Thomas A. Droleskey
Anti-Catholicism has been deeply embedded in the soil of once proudly Catholic England ever since King Henry VIII had himself declared "supreme head of the church in England" in 1534. King Henry VIII made loyalty to his schismatic and heretical Church of England as the "litmus test," if you will, of what it meant to be his loyal subject. Over seventy-two thousand Catholics who remained faithful to the Catholic Church were executed on orders the lustful, vengeful king between 1534 and 1547. King Henry Tudor and his paid agents of death and destruction were able to coerce and bribe the sensus Catholicus out of the hearts and souls of most of his English subjects as the term "papist" became one of abject derision and the word "Rome" came to signify the quintessence of foreign "intervention" in the sovereign affairs of the English Crown.
Anti-Catholicism was fostered anew under the bloody reign of King Henry VIII's daughter, Elizabeth I, by the woman, Anne Boleyn, for whom he forsook his legitimate wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon. It has remained strong in the soil of England ever since as the false sect known as "Anglicanism" drifted more and more away from any semblance of Christianity, unleashing a torrent of barbarism and a recrudescence of the sort of pagan superstitions that Catholic missionaries to the British Isles extirpated in the First Millennium. Only six percent of the English attend any kind of church "services" today. This is, of course, the direct, inexorable, inevitable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ King wrought by the Protestant Revolution in England. Unbelief is the only thing that can result in a nation that rejects en masse the true Faith.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that a junior in the British Foreign Office circulated a list of "suggestions" for what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI could do during his upcoming visit to the United Kingdom from September 16-19, 2010, that was a mockery of the Catholic Faith:
The pope's visit to Britain will not be affected by the leak of a memo from a Foreign Office brainstorming session that mocked the Catholic church, the Vatican said today.
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi noted the Foreign Office apology and said the paper would have "absolutely" no impact on Benedict XVI's visit in September, an official said.
The statement was greeted with relief at the Foreign Office, but a source said: "There was never any question that the tour would be cancelled."
The document suggested Britain should mark the visit by asking the pope to open an abortion clinic, bless a gay marriage and launch a range of Benedict-branded condoms. It said the pope could show his hard line on the issue of child abuse allegations against Roman Catholic priests by "sacking dodgy bishops" and launching a helpline for abused children.
The Foreign Office issued an apology for the memo, which was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph, describing the suggestions as "ill-judged, naive and disrespectful".
The official responsible has been sent a written warning and moved to a lower-profile post. Those who took part in the brainstorming session were also "given a talking to", a Foreign Office source said.
Some newspapers wrongly named Steven Mulvain as the junior official responsible. As a result he already has a cult following on the internet, with a Facebook group formed called "Buy Steven Mulvain a drink or two immediately".
Foreign Office sources confirmed that Mulvain was asked to circulate the memo by email, but he had nothing to do with its content.
"It is unfair for Steven to be named and shamed because he has done absolutely nothing wrong," a source said.
The official in charge of brainstorming session is described as "more senior [than Mulvain] but still junior".
A Foreign Office source said: "The person responsible realises this is a massive mistake – he is genuinely contrite and remorseful. He realises what he has done is beyond embarrassment.
"That person has had a written and oral warning and has been moved on. Those involved in the brainstorming session, who came up with the ideas, have been given a talking to.
"They were told in person that the results of that meeting were unacceptable and that it must never happen again."
The Scottish secretary, Jim Murphy, who is leading the preparations for the visit, described the suggestions in the memo as "absolutely despicable" and "vile".
The ideas were included in a paper entitled "The ideal visit would see …". It was distributed to officials in Whitehall and Downing Street preparing for the historic visit.
A cover note said the paper stemmed from a brainstorming session and accepted that some of the ideas were "far-fetched".
Many of the proposals appeared to mock the teachings of the Catholic church on issues such as abortion, homosexuality and contraception, and the difficulties it is experiencing over child abuse.
The Foreign Office apologised for what it described as a "foolish" document.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, was said to have been "appalled" to hear of the paper, and Britain's ambassador to the Vatican, Francis Campbell, met senior officials of the Holy See to express the government's regret.
The memo suggested that the pope could apologise for the Spanish Armada or sing a song with the Queen for charity. It was attached as one of three "background documents" to a memo dated 5 March inviting officials to attend a meeting to discuss themes for the papal visit.
An investigation was launched after some recipients of the memo objected to the disrespectful tone of the paper.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "This is clearly a foolish document that does not in any way reflect UK government or Foreign Office policy or views.
"The Foreign Office very much regrets this incident and is deeply sorry for the offence which it has caused. We strongly value the close and productive relationship between the UK government and the Holy See and look forward to deepening this further with the visit of Pope Benedict to the UK later this year."
A spokesman for the Catholic church in England and Wales said the document did not reflect the planning discussions the church had had with government officials. "This has no place in the serious planning for this important visit."
The bishop of Nottingham, the Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, told BBC News the memo reflected "appalling manners".
"I think it's a lot worse that we invite someone into our country – a person like the pope – and then he's treated in this way." Benedict visit to go ahead despite row.)
The person who wrote the vile memorandum believes that Joseph Ratzinger is indeed "Pope" Benedict XVI and is thus deserving of opprobrium principally because he is the representative of an "institution" that has "repressive" teachings that even many Catholics reject and mock rather publicly at times. The memorandum is certainly reprehensible and is a measure of how the old-fashioned Protestant hatred of the Faith has devolved into a neo-barbarian hatred of the Faith. Of this there is no question at all.
The fact that Ratzinger/Benedict has opened himself up to public criticism because of his role in aiding and abetting "bishops" and priests/presbyters who have committed perverse moral crimes against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is no excuse whatsoever for a representative of the British government to write a memorandum mocking the teachings of the Catholic Church, which most people in the world, deceived by the operation of error of the moment, is headed at the represented at the present time by Ratzinger/Benedict. The man who wrote the disgusting memorandum hates the Catholic Church and the teaching that she has received from her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That this man is being supported by many in cyberspace speaks volumes about the extent of how hatred for Our Lord and His true Church has spread so rapidly in the past forty years, especially as baptized Catholics have degenerated into lives of barbarism as a result of the sacramental barrenness of the liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
There is, however, a fair amount of irony represented by the fact that a junior office in the British Foreign Office could feel "free" enough to write such a memorandum and then circulate it to senior officials for consideration. Officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have long boasted of the "freedom" that men possess to express themselves according to their consciences, explaining that the concept of "healthy secularity" circumscribes the ability of the Catholic Church to act in areas where men are otherwise free to act in the real of civil governance and popular culture.
The slogan of "healthy secularity," however, is nothing more than euphemism for the error of "separation of Church and State that was condemned by true pope after true pope prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli as "Pope" John XXIII on October 29, 1958. As I have so many times in the past, let me present one of the most simple, cogent statements of authentic Catholic teaching condemning the separation of Church and State that has been endorsed by the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes," including Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
Although the Catholic Church can adapt herself to any legitimate form of government, including the specific institutional arrangements found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and admitting as well that she will adapt herself to the concrete circumstances in which she finds herself to continue her work of teaching and preaching and sanctification, she does insist that the civil state recognize her as the true religion and that those in civil authority yield to her in matters pertaining to the good of souls. Pope after pope made this clear in encyclical letters in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries that bind our consciences today just as much as when they were written (see The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching), including Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII:
But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.
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.)
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned Proposition by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.
Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate. . . . To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error (Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism accept none of this. Indeed, they reject all of it, opening themselves up, of course, to the mockery of the forces of the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity with which it desires so earnestly to enter into what is called "inter-cultural dialogue" that is premised upon not only not asserting the Sacred Rights of Christ the King over men and their nations but upon an abject denial that nations have any obligation whasoever to recognize the true Church and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws 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. The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism thus refuse to accept the fact that it is the solemn right of the Catholic Church, exercised judiciously and only after the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, to intervene with the civil powers when the good of souls entrusted to her maternal care demands it. How is it possible for large numbers of men in a polity to act in a restrained manner in accord with the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law when they reject the teaching authority and sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church?
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, writing in his
Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, made it clear that it is necessary to "understand" those who "think and act different from us in social, political, and religious matters," meaning, of course that what is believed to be the Catholic Church is need of "understanding" anything that pertains to the good of souls, a thoroughly blasphemous assertion:
Therefore the Second Vatican Council underlines that "those also have a claim on our respect and charity who think and act differently from us in social, political, and religious matters. In fact, the more deeply, through courtesy and love, we come to understand their ways of thinking, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them". But, as the same Council admonishes us, "love and courtesy of this kind should not, of course, make us indifferent to truth and goodness."
Thus conciliarists find themselves in a cultural box of their own apostate, Modernist making. Why doesn't the man in the British Foreign Office who wrote that vile memorandum have a "claim on our respect and charity" because he thinks and acts "differently form us in social, political, and religious matters"? Mind you, I am not saying that the neo-barbarian who wrote the vile memorandum is deserving of such respect, merely pointing out that it is incongruous for conciliarists to be upset with the man for exercising his "liberty of conscience" freely in a "free" society where there exists a "healthy secularity."
Moreover, of course, the conciliarists, apart from being hoisted on the petard of a "healthy secularity" that teaches as good and legitimate that which was termed "absolutely false" by Pope Saint Pius X--the separation of Church and State, can be hoisted on the petard of "religious liberty" in this instance as well as the man in the British Foreign Office could be said to be exercising his "religious liberty" by expressing his thoroughly irreligious beliefs to mock the Catholic Church and the man he believes to be the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. Doesn't this man have a "right from God" to express his own irreligious beliefs? How can the public expression of irreligion be suppressed when it is accepted that all men have the right to speak as they desire in civil society?
Dignitatis Humanae, the "Second" Vatican Council's Decree on Religious Liberty, December 7, 1965, established the anti-Catholic principle that men could of different beliefs--and of no belief of all as unbelief is a form of belief--could act freely in civil society "under the impulse of their own religious sense:
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.
Mr. Frank Rega, the author of Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, has examined some of the devastating apostasies contained n Dignitatis Humanae in a recently published study:
Let us see how DH’s human dignity and the rights of man override in practice the duty to worship the One God in the True Religion, by outlining a hypothetical example. According to DH people have a civil right, within due limits, and because of their "human dignity," to worship their concept of God according to their conscience.
Therefore, neo-Aztecs may be permitted to return to worshipping their demon gods, within due limits: which means no human sacrifice. No one has the right to tear down their idols, but they have a civic right to condemn themselves to Hell. Even religions that blaspheme Christ, and seek to replace and blot out Christian worship, are to be free to publicly propagate their errors.
This is what DH teaches, and the necessary implication is that Jesus Christ, who is head of the Church, also teaches this. (Vatican II's position on human dignity by Frank Rega, part 2; see also, Vatican II's position on religious liberty by Frank Rega, part 1.)
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not teach this. He ha spoken through his true popes, who have taught us the lessons of history about the effects produced by "liberty of conscience" that is one of the prime constituent elements of Modernism and thus of the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:
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.
Catholics know that the the death of the soul is worse than the freedom of error. And it is the free rein given to error by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its "reconciliation" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity a tool of the devil to reaffirm people in their "civil" and "religious" "right" to commit blasphemy and to spread one error after another, thus mocking the true God of Divine Revelation and the Divine Plan He instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.
Catholics have always sought to eliminate grievous error from the midst of civil society. Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen said that he had come to "extirpate heresy, not to embrace it." The exact same Catholic spirit motivated Saint Peter Canisius, whose feast is celebrated today. The Collect for the Mass offered today stands as yet another contrast with the false accommodationism of conciliarism with the errors of Modernity:
O God, Who for the defense of the Catholic Faith didst strengthen blessed Peter, Thy confessor, with virtue and learning: vouchsafe in Thy loving kindness, that by his example and precepts the erring may be restored to salvation, and the faithful may persevere in the confession of the truth. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.
The apostolic zeal of Saint Peter Canisius and his desire to seek with urgency the conversion of those steeped in error stands as quite a contrast with the spirit of conciliarism that have reaffirmed people who believe in various errors that they are not in the least in any peril of losing their immortal souls for all eternity.
Indeed, it is a supreme irony of the moment that many of the very errors of Protestantism that Saint Peter Canisius sought to eliminate have been incorporated into the liturgy and the teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which has created a spirit as antipathetic to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church in the minds of so many hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world that is but the mirror image of the antipathy bred by Henry Tudor and his paid Anglican stooges in the Sixteenth Century. Hundreds of millions of Catholics today have no more belief in every article contained in the Deposit of Faith than the English who defected and participated in the persecution of their once fellow Catholics. Hundreds of millions of Catholics today are nonplussed in the face of ridicule of the Church and her teaching because they themselves have been taught by the ethos and de facto pastoral praxis of conciliarism that is is only "love" that matters, not a "rigid" adherence to the "norms of the past."
Obviously, we must, as always, spend time in prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, using the shield of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel and the weapon of her Rosary to protect us from the contagion of apostasy and betrayal that is all around us. We must also, of course, make reparation for our own many sins by offering up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices and humiliations and penances and mortifications and fastings to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
This will all pass. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest, and it will be a triumph beyond all telling.
As Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself said to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:
"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.