Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
December 22, 2010

Honesty And Truth

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Each of us make mistakes.

It is sometimes the case that we make minor mistakes such as failing to follow street directions properly. Readers of this site know that I, at age fifty-nine, burden them with typographical errors that could be caught with more careful proofreading. I try to correct these mistakes when they are brought to my attention just as someone who has turned onto a wrong thoroughfare has to make a mid-course correction to arrive at his chosen destination.

There are also times when more substantive mistakes are made. I have made such mistakes on this site now and again when viewing a particular story and failing to recognize that my misgivings about its veracity may be very well-founded. There are a lot of bum stories posted on the internet. And, yes, there have been a few times when I have been burned by a lack of due caution with respect to a story that I suspected was phony or, quite perhaps, intellectually dishonest, begging your apologies when I have discovered that my suspicions were genuine. One comes to realize over the course of time that certain internet sites specialize in intellectual dishonesty by refusing to provide readers with "hot links" to original sources or by twisting facts to make something appear to be different than it actually is as a matter of fact.

To wit, I was alerted a few days ago that the clip of Novus Ordo religious sisters standing on their chairs and applauding furiously while the Pellegrini brothers performed their strip act in front of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI at the Paul VI Audience Hall on Wednesday, December 15, 2010, might have been edited into the recording that is on You Tube. This is possible, although numerous news stories, including one on KABC-TV (no, I am not linking to this because of the immodest photographs) in Los Angeles, California, made reference to the applauding, handkerchief-waving nuns. I just don't know.

Thus, I removed my original reference to the Novus Ordo religious sisters in a revised version of Benedict in Wonderland that I posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010. That video clip might be entirely accurate. If it was not, however, I wanted to make sure that anything superfluous to this scandal was removed from my article as it was bad enough that the false "pontiff" and some of his "cardinals" and "bishops" gawked at this display of indecency, performed by men who had appeared in a "gay circus" which is designed of its nature to promote perversity. That was bad enough, admitting that it would not be at all shocking to discover that the Novus Ordo sisters were going bonkers over the Pellegrini brothers' strip act. Have you ever seen any clips of World Youth Day events?

No Excuse For Taking Facts Out of Context

This is but a prelude to cautioning the quickly disappearing readers of this most inconsequential of internet sites that one must exercise great caution in reading sensationalized news stories that appear in cyberspace, especially sites that, most unfortunately, have a penchant for twisting the truth to make something appear worse than it actually is. Things are bad enough in the counterfeit church of conciliarism without having to twist truth, thus making the false "pontiff" and his "bishops" appear to be sympathetic victims of various irresponsible smear campaigns.

For example, the Christmas address that Ratzinger/Benedict gave on Monday, December 20, 2010, to members of his conciliar curia was a typical exercise in conciliarism: some truth, lots of error and lots of ambiguity and confusion--things that one would never associate with day, Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII. It was bad enough without having to make it appear as though Ratzinger/Benedict was excusing his own conduct in the matter of protecting perverted members of the conciliar clergy when he said the following:

...that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Christmas address to Vatican curia, Monday December 22, 2010.)


This isolated quote, taken by itself, would seem to indicate (emphasis on seem to indicate) that Ratzinger/Benedict was teaching this as true or using this as some kind of excuse for his own complicity in protected perverted members of the conciliar clergy.

The truth of the matter, however, is that Ratzinger/Benedict was criticizing this erroneous concept of morality, which he believes, most mistakenly, is at the "root" of the problem of sin in the world today, before he praised the ultimate theological relativist, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, for condemning such a view of morality in Veritatis Splendor, June 8, 1993:

In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focused anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind.


An intellectually honest reader can see quite clearly that Ratzinger/Benedict, himself a theological relativist who has helped to undermine the integrity of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (see If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun, Words and Actions Without Consequences), to say nothing of undermining the nature of dogmatic truth as he has contradicted the consistent Catholic teaching against religious liberty and the separation of Church and State and false ecumenism, was criticizing what he describes erroneously as a "1970s" phenomenon, not endorsing it. Mind you, Ratzinger/Benedict's remarks on the subject of his perverted clergymen were egregious, as will be explained here briefly. It is, however, essential to keep his remarks in their proper context without making it appear as though he endorsed something that he plainly criticized.

