Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
May 25, 2013


Whirlwinds Of Spiritual Destruction

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The pro-abortion Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Enda Kenny, was made an honorary alumnus before before he spoke at Jesuit-run Boston College's commencement ceremonies on Monday, May 20, 2013, Whit-Monday.

Enda Kenny is a Catholic who is in "good standing" with the conciliar authorities despite his support for a bill, the "Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013," in the Irish national parliament, Oireachtas, that would "legalize" the surgical execution of an innocent preborn child in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. Sure, Enda Kenny has antagonized conciliar officials because of his statements on the Murphy and Cloyne reports on the cover-up of predator clergymen in Ireland. Emboldened by the collapse of Catholicism that has taken place as a result of those cover-ups and, more to the point, as a result of the entire apostate ethos of the conciliar revolution itself, Enda Kenny knows that he can, at least in all likelihood, get away with the "Protection of Life Pregnancy Bill 2013" just as has been the case with pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic politicians in the United States of America, many of whom are of Irish-American descent, including, most notoriously, the likes of the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America William Brennan (R-New Jersey), the late Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Thomas P. O'Neill (D-Massachusetts), the former Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas Foley (D-Washington), the late United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York), former United States Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), the current Vice President of the United States of America, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts), United States Senator Kirsten Gillbrand (D-New York,), whose mother's maiden name was Noonan, United States Senator Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), United States Senator Christopher Murphy (D-Connecticut), United States Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), United States Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), United States Senator Patricia Murray (D-Washington), United States Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), United States Senator Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa), Governor of the State of Illinois Patrick Quinn (D), Governor of the State of California, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (D), Governor of the State of Connecticut Daniel Malloy (D), Governor of the State of Maryland Martin O'Malley (D), former Governor of the State of Wisconsin James Doyle (D), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Anthony Kennedy, and a cast of hundreds upon hundreds of deceased, retired and current members of the United States House of Representatives and state and local legislatures (and mayors, county executives, town supervisors, city/county managers, judges). And this is just a listing of the Irish-American pro-abortion Catholics in the United States of America.

Perhaps the most notorious of them all was, of course, the late Father Robert Drinan, S.J. who served in the United States House of Representatives, from 1971 to 1981, while supporting the slaughter of the innocent preborn and who endorsed the candidacy of the man elected to replace him, the recently retired United States Representative Barnett Frank. The "late" Father Robert Drinan, S.J., known as "Father Death," remained a priest in "good standing" in the conciliar church until his death on January 28, 2007 despite his unrepentant support of surgical baby-killing under cover of law, including the procedure known as "partial-birth abortion."

Drinan was also instrumental in helping the Kennedy clan to plot a strategy to separate their "private" beliefs about abortion from their public policies ( See WSJ.com - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma.) Drinan even received an award from Saint Joseph's College in Patchogue, New York, in the late-1990s for his work in behalf of "peace and justice," a travesty that I covered for The Wanderer at the time. Drinan's "Mass of Christian Burial" was held at the Jesuit church in downtown Washington, D.C., Saint Aloysius Church, on January 28, 2007. Edward Moore Kennedy was one of those who "eulogized" "Father Death. Nancy Pelosi was another:

Sen. Edward Kennedy noted, "Here on earth, God's work must be our own" and said that Drinan did that work "armed with moral clarity and courage." Speaker Pelosi said of Drinan, "It was because of his faith that he was one of our greatest champions for human rights," and she quoted him as telling Georgetown students "to go forth into society not as mere legal tradesmen, but as moral architects." (Robert Drinan, Infanticide, and the "Unthinkable" | First Things)


Edward Moore Kennedy believed that supporting abortion was "God's work." Yet it was that he remained in "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism right up to the moment of his own death from brain cancer on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, the Feast of Saint Louis IX, King of France, resulting in yet another conciliar travesty that will be mentioned below in this commentary Just by the way, of course, United States Representative Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, who is not of Irish-American ancestry, remains in perfectly "good standing" in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, despite her own well-known support for the chemical and surgical slaughter of the preborn and for special legal "rights" for those engaged in perverse sins in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Thus it is is Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny has every well-founded reason to believe that he will not suffer any canonical penalties from the conciliar authorities as a result of his bill to open up to the door to the legalized butchery of children in the land that Saint Patrick had converted from the very paganism into which it has reverted once again (see Erasing The Work Of Saint Patrick Once And For All).

