection of this clear reiteration of the immemorial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in favor of "engagement and dialogue" by your own conciliar church that helps to distinguish as a but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.

How did over thirty years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York).

How did over twenty-four years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late William Brennan, a Catholic who cast a vote in favor the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United  States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January, 22, 1973, while he served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. decisions he reaffirmed in subsequent cases?

How did twenty years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Thomas P. O'Neill (D-Massachusetts)?

How did over thirty-six years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachussets)?

How did over thirty-three years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late United States Representative Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccarro (D-New York).

How has over thirty-five years of "engagement and dialogue changed former Governor of New York Mario Matthew Cuomo?

How has over twenty-three years of "engagement and dialogue" changed former Mayor of the City of New York Rudolph William Giuliani?

How has twenty years of "engagement and dialogue" changed current Governor of New York Andrew Mark Cuomo?

How has a decade of "engagement and dialogue" changed United States Senator Kirsten Gillebrand (D-New York).

How has forty years of "engagement and dialogue" changed the Vice President of the United States of America, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware; see, for example, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Demagogue Update).

Your false church's half of a century of "engagement and dialogue" has been and continues to be an abysmal failure, Timothy Michael Dolan, as it does the work of the devil himself, not the work of Christ the King.

Yes, it is true your "pope," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, met with President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero in the Apostolic Palace on Friday, July 10, 2009. He did more than meet with the Marxist-trained statist and unreconstructed supporter of the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children. He gave this enemy of true social order and justice a blessing on him and all of his "work:"


At the end of the meeting, Pope Benedict told the president: "A blessing on all your work and also for you." (Benedict XVI meets Obama - Catholic Herald Online; also see A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work.)

A blessing on a baby-killer and "all" of his "work"? Are words without meaning for you, Timothy Michael Dolan? You are indeed a true and loyal son of the man who is nearly twenty-three years your senior, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. You are being very faithful to his apostasy.

Here is a revelation that you might find startling: God does not extend his blessing on any man or any nation that dares to sanction the shedding of innocent blood under cover of the civil law.

That's Catholicism, Timothy Michael Dolan, not conciliarism.

Final Excerpt

Finally, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner in no way indicates a slackening in our vigorous promotion of values we Catholic bishops believe to be at the heart of both gospel and American values, particularly the defense of human dignity, fragile life, and religious freedom. In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.

Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?

No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be?

In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone. (Timothy Michael Dolan on the 2012 Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner.)


First, here are three apt descriptions of what you believe to be "America at its best" as people of different beliefs sit down to enjoy a nice evening of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic fellowship:


For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Second, you have indeed caused scandal by inviting Barack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney to the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner on Thursday, October 18, 2012, at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York.

Then again, you are no stranger to scandal.

You protected known clerical abusers when you were the conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

You supported the decision of the so-called Wisconsin Catholic Conference not to oppose legislation that required all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to distribute the Plan B "emergency" abortifacient to women who had been victims of an assault against their purity (see (No opposition from Wisconsin Catholic Conference re emergency contraceptives.)

You have said that you have "long admired the work" of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith (see (Press Release of the Anti-Defamtion League.)

You said that people could call God "whatever they want," thus making a mockery of the First Commandment (see (Is 'Superman' Catholic?).

You have said that you will not refuse what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to those in public life who support baby-killing or other evils under cover of the civil law (see Timothy Dolan Will Not Refuse "Communion" to Pro-Abortion Pols).

You have engaged in the scandal of "inter-religious" prayer meetings, itself a violation of the First Commandment.

You are a walking and non-stop talking scandal, Timothy Michael Dolan.

Even some of your conciliar predecessors have dared to cause the kind of "scandal" you say would be caused by refusing to invite the presidential candidates to the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in two months.

Terence "Cardinal" Cooke, refused to review the annual Saint Patrick's Day Parade outside of the Cathedral of Saint Patrick on Fifth Avenue in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, on March 17, 1983, until the parade's grand marshal, Michael Flannery, who had provided assistance and support to the Marxist-leaning Provisional Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, had walk past the cathedral.

John Joseph "Cardinal" O'Connor refused to invite the presidential candidates to the dinner in 1992, although he did invite the pro-abortion Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., to the dinner in 1996 and in 2000.

Edward "Michael" Cardinal Egan did not invite United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts) to the dinner in 2004.

Although, as I noted in To Help The Children?, a veritable potpourri of pro-aborts have addressed the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner over the years, there is precedent for not inviting an egregious pro-abort to the big bucks yuk-fest.

Ah, but this leads to my final point, which focuses on the blasphemous comparison Timothy Michael Dolan made to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ dining with sinners to his own invitation of Obama and Romney to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in nine weeks.

Our Lord, Christ the King, dined with sinners to teach them and to covert them. Levi, the tax collector, did so immediately upon listening to Our Lord.

Our Lord told Saint Mary Magdalene to "go, and commit this sin no more" when He found her after she was about to be stoned to death by a murderous mob for the sin of adultery. He did not listen to her. He did not seek any kind of explanation. He told her to "go, and commit this sin no more" (John 8: 11).

Our Lord ate at the home of the publican who had cheated taxpayers after he had converted upon listening to Him.

Far from listening to the sinner in order to "understand" him and to engage in a "dialogue" with him, Our Lord taught sinners to convert and he condemned those who were steadfast and proud in their sins:


[31] Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. [32] Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. [33] You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? [34] Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: [35] That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

[36] Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. [37] Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? [38] Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate. [39] For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23: 33-39.)

The "gospel" according to Timothy Michael Dolan's "whatever" exegesis is false. It is fake, phony, fraud. It is simply a regurgitation of mainstream Protestantism's reinvention and misrepresentation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of God the Holy Ghost in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother as "mushy, gushy" sentimentalist. He was nothing of the sort.

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X described the true character of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as follows when condemning the heretical Sillonist view of Him that is at the very heart and soul and foundation of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar popes:



Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

You can believe in your false religion, Timothy Michael Dolan, and give all the scandal you want as your conception of the Divine Redeemer is heretical. It has nothing to do with Who He is. Your misrepresentation of Him to rationalize your own scandalous catering to human respect and your fealty to your false religion's apostate, condemned "world view" is blasphemous and also injurious to the good of souls and thus of the nation you claim to love.

You are also self-serving in your rationalization as you would never invite a person to the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner who was deemed, no matter falsely, to be even the slightest bit "anti-Semitic." Patrick Joseph Buchanan, who is not an "anti-Semite" despite being denounced as one over his career, was not invited in 2000 even though he is a Catholic and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party. He is "damaged goods," of course.

Perhaps it goes without saying that anyone who dared to call into question the legitimacy of the State of Israel and/or was an outspoken critic of its murderous policies would not refused any kind of invitation. The same would be true of one deemed to be a racist. Support the chemical and/or surgical assassination of children in their mothers' wombs? Well, that's just a difference of "opinion" that we can lay aside in the name of "patriotism" and "civility" and "religious freedom."

What about Bishop Richard Williamson? "Ecuemenism" only goes so far in the conciliar world, of course.

You are a fake, phony and sanctimonious fraud, Timothy Michael Dolan.

Pope Leo XIII not only condemned your dinner invitation to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero and his flip-flopping partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent Willard Mitt Romney. He condemned every familiarity with those believe as you do in "respect for all religions" and "universal tolerance." In other words, he condemned our being familiar with the likes of you and your false "pope:"


Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

For as horrible as the crimes committed by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero are, my good and few and mostly thrifty readers (yes, another hint), the crimes committed by the conciliar revolutionaries against the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity that reaffirms non-Catholics in their false religions until the moment of their deaths and that has convinced Catholics to adopt a spirit of religious indifferentism as a matter of routine must be condemned as strongly and as unequivocally we seek to have absolutely no familiarity with the likes Timothy Michael Dolan or his boss, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, while we pray fervently for their conversion back to the true Faith from which they have defected.

We must beg Our Lady to ask us to be faithful to this simple statement of Catholic truth by Pope Saint Pius X that has never been uttered by any conciliar "pope" or by any of the speakers at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner:

This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Conscious of our need to make reparation for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may the Rosaries we pray each day to console the good God in this time of apostasy and betrayal help to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the same Immaculate Heart of Mary when a true pope fulfills her Fatima Peace Plan consecrates Russia, thus ceasing the spread of the errors we see so manifest before us today, with all of the world's bishops to this very heart out of which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus was formed and with which it beats as one.

Vivat Christus Rex!

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 James the Greater, 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 Hyacinth, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints




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