Sadly, it is not uncharacteristic for the website in question to distort the remarks of others, including those of our true popes. Pope Leo XIII, who condemned by the heresy of Americanism in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, has had his words in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, truncated to make  it appear as though it was a full-throated admirer of the Constitution of the United States of America when the truth is that he was urging the American bishops to seek the conversion of the nation so that its civil government would recognize the true Church and accord her the favor and protection of the laws.

Pope Leo XIII used the language of diplomacy in Longiqua Oceani to praise what he could about the Constitution of the United States of America and the natural virtue possessed by the Freemason George Washington (who never converted to the Catholic Faith; see Did George Washington Convert to Catholicism?, by Dr. Marian Therese Horvat, an academically trained historian; those who repeat the absolute and total myth of George Washington's nonexistent "conversion" to the Catholic Faith are doing the cause of truth a grave disservice as this myth was invented by a Jesuit priest who was possessed of the falsehoods of the Americanist heresy) while stating quite clearly that the position of the Catholic Church in the United States of America is not the model for the rest of the world:

6. 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.


The final two sentences of this passage of Longiqua Oceani, highlighted in bold print, are omitted by Americanists, who populate the entirety of the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time of apostasy and betrayal. It as though such intellectually dishonest people who are steeped in the nationalist myths of the American founding as being perfectly compatible with the Catholic Faith because this is what they were taught as "children" or have come to believe is the "patriotic" thing to believe are incapable of accepting that conciliarism's view of Church-State relations is the logical result of the myths of the American founding. We must see where ideas lead (teleology) in the end. Martin Luther could not accept that it was his revolt against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church that produced such a decay in morals among his "evangelicals," a decay that he decried repeatedly before he died, and Americanists cannot see that it is the American model of Church-State relations that has inspired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI throughout the course of his priestly life.

Intellectual dishonesty of the sort practiced on the website in question has no place in the life of a Catholic. Sure, as noted above, each of us makes mistakes. Some of us come to change our positions on various matters, admitting that we were wrong in the past. It is pretty bad, however, to deliberately mislead others (a few other websites are infamous for quotes filled with ellipses that are designed to "prove" a point that is the opposite of what the quoted author intended; see Outside the Church There is No Salvation).

And this is not even to discuss the intellectually dishonest acts of omission that can be found on many "conservative" or quasi-traditional websites, staffed largely by people in their twenties and thirties, where one will never find any admission that the "pontiff" has offended God by breaking open the First and Second Commandments as he has esteemed the symbols of one false religion after another and as he has called their places of worship as "sacred" when they are only such to the devil himself. No, any such "bad" news doesn't exist on these websites, which continue to insist the "Pope" Benedict XVI is "restoring" tradition.

Repeatedly Distorting Facts

As bad as the patent intellectual dishonesty of some traditionally-minded Catholics is, however, the most notorious practitioner of intellectual dishonesty as he distorts the truths of the Catholic Faith is none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger/Benedict has let the one hundredth anniversaries of Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis, issued on September 8, 1907, and Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, issued on August 15, 1910, and The Oath Against Modernism, issued on September 1, 1910, pass unnoticed as they contradict his own embrace of some of the very essential tenets of conciliarism. He has done likewise with the passage of the sixtieth anniversary of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, issued on August 12, 1950, as he could never bring himself to recognize the enduring validity and true prophetic insight possessed by our late true pontiff thus far when he condemned the very "new theology" that provides him, Ratzinger/Benedict, with the contemporary "tools," if you will, to dismiss any previous teaching he does not like because the expression of dogmatic truth is conditioned by historical circumstances and must be subject to re-examination and re-interpretation. It matters to Ratzinger/Benedict that his concept of dogmatic truth was anathematized by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X and by Pope Pius XII. Ratzinger/Benedict has created a false, illusory world all of his own, one of complete intellectual dishonesty that permits him to assert falsehoods as being absolutely true and that entraps him in a fog of ambiguity, contradiction and paradox.

This was all on evident display in the aforementioned 2010 Christmas address to Vatican curia, which serves as this "pope's" year-in-review analysis. For a ready antidote to Ratzinger/Benedict's delusional view of himself and his counterfeit church of conciliarism, please see Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well

Let me focus, however, on several brief points in that address of two days ago, starting first with how the false "pontiff" dealt with the matter of his corrupt clergymen.

Ratzinger/Benedict can be faulted once again on the matter of the systematic cover-up protection and even, at least in some instances, of promotion or transfer of corrupt priests/presbyters and "bishops" for misidentifying the proximate root cause of the problem, which he places in what he calls a concept of morality, described in the passage cited above, that developed in the 1970s. He also blamed the "culture" for the problem:

In the vision of Saint Hildegard, the face of the Church is stained with dust, and this is how we have seen it. Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood.

We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility. But neither can we remain silent regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light. There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society. The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity. The Book of Revelation includes among the great sins of Babylon – the symbol of the world’s great irreligious cities – the fact that it trades with bodies and souls and treats them as commodities (cf. Rev 18:13). In this context, the problem of drugs also rears its head, and with increasing force extends its octopus tentacles around the entire world – an eloquent expression of the tyranny of mammon which perverts mankind. No pleasure is ever enough, and the excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart – and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it.

In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focused anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind. (2010 Christmas address to Vatican curia.)


Ratzinger/Benedict is wrong on two counts, leaving aside in this article his unctuous protestations about the treatment of the conciliar "bishops" in Belgium when it turns out they were hiding evidence from the civil authorities concerning their protection of themselves and their clergy (see Live By Separation of Church and State? Die By Separation of Church and State and Not So "Deplorable" After All).

First, as he has done throughout the course of this year (see Of Worldwide Scope, Always Evading Root Causes, Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club, Surely He Jests, "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts, More Than A Matter of Legality, Audio Presentation: Scandal In a Church of Apostasy.WMA, "Fall Guys" Aren't Usually "Stand-Up Guys", Apologizing to Everyone Save For God Himself, Not Going Down With the Conciliar Ship, Touchy, Touchy, and Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part two), the false "pontiff" refuses to recognize that the problem facing his corrupt clergymen is the result of the recruitment, retention and promotion of highly effeminate and/or open practitioners of perversity into the conciliar clergy. Ratzinger/Benedict is incapable, it appears, of admitting the simple truth that the problem is not pedophilia" but sodomy and its acceptance by so many in his conciliar hierarchy and clergy.

Admitting that this problem and the way it has been mishandled by ecclesiastical authorities predates the "Second" Vatican Council and its wretched aftermath, it is also true that the very liturgy of conciliarism--as well as the art, music and architecture that is has inspired--was designed to ease the consciences of those steeped in lives of serious sin. Why else remove from the Novus Ordo's various proper prayers most references to a God Who judges us, to the possibility of losing our immortal souls for all eternity, to the gravity of heresy and error, and to the gravity of sin itself? It can be argued (and it is an arguable point, to be sure) that the very ethos of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is designed to be "sinner-friendly" as opposed to what was considered by the Jacobins who planned this abomination in the sight of God to be the "harshness" and "coldness" and "formality" of the true Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Martin Luther revolted against the doctrine, liturgy and discipline of the Catholic Church because was steeped in sins of natural vice against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Many of the conciliarists have revolted against the doctrine, liturgy and discipline (especially concerning fasting and abstinence and acts of voluntary penance) because they have been steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The bias against any emphasis on sin and personal penance in the conciliar liturgical service was expressed in Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal).

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)


The language of "modern theology"? Ratzinger/Benedict is incapable of recognizing or admitting that concilairism is in se the incarnation of full-blown Modernism and that the liturgical revolutionaries responsible for planning and then implementing the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service desired to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change in liturgical matters so that their entire sensus Catholicus could be undermined in such a way as to accept most readily "changes," both those authorized and those not authorized by conciliar officials, in doctrine and morality.

Second, therefore, although an "updated" version of morality began to manifest itself in Catholic parishes and schools and religious education programs and universities and colleges and seminaries in the 1960s and 1970s, this "updated morality" did not start in the 1960s and 1970s. The "updated morality" and the "updated liturgy" and the "updated doctrine" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is but a Catholic expression of the logical, long term consequences of the renaissance of moral relativism in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and the birth of theological relativism in the Sixteenth Century, each of which made possible the triumph of the rationalism of naturalism in matters of philosophy and science. It is the Protestant Revolt that let loose forces in the world that produced Modernism and Modernism's step-child, concilairism, replete with all of its doctrinal, liturgical and moral aberrations.

Fighting Relativism with Relativism

Pope Leo XIII explained the connection between the Protestant Revolution and the rise of naturalism as follows in his encyclical letter on the Christian Constitution of States, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Ratzinger/Benedict is thus as wrong about the root causes of clerical corruption in the conciliar structures as someone in the United States of America would be who asserted that "all of our problems began with Roe v. Wade. The spread of heresy theologically by the Protestant Revolutionaries led logically to Modernism and to the triumph of the anti-Incarnational spirit of Modernity in the world. This may not be very "ecumenical." It just happens to be true, however.

There is a special irony represented by Ratzinger/Benedict's citing Babylon in what the conciliarists have renamed as the "Book of Revelation" (Saint John the Evangelist's Book of the Apocalypse). He does not realize that it is his sins--and those of his conciliar predecessors--that have made Rome, as Our Lady of La Salette prophesied would be the case, the seat of Antichrist. The sins of the conciliar "popes" against the First and Second Commandments have reaffirmed Catholics and non-Catholics alike in a practical spirit of religious indifferentism even though those "popes" stated repeatedly that their "ecumenism" is not the same thing as indifferentism. It is the Rome of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that offends God and has robbed Him of the honor and glory that are His due in the Sacred Liturgy and has deprived the world of the Actual Graces needed by souls to resist the world, the flesh and the devil as Catholics seek constantly to make reparation for their sins and as non-Catholics are exhorted in no uncertain terms that they must convert to the Catholic Church before they die.

Let me turn once again to Father Basil Meramo's cogent explication of this point:

This problem is taking place with the General Superior (of the Society of St. Pius X) (…) who is selling out the Society by allying himself with the Vatican, which has not stepped back in anything. Where does Benedict XVI go? He goes to the Synagogue, he goes to the United Nations, and now he goes to the Society (SSPX) – another concubine in the pantheon of false religions.

This is not admissible. This is a tactic of Rome. I want you to know, dear brethren, that Rome of the Roman Empire was able to dominate the world by means of religious compromises. This is why Rome had a pantheon with all the principal gods of the important peoples who were subjugated by it. Since religious alliances were established and Rome had the same gods of the enemies, then there were no mutual attacks. Rome accepted the same gods of the Greeks in order to dominate the Greeks; Rome adopted the same gods of this or that people in order to dominate them. This was its tactic to govern.

This same tactic continues today in that Rome, which St. Peter - the first Pope of the Church - called Babylon. He was not in the Middle East; he was in Rome and he called it Babylon because it was the Babylon of the religions. He didn’t spare words, because it had an altar to every god. All known religions had their representatives there. (…) A Pope quoted in the Breviary – whose name I don't remember at this moment – said that at the end [of history] Rome will again have, as in the beginning, all the religions. It will return to its ancient paganism, rejoicing in hosting all religions. It will return to its old religious prostitution. (A Bold Show of Dissatisfaction in the SSPX Ranks;  please read Father Meramo's remarks in their entirety; the Tradition in Action website has also published and English translation of Father Meramo's January 26, 2009, "open letter" to Bishop Fellay, Fellay’s Decision to Merge Confronted by Intellectual Priest. These letters have been censored by the Society of Saint Pius X hierarchy.)


Yet it is that Ratzinger/Benedict decries relativism extant in the world while he, as noted above, practices it doctrinally and practically, especially by giving "joint blessings" with the non-ordained "ministers" of false religions as he has esteemed their nonexistent ability to help fight irreligion in the world! It is remarkable to behold how a man can believe himself to be a Catholic in good standing as he believes, says and does things that are contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church.

Ever Seeking Consensus Among Men Who Dissent From Catholic Doctrine

Undeterred by Catholic truth, however, Ratzinger/Benedict does indeed believe, as he stated in his address of two days ago while exalting the "fruit" of his visits to Cyprus and the United Kingdom, that it is possible for there to be a "moral consensus" in our "pluralistic" world even though true pope after true pope has taught us that the only foundation of a true moral consensus is Catholicism:


Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from "The Way." The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. "And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him" (Daniel vii., 14). "I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession" (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God's providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men's minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

How can there can be concord among men, no less an adherence to a naturalistic "moral consensus" and they are not in agreement and union of minds? Ratzinger/Benedict does not understand this as his mind is not Scholastically-trained.

This is why, among other egregious things that he had done this year that are recounted in summary form in Wear Your Catholic Stripes Well, Ratzinger/Benedict  has praised the "World Missionary Conference" that was held in Edinburgh one hundred years ago even though it was the false ecumenism that sprang forth from this "conference" and proceeded to infect the minds of some Catholic theologians in the aftermath of World War I and the quest for "peace" and a "better" world that was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. And this false "ecumenism" has led Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to develop working ties with the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-perversity World Council of Churches, which is nothing other than a Communist-front organization, while at the same time applauding, both in England in his Christmas address of two days ago, John Henry Cardinal Newman's conversion to the Catholic Faith as a matter of personal conscience given his commitment to seek the truth as a son of the Holy Father. Well, why doesn't this "Holy Father" follow the truths that were taught consistently by our true popes until the dawning of the age of conciliarism on October 28, 1958?

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, Catholicism is a mixture of truth and error, which is why it confuses so many people (and had me confused for decades!):

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


Do not be confused. A mind steeped in Catholic truth would not praise false ecumenism or prompt a man to esteem the symbols of false religions while at the same time extolling the conversion of a former Anglican to the true Faith. It is one of the other. It is that simple. God is simple. So are His truths.

Pope Pius XI warned us to avoid the evils of false ecumenism:


Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)


Was Pope Pius XI wrong?

Furthermore, my friends, there was never an instance in the past when the Holy Office on the Inquistion had to issue a "clarification" to clarify a "clarification" of an initial "clarification" of comments made by a true pope.

For, yes, the conciliar revolutionaries put their scrambled heads together as scrambled to try to find some way to finally "clarify" "Father" Federico Lombardi's "clarification" of the initial "clarification" that he gave in response to the furor caused by the release of the book length interview that Ratzinger/Benedict gave to German journalist Peter Seewald. This is took four weeks for these geniuses to conjure up following Lombardi's second "clarification" on Tuesday, November 23, 2010, that followed up on his first "clarification," issued on Saturday, November 20, 2010:

Following the publication of the interview-book Light of the World by Benedict XVI, a number of erroneous interpretations have emerged which have caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality. The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated. The intention of the Holy Father is clear: to rediscover the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality and, in this way, to avoid the cheapening of sexuality which is common today.

Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church's stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117-119) � do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.

As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, when he wrote that "also to be excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation whether as an end or as a means." The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought. On this issue the Pope proposes instead and also calls the pastors of the Church to propose more often and more effectively (cf. Light of the World, p. 147) humanly and ethically acceptable ways of behaving which respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of every conjugal act, through the possible use of natural family planning in view of responsible procreation.

On the pages in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355). The response of the entire Christian tradition and indeed not only of the Christian tradition to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: "Flee from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18). The practice of prostitution should be shunned, and it is the duty of the agencies of the Church, of civil society and of the State to do all they can to liberate those involved from this practice.

In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute "the real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS and also that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality" in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father's previous statement that this is "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say as some people have claimed that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church.

In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage. In this regard it is also important to condemn any behaviour which cheapens sexuality because, as the Pope says, such behaviour is the reason why so many people no longer see in sexuality an expression of their love: "This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being" (Light of the World, p. 119).


One professional Vaticanologist remarked that he was unaware of any precedent for such a "clarification" of the words of a putative "pope" from what purports to be the Catholic Church's "doctrinal" office:

“I have never seen a communiqué from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that explains the words of the pope after the fact,” said Paolo Rodari, a Vatican expert at Il Foglio, an Italian daily newspaper. “I think it’s unique. And it demonstrates how many complaints and serious criticism the Vatican has received.” (Vatican Adds Nuance to Remarks.)


Actually, of course, there have been "clarifications" on how to implement the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. There have been "clarifications" about the norms for translating its text from the Latin editio typica to the various vernacular languages. "Father" Federico Lombardi was twice before issued "clarifications" of this "pope's" remarks that were given to journalists in interviews from Rome to another locale. And the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had to issue a "clarification" about the very nature of the Catholic Church herself because of the ambiguity (heresy) contained in Lumen Gentium, issued by the "Second" Vatican Council on November 21, 1964. It only stands to reason that the conciliar Vatican's "doctrinal" congregation has had to issue a "clarification" about comments made by a "pope" who lives in the fog of confusion that is the "new theology."

Although a brief article on the subject of the newest and latest "clarification" will be posted tomorrow, Thursday, December 23, 2010, suffice it for the moment to reiterate that no one is showing "love" or "concern" for another by engaging in any kind of premeditated sin. There would also be no need to the "rediscover" the "beauty" of the gifts proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony if the conciliar "popes" had not inverted the ends of marriage to place the "unitive" aspect above that of marriage's principal end: the procreation and education of children. All of the efforts to put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again are exercise in pure positivism as Catholic moral truth is distorted beyond anything that any of our true popes would recognize.

Enough of this, at least for now. It is past my bedtime again. None of this confusion, whether "official" or "unofficial," can come from the Catholic Church. (See Words and Actions Without Consequences.)

Christmas joy will be ours in but three days. Let us make our own the prayer composed by Dom Prosper Gueranger for this sixth day of the "O Antiphons":

O Rex gentium, et desiratus earum, lapisque angularis, qui facis utraque unum; veni, et salva hominem quem de limo formasti.

O King of nations, and their desired One, and the corner-stone that makest both one; come and save man whom thou formedst out of slime.

O King of Nations! Thou art approaching still nigher to Bethlehem, where Thou art to be born. The journey is almost over, and Thy august Mother, consoled and strengthened by the dear weight she bears, holds an unceasing converse with Thee on the way. she adores Thy divine Majesty; she gives thanks to Thy mercy; she rejoices that she has been chosen for the sublime ministry of being Mother to God. She longs for that happy moment when her eyes shall look upon Thee, and yet she fears it. For, how will she abe able to render Thee those services which are due to Thy infinite greatness, she that thinks herself the last of creatures? How will she dare to raise Thee up in her arms, and press Thee to her heart, and feed Thee at her breasts? When she reflects that the hour is now near at hand, in which, being born of her, Thou wilt require all her care and tenderness, her heart sinks within her; for, what human heart could bear the intense vehemence of these two affections--the love of such a Mother for her Babe, and the love of such a creature for her God? But Thou supportest her, O Thou the Desired of nations! for Thou, too, longest for that happy birth, which is to give the earth its Saviour, and to men that corner-stone, which will unite them all into one family. Dearest King! be Thou blessed for all these wonders of Thy power and goodness! Come speedily, we beseech Thee, come and save us, for we are dear to Thee, as creatures that have been formed by Thy divine hands. Yea, come, for Thy creation has grown degenerate; it is lost; death has taken possession of it: take Thou it again into Thy almighty hands, and give it a new creation, save it; for Thou has not ceased to take pleasure in and love Thine own work. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume I, Advent, pp, 502-503.)


We must keep very, very close to Our Lady at all times, especially during this time of apostasy and betrayal, praying as many Rosaries as we can each day as we thank the good God for becoming Incarnate in her Virginal and Immaculate Womb so that He could be born us in utter poverty and humility and anonymity in Bethlehem as He was placed in a crib that served as the manger (the feeding trough) for the barn animals. This same Incarnate God would Whose Infant Body was placed in the wood of the manger so tenderly by His Most Blessed Mother would be affixed so cruelly and so mercilessly by our sins on the wood of the Holy Cross. This Incarnate God did so because He sought our redemption as He brought His own light into a world of darkness.

The darkness of the present moment will be dispelled in God's good time. It is enough for us to beseech Our Lady and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to persevere in the true Faith until the moment of our deaths, which could, of course, occur at any time. We will then see ourselves in a moment of ultimate truth and honesty that no amount of ambiguity or contradiction or clarification can change. May Our Lady continue to pray for us, therefore, now, and at the hour our death.

Viva Cristo Rey! 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 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 Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.