It should be remembered that the "life of the mother exception" rationale behind Enda Kenny's pro-abortion bill that will be introduced soon into the Oireachtas was used right here in the United States of America fifty years ago in the 1960s to help condition the populace for an acceptance of baby-killing on demand, something that has been documented many times on this site, including in Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part one. The shibboleth of the "life of the mother exception" also has been commented upon many times, including in Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life." Enda Kenny is opening the door to full-scale baby-killing in Ireland, something that he knows at least sixty percent of the Irish population is ready to accept despite the protests of conciliar authorities and of believing Catholics who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the belief that they are clinging to the Catholic Church of Saint Patrick, which they are not.

Enter Sean O'Malley, Exit Sean O'Malley

Enda Kenny's appearance at Boston College five days ago now put the ever-diplomatic Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley, the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, into a bit of a bind. He did not want to offend the graduates of Boston College while at the same time creating an "incident" that would be opposed to the conciliar spirit of "dialogue" that has characterized his very own relationship with pro-abortion, pro-perversity politicians in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. O'Malley decided to release the following statement on May 10, 2013, that is rife with conciliarspeak:

Because the Gospel of Life is the centerpiece of the Church’s social doctrine and because we consider abortion a crime against humanity, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have asked that Catholic institutions not honor government officials or politicians who promote abortion with their laws and policies.

Recently I learned that the Prime Minister of Ireland, the Hon. Mr. Enda Kenny was slated to receive an honorary degree at Boston College’s graduation this year. I am sure that the invitation was made in good faith, long before it came to the attention of the leadership of Boston College that Mr. Kenny is aggressively promoting abortion legislation. The Irish Bishops have responded to that development by affirming the Church’s teaching that “the deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of life is always morally wrong” and expressed serious concern that the proposed legislation “represents a dramatic and morally unacceptable change to Irish law.”

Since the university has not withdrawn the invitation and because the Taoiseach has not seen fit to decline, I shall not attend the graduation. It is my ardent hope that Boston College will work to redress the confusion, disappointment and harm caused by not adhering to the Bishops’ directives. Although I shall not be present to impart the final benediction, I assure the graduates that they are in my prayers on this important day in their lives, and I pray that their studies will prepare them to be heralds of the Church’s Social Gospel and “men and women for others,” especially for the most vulnerable in our midst. (Commencement Statement. "Taoiseach" is Gaelic for the equivalent of the English phrase "prime minister.")

A few comments, if you will be so kind.

First, one will notice that Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley's statement refers to abortion as a "crime against humanity" without ever mentioning once that it is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (willful murder).

Second, Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley's statement never made one single reference to the simple fact that the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn offends God as it is a violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

Third, instead, of course, Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley made reference to the "Gospel of Life" and the "Church's Social Gospel," neither of which have any relevance at all to the teaching of the Catholic Church as the counterfeit church of conciliarism to which the Boston celebrity adheres opposes the imposition of the death penalty and at the same time supports as part of its "social gospel" access to "universal public health care," which why the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America supported the statist monstrosity that is ObamaCare in principle despite their objections to its coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion, most of which were expressed for public consumption only. The conciliar church's "gospel" is that of Antichrist.

Fourth, as has been noted in other commentaries on pro-abortion public figures on this site, men such as Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley and Timothy Michael "Cardinal" Dolan down the road from him in the Archdiocese of New York and the universal public face of apostasy they helped to elected seventy-three days ago now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, are incapable of speaking in the following terms as they lack the sensus Catholicus, possessing a sense of sulphur in its place:

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 30, 1930.)


Fifth, Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley remains what he has been throughout his days as the conciliar "archbishop" of Boston, a coward and hypocrite as it is ludicrous for him to have objected to Enda Kenny's appearance at Boston College for the following reasons:

  • Sean O'Malley personally appeared at, concelebrated and then later justified his appearance at Edward Moore Kennedy's so-called "Mass of Christian Burial" on Saturday, August 29, 2009, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Roxbury, Massachusetts (see Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; and, of course, Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions);
  • Sean O'Malley personally appeared at the "interfaith prayer service" that was held in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, Massachusetts, on Friday, April 18, 2013, thereby offending God and listening in peace as pro-abortion, pro-perversity "clergymen," including a Talmudic rabbi who did not even acknowledge O'Malley's presence in what is considered to be the latter's custodial church, offered all manner of "prayers" to the devils they worship (see Antichrist's Liturgical Presiders);
  • Boston College employs all manner of faculty members who dissent from the receiving teaching of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and who have thus subjected students there to various heresies and errors in a supposedly "Catholic" setting that have reaffirmed many students in the ways of the world and caused others to lose what remnants of the Holy Faith they were able to possess in the first place after having been brought up in parishes held hostage to conciliarism.
  • It was thus absurd for Sean O'Malley to have expressed the prayer that their studies had prepared them to be "heralds" of the "Church's Social Teaching" as (a) many of their teachers do not accept even the conciliar version of "social teaching" and (b) many of the students themselves learned how to support evil all on their own as they were growing up in a state where the likes of Edward Moore Kennedy and John Kerry and others remained in "good standing" as supposed Catholics.
  • Among the satellite student organizations at Boston College is one describes itself as follows: "The GLBTQ Leadership Council (GLC) is committed to bettering the quality of life for all students at Boston College who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning" (see Boston College Allies; also see a student's praise of Boston College's "progression" in the direction of his particular lifestyle at 'I'm Gay at a Catholic College);

  • The Boston College "non-discrimination" policy is described as follows:

    Founded by the Society of Jesus in 1863, Boston College is dedicated to intellectual excellence and to its Jesuit, Catholic heritage.  Boston College recognizes the essential contribution a diverse community of students, faculty and staff makes to the advancement of its goals and ideals in an atmosphere of respect for one another and for the University’s mission and heritage.  Accordingly, Boston College commits itself to maintaining a welcoming environment for all people and extends its welcome in particular to those who may be vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of their race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, age, marital or parental status, sexual orientation, military status, or other legally protected status.

    Boston College rejects and condemns all forms of harassment, wrongful discrimination and disrespect.  It has developed procedures to respond to incidents of harassment whatever the basis or circumstance.  Moreover, it is the policy of Boston College, while reserving its lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles that sustain its mission and heritage, to comply with all state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and in its educational programs on the basis of a person’s race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, age, marital or parental status, genetic information or family medical history, or military status, and to comply with state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation. (Notice of Nondiscrimination.)

  • According to an Irish newspaper columnist, Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley issued his May 10, 2013, statement after assuring Enda Kenny that he, O'Malley, would absent himself from the Boston College commencement while providing a cover story to excuse his absence:

    Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s public statement denouncing Boston College for honoring Irish prime minister Enda Kenny was a violation of an informal agreement with the Irish government leader and the Jesuit university, according to an Irish columnist.

    Niall O’Dowd charges that Cardinal O’Malley reneged on an agreement when he engaged in open criticism of the plan by Boston College to award Kenny an honorary degree. O’Dowd writes:

    According to my sources O’Malley had indicated agreement with a plan that would see him absent on the day at Boston College but with a plausible reason not directly related to Kenny for not attending.

    The columnist says that the agreement would have allowed the Cardinal to register disapproval for the honorary degree without causing a major public controversy. But last week, as pro-life activists announced plans to demonstrate at the Boston College commencement ceremonies, Cardinal O’Malley said that he would not attend the ceremonies. The cardinal’s public statement clearly indicated that his absence was due to the honor for Kenny, who has strongly supported legislation to allow for legal abortion in Ireland.

    O’Dowd—whose column shows a strong bias in favor of Kenny— said that the cardinal’s public statement angered Kenny, but the Irish leader is determined to carry through with his speech on the Jesuit campus. The liberal columnist adds that the incident has hurt the cardinal’s standing in Ireland: “O’Malley had been seen as by far the most reasonable voice in the American Catholic church in Ireland but that perception, given how he has dealt with this controversy is now changed.”

    In a related development, the local president of the Planned Parenthood League in Massachusetts has praised Boston College for selecting Kenny. Marty Walz said that the Irish leader was an “appropriate commencement speaker” for the Catholic campus. C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League commented: “BC, a school built by and for Catholics, now stands with Planned Parenthood and a pro-abortion government against the Church and the pro-life movement.”(Irish columnist says Cardinal O'Malley broke a deal on Kenny commencement speech.)

Sean Patrick "Cardinal" O'Malley simply had no business being at Boston College's commencement ceremonies on Monday, May 20, 2013, no matter who was being given an honorary degree or giving the keynote commencement address.

Alas, such once again is one of the differences between conciliarism and Catholicism on the level of pastoral praxis.

Sean Patrick "Cardinal" O'Malley is a whirlwind of spiritual destruction. So was his disgraced predecessor, Benard "Cardinal" Law, before him. So was the one-man Americanist spiritual wrecking crew and enabler of the Kennedys named Richard Cardinal Cushing (see As New Dog and Pony Shows Come To Town, part 3).

Enter Enda Kenny, Exit Enda Kenny

One section from Enda Kenny's Boston College commencement address five days ago, which was peppered with bits of blasphemy and an outright celebration of the Judeo-Masonic spirit that is of the essence of Modernity (Kenny even took note of the granting of the patent for blue jeans as a sign of "freedom") and Modernism, provide yet another proof of the pernicious influence of the heresy of Americanism in the world-at-large and within the souls of Catholics, including Kenny himself, no matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal:

Inspired with that confidence, here today, are men and women who will go on to be leaders of corporations, communities, countries. You will lead, rooted in the values of your families, your faith and this great university.

Those, privileged to lead this, or any other democracy, will do so not as Catholic or Protestant or Dissenter, but as men and women guided by and beholden to nothing but the law, the Constitution and above all, the people. All the people. Of all faiths. And none. You will do so without fear or favour because your God, your personal faith, will sustain you. Constant, immutable, they are, and will always be, with you. Keep them close and you will never face your public decisions, your challenges, your difficulties, alone. (Transcript of Enda Kenny's Speech at 2013 Boston College Commencement.)


An entire article could be written dissecting Enda Kenny's commencement address. He is not, however, the principal subject of this commentary. He is truly a victim of Americanism as it has been enshrined around the world and in the very heart and soul of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

What is useful to point out before moving on to discuss the role of the supreme architect of transforming Catholic institutions of higher education into veritable whirlwinds of spiritual destruction is to point out, if ever so briefly that Enda Kenny's belief that those in public life do not speak in manner as individual believers as they are beholden to "nothing but the law, the Constitution, and above all, the people" is one of most concise summaries of Modernity and Modernism's view of public life.

Unfortunately for Enda Kenny, though, this view has been condemned by our true popes, including Pope Gregory VII:

In short, any good Christians may far more properly be considered kings than may bad princes. For the former, seeking the glory of God, strictly govern themselves, whereas the latter, seeking the things which are their own and not the things of God, are enemies to themselves and tyrannical oppressors of others. Faithful Christians are the body of the true king, Christ; evil rulers, that of the devil. The former rule themselves in the hope that they will eternally reign with the Supreme Emperor, but the sway of the latter ends in their destruction and eternal damnation with the prince of darkness, who is king over all the sons of pride.

It is certainly not strange that wicked bishops are of one mind with a bad king, whom they love and fear for the honours which they have wrongfully obtained from him. Such men simoniacally ordain whom they please and sell God even for a paltry sum. As even the elect are indissolubly united with their Head, so also the wicked are inescapably leagued with him who is the head of evil, their chief purpose being to resist the good. But surely we ought not so much to denounce them as to mourn for them with tears and lamentations, beseeching God Almighty to snatch them from the snares of Satan in which they are held captive, and after their peril to bring them at last to a knowledge of the truth.

We refer to those kings and emperors who, too much puffed up by worldly glory, rule not for God but for themselves. Now, since it belongs to our office to admonish and encourage every one according to the rank or dignity which he enjoys, we endeavour, by God's grace, to arm emperors and kings and other princes with the weapon of humility, that they may be able to allay the waves of the sea and the floods of pride. For we know that earthly glory and the cares of this world usually tempt men to pride, especially those in authority. So that they neglect humility and seek their own glory, desiring to lord it over their brethren. Therefore it is of especial advantage for emperors and kings, when their minds tend to be puffed up and to delight in their own glory, to discover a way of humbling themselves, and to realize that what causes their complacency is the thing which should be feared above all else. Let them, therefore, diligently consider how perilous and how much to be feared is the royal or imperial dignity. For very few are saved of those who enjoy it; and those who, through the mercy of God, do come to salvation are not so glorified in the Holy Church by the judgement of the Holy Spirit as are many poor people. For, from the beginning of the world until our own times, in the whole of authentic history we do not find seven emperors or kings whose lives were as distinguished for religion and so adorned by miracles of power as those of an innumerable multitude who despised the world - although we believe many of them to have found mercy in the presence of God Almighty. For what emperor or king was ever so distinguished by miracles as were St Martin, St Antony and St Benedict - not to mention the apostles and martyrs? And what emperor or king raised the dead, cleansed lepers, or healed the blind? See how the Holy Church praises and venerates the Emperor Constantine of blessed memory, Theodosius and Honorius, Charles and Louis as lovers of justice, promoters of the Christian religion, defenders of the churches: it does not, however, declare them to have been resplendent with such glorious miracles. Moreover, to how many kings or emperors has the holy church ordered chapels or altars to be dedicated, or masses to be celebrated in their honour? Let kings and other princes fear lest the more they rejoice at being placed over other men in this life, the more they will be subjected to eternal fires. For of them it is written: 'The powerful shall powerfully suffer torments.' And they are about to render account to God for as many men as they have had subjects under their dominion. But if it be no little task for any private religious man to guard his own soul: how much labour will there be for those who are rulers over many thousands of souls? Moreover, if the judgement of the Holy Church severely punishes a sinner for the slaying of one man, what will become of those who, for the sake of worldly glory, hand over many thousands to death? And such persons, although after having slain many they often say with their lips 'I have sinned,' nevertheless rejoice in their hearts at the extension of their (so-called) fame. They do not regret what they have done. Nor are they grieved at having sent their brethren down to Tartarus. As long as they do not repent with their whole heart, nor agree to give up what they have acquired or kept through bloodshed, their repentance remains without the true fruit of penitence before God.

Therefore they should greatly fear and often call to mind what we have said above, that out of the innumerable host of kings in all countries from the beginning of the world, very few are found to have been holy; whereas in one single see - the Roman - of the successive bishops from the time of blessed Peter the Apostle, nearly one hundred are counted amongst the most holy. And why is this, unless because kings and princes, enticed by vain glory, prefer, as has been said, their own things to things spiritual, whereas the bishops of the Church, despising vain glory, prefer God's will to earthly things? The former are quick to punish offences against themselves, but lightly tolerate those who sin against God. The latter readily pardon those who sin against themselves, but do not readily forgive offenders against God. The former, too bent on earthly achievements, think little of spiritual ones; the latter, earnestly meditating on heavenly, things, despise the things of earth....  (Letter of Pope Gregory VII to the Bishop of Metz, 1081.)


That about says it all, although a few other citations will be provided in the appendix below.

All right, all right.

It may be getting much later than I would like at 1:06 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time, on Ember Saturday in the Octave of Pentecost, a day of fast and partial abstinence, and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Gregory VII and of Pope Saint Urban.

However, here is something else for Enda Kenny to smoke in his bagpipe of Judeo-Masonic naturalism:

The chief elements of this duty [of Catholics as citizens] consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae,  January 10, 1890.)

Goodbye, Enda Kenny.

Enter the Supreme Architect of Spiritual Destruction at Catholic Colleges and Universities, Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C.

Although there were problems in Catholic universities and colleges dating back to the founding of Georgetown College when it doors opened on January 2, 1792, as Catholicism there was more or less compartmentalized in the theology department and did not permeate instruction in the secular sciences, one man is principally, though not exclusively, responsible the state of what passes for Catholic higher education in the United States of States of America, and that man turns ninety-six years old today, Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C.

A bit of background is in order at this point to do justice to the damage done by Father Hesburgh to what passes for Catholic higher education today

Catholic universities and colleges once taught the Faith reasonably well when they were in the control of the Catholic Church, not her counterfeit ape. Catholic scholars were trained in a framework of orthodoxy during most of the Nineteenth Century. They were trained in Thomistic philosophy and theology, schooled in Patristics, well-groomed in dogmatic and moral theology, and trained to love the Mass of the ages and the Mother of God.

Oh, yes, as noted before, elements of Americanism were present at Georgetown College from its inception. Modernist elements began to seep into some universities and colleges by the end of the Nineteenth Century, which is one of the reasons Pope Saint Pius X required an oath to be taken against the errors of Modernism. He saw the dangers posed to the life of the Faith in Europe and in the United States by the rampant spread of Modernism, especially in the realm of Biblical scholarship (with the advent of the German Protestant school of exegesis) and in the realm of philosophy (where the "process thought" of Hegelianism, which emphasized the belief that truths evolve over time and can change, was being taught quite openly in some places). Pope Saint Pius X believed it was essential to safeguard doctrinal integrity in seminaries and colleges and universities, especially since it was the case that only those who were genuinely equipped for serious intellectual work were the ones who attended Catholic colleges and universities (unlike the case in our own era of egalitarianism, which asserts that everyone is equally as able as everyone else to perform well in college).

Over the course of time, therefore, the foxes began to invade the henhouse at at Catholic colleges and universities. In the United States, for instance, the Americanist ethos of academic freedom became such a clarion call among some Catholic intellectuals in the 1940's and 1950's that there began to be murmurings against any and all Church interference in the life of professional scholars. Others, such as University of Notre Dame President Father Theodore Hesburgh, believed that Catholic colleges and universities had been ghettoized because of their strict adherence to Catholic theology and philosophy, that our institutions of higher learning would never be taken seriously by "the world" if they were not open to the hiring of non-Catholic faculty, people who would bring a "diversity of opinion" into the academic marketplace of ideas. Also uppermost in the mind of Hesburgh was his belief that graduates of Catholic colleges and universities would not be able to achieve prominence in the economic, scientific, legal, and political realms if they were viewed as graduates of second-rate institutions which were closed-minded about the great issues of the day.

A major turning point in the de-Catholicization of Catholic universities and colleges occurred from 1965-1967 when seventy-five of some 500 professors at my own bachelor's alma mater, Saint John's University (New York), went on strike. Although the University's president at the time, Father Joseph Cahill, C.M., tried valiantly to maintain the right of the central administration to maintain control over the hiring and promotion and tenure of professors to assure their adherence to the Faith, the result was that the faculty won one of their central points: the devolution of personnel decisions to the level of personnel and budget committees in the individual academic departments. Dissenting Catholics and non-Catholics were hired in droves from that point on, resulting in the eventual re-casting of a once proud Catholic institution of higher education into a self-professed "multicultural" center of "urban" education. The battle at Saint John's University set the stage for the infamous meeting of Catholic college administrators at Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin, in 1967 that was convened by none other than Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., who had been President of the University of Notre Dame for fifteen years at that point and would serve in that capacity for another twenty beyond that.

As the late Monsignor George Kelly pointed out in his massive work, Battle for the American Church, the Land O'Lakes Conference was the forum in which the administrators of ten Catholic colleges and universities believed it was necessary for them to secularize their institutions by divorcing themselves voluntarily from the official control of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. The following excerpts are taken from the statement issued at the conclusion of the Land O'Lakes Conference:


1. The Catholic University: A True University with Distinctive Characteristics

The Catholic University today must be a university in the full modern sense of the word, with a strong commitment to and concern for academic excellence. To perform its teaching and research functions effectively the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself. To say this is simply to assert that institutional autonomy and academic freedom are essential conditions of life and growth and indeed of survival for Catholic universities as for all universities.

The Catholic university participates in the total university life of our time, has the same functions as all other true universities and, in general, offers the same services to society. The Catholic university adds to the basic idea of a modern university distinctive characteristics which round out and fulfill that idea. Distinctively, then, the Catholic university must be an institution, a community of learners or a community of scholars, in which Catholicism is perceptibly present and effectively operative.

2. The Theological Disciplines

In the Catholic university this operative presence is effectively achieved first of all and distinctively by the presence of a group of scholars in all branches of theology. The disciplines represented by this theological group are recognized in the Catholic university, not only as legitimate intellectual disciplines, but as ones essential to the integrity of a university. Since the pursuit of the theological sciences is therefore a high priority for a Catholic university, academic excellence in these disciplines becomes a double obligation in a Catholic university.

3. The Primary Task of the Theological Faculty

The theological faculty must engage directly in exploring the depths of Christian tradition and the total religious heritage of the world, in order to come to the best possible intellectual understanding of religion and revelation, of man in all his varied relationships to God. Particularly important today is the theological exploration of all human relations and the elaboration of a Christian anthropology. Furthermore, theological investigation today must serve the ecumenical goals of collaboration and unity.

4. Interdisciplinary Dialogue in the Catholic University

To carry out this primary task properly there must be a constant discussion within the university community in which theology confronts all the rest of modern culture and all the areas of intellectual study which it includes.

Theology needs this dialogue in order:

  • A) to enrich itself from the other disciplines;
  • B) to bring its own insights to bear upon the problems of modern culture; and
  • C) to stimulate the internal development of the disciplines themselves.

In a Catholic university all recognized university areas of study are frankly and fully accepted and their internal autonomy affirmed and guaranteed. There must be no theological or philosophical imperialism; all scientific and disciplinary methods, and methodologies, must be given due honor and respect. However, there will necessarily result from the interdisciplinary discussions an awareness that there is a philosophical and theological dimension to most intellectual subjects when they are pursued far enough. Hence, in a Catholic university there will be a special interest in interdisciplinary problems and relationships. . . .

8. Some Characteristics of Undergraduate Education

The effective intellectual presence of the theological disciplines will affect the education and life of the students in ways distinctive of a Catholic university.

With regard to the undergraduate -- the university should endeavor to present a collegiate education that is truly geared to modern society. The student must come to a basic understanding of the actual world in which he lives today. This means that the intellectual campus of a Catholic university has no boundaries and no barriers. It draws knowledge and understanding from all the traditions of mankind; it explores the insights and achievements of the great men of every age; it looks to the current frontiers of advancing knowledge and brings all the results to bear relevantly on man's life today. The whole world of knowledge and ideas must be open to the student; there must be no outlawed books or subjects. Thus the student will be able to develop his own capabilities and to fulfill himself by using the intellectual resources presented to him.

Along with this and integrated into it should be a competent presentation of relevant, living, Catholic thought. . . .

10. Characteristics of Organization and Administration

The total organization should reflect this same Christian spirit. The social organization should be such as to emphasize the university's concern for persons as individuals and for appropriate participation by all members of the community of learners in university decisions. University decisions and administrative actions should be appropriately guided by Christian ideas and ideals and should eminently display the respect and concern for persons.

The evolving nature of the Catholic university will necessitate basic reorganizations of structure in order not only to achieve a greater internal cooperation and participation, but also to share the responsibility of direction more broadly and to enlist wider support. A great deal of study and experimentation will be necessary to carry out these changes, but changes of this kind are essential for the future of the Catholic university.

In fine, the Catholic university of the future will be a true modern university but specifically Catholic in profound and creative ways for the service of society and the people of God.

Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin
July 23, 1967 (Land O'Lakes Conference Statement.)

Other than Father Hesburgh, two of the twenty-five signatories of this hideous statement were none other than the President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, in Ponce, Puerto Rico, an apostate named Monsignor Theodore McCarrick, who, as the retired conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, has gained some fame for his support of "civil union" legal status for those engaged in sins of unnatural vice (see Giving Unto Caesar What Belongs To God Alone), and a Father William Walsh, S.J., who was the President of Boston College at the time.

This is how Enda Kenny wound up at Boston College five days ago. Make no mistake about it. The statement excerpted above is a true elegy of praise to the Judeo-Masonic spirit of Modernity and to the Modernism of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in those "heady" days following the conclusion of the "Second" Vatican Council during the false "pontificate" of Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

No "theological or philosophical imperialism"?

Translation: Scholasticism must go in order to make room for a "living" theology.

Once again for the sake of emphasis, this is how Enda Kenny wound up at Boston College five days ago as the conciliar spirit has made room for the devil himself and all of his falsehoods, including the "traditions of mankind" as that of Holy Mother Church has been jettisoned, redefined, deconstructed and, at least in many instances, entirely rejected.

The Aftermath of Father Hesburgh's Land of Lake Conference

Father Hesburgh's Land O'Lakes Conference opened the way for Catholic institutions of higher education to take down the Crucifixes from classroom walls, hire a glut of non-Catholics (as well as dissenting, heretical Catholics), and to go about their business as though the salvation of souls of the students entrusted to them did not matter at all. Indeed, if there is no such thing as objective truth which exists in the nature of things and exists definitely in the person of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, Who deposited His teaching in Holy Mother Church, then there is no need to be concerned about educating students in the framework of Christian truth. Catholic education thus became thoroughly Protestantized, concerned about the business of training good apparatchiks who would make a lot of money in the professional world -- and who would therefore donate money back to the institutions which gave them the ability to become successful financially.

The result of this has been to make formerly Catholic colleges and universities dangerous places for the temporal and eternal welfare of souls. This includes the "conservative" colleges where students are taught to view the Fathers of the Church through the eyes of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes"!

Personnel decisions have been made at the more "mainstream" institutions that once belonged to Holy Mother Church to favor most deliberately the hiring and promotion of faculty members who are either non-Catholics or those deemed to be "progressive" Catholics.  Those adjudged to be reactionary "conservatives" found themselves unable to obtain positions in our colleges and universities or they were denied tenure and/or promotions. Many are the horror stories of faithful Catholic faculty members who have been hounded and harassed for their orthodoxy while teaching in formerly Catholic universities. Naturally, the harassment has come from the very people who claim that they are open-minded and receptive to all people. College administrators at these institutions of apostasy have either looked the other way or have actively participated in this harassment, preferring to be viewed as sophisticated professionals in the eyes of their peers at secular and/or state-run institutions of higher learning.

All of this has had a devastating impact on the intellectual and spiritual formation of young Catholics, many of whom now enter a formerly Catholic college or university after having received the relativistic theological training provided them in a Catholic high school that is in conciliar captivity. Ironically, these badly catechized young Catholics entering what they think, albeit falsely, to be Catholic colleges were taught in high schools by the graduates of the very institutions intent on brainwashing them with the same sort of advanced disinformation possessed by their high school teachers. The cycle thus perpetuates itself ad infinitum.

Most of the graduates of formerly Catholic colleges and universities have learned nothing that is true about the Faith, coming to believe they can do anything they want as long as their "fundamental option" is for God, including the practice of contraception and the procuring of an abortion. Remember, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton received his undergraduate degree from Jesuit Georgetown University in the direct aftermath of Georgetown's having secularized itself. (Georgetown's sister Jesuit university, Fordham, was the first historically Catholic institution in the nation to divest itself of official Catholic control and to voluntarily remove Crucifixes from the walls of its classrooms in the Fall of 1966 a full ten months before the Land O'Lakes Conference.) It is thus is no wonder that a large number of the Catholic pro-aborts in public life are graduates of once Catholic institutions of higher learning.

A good deal of Catholic collegiate and university education in the past used to integrate the truths of the Faith into every aspect of their academic programs. While non-Catholics who had a specialty in mathematics or science might have been hired from time to time to teach in their fields of competency, they were expected to familiarize themselves with how the Catholic Faith imbues all fields of knowledge, as Pope Pius XI noted in Divini Illius Magistri in 1929. Such scholars were also expected to remember that they were never to place in doubt the truths of the Catholic Faith, never to use their classrooms as a forum to profess that which was contrary to what the Catholic Church held was received teaching of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man, Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And Catholics who taught in Catholic universities and colleges understood that they had the obligation to be scholars who were faithful to the totality of the Deposit of Faith and to see in their students redeemed creatures who were looking to them, the faculty, for a model as to how to live the faith in the midst of one's own professional responsibilities. There was an integrity to the teaching of the Faith which flowed over into all aspects of a college or university.

Pope Pius XI noted the following in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:




This norm of a just freedom in things scientific, serves also as an inviolable norm of a just freedom in things didactic, or for rightly understood liberty in teaching; it should be observed therefore in whatever instruction is imparted to others. Its obligation is all the more binding in justice when there is question of instructing youth. For in this work the teacher, whether public or private, has no absolute right of his own, but only such as has been communicated to him by others. Besides every Christian child or youth has a strict right to instruction in harmony with the teaching of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth. And whoever disturbs the pupil's Faith in any way, does him grave wrong, inasmuch as he abuses the trust which children place in their teachers, and takes unfair advantage of their inexperience and of their natural craving for unrestrained liberty, at once illusory and false.

In fact it must never be forgotten that the subject of Christian education is man whole and entire, soul united to body in unity of nature, with all his faculties natural and supernatural, such as right reason and revelation show him to be; man, therefore, fallen from his original estate, but redeemed by Christ and restored to the supernatural condition of adopted son of God, though without the preternatural privileges of bodily immortality or perfect control of appetite. There remain therefore, in human nature the effects of original sin, the chief of which are weakness of will and disorderly inclinations. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Pope Pius XI's words are very clear: "And whoever disturbs the pupil's Faith in any way, does him grave wrong, inasmuch as he abuses the trust which children place in their teachers, and takes unfair advantage of their inexperience and of their natural craving for unrestrained liberty, at once illusory and false." No one is free to lead himself or others into temptation.

We pray every day in the Pater Noster that we will not be led into temptation (Et ne nos inducas in tentantionem). There is no "freedom" to deny or to put into question the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith. None. There is no "balancing" of the Faith and "academic freedom," as a spokesman for "Father" John Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of the University of Notre Dame, noted recently in an article in The New York Times. "All sides" must must not be taught as equal to the Faith, as the late Richard Cardinal Cushing, an ardent Americanist and a fierce apologist for the Kennedys, argued during the first controversy involving Father Charles Curran in 1967. Every Catholic must be faithful to the Deposit of Faith at all times. No one must be hired to teach in any Catholic education institution who dissents from even one iota of the truths of the Holy Faith. It is that simple.

What, then, is the Catholic understanding of academic freedom? Again, the answer is simple. A Catholic understanding of academic freedom affords individual professors great latitude in presenting the truths of the Faith in accord with their own personalities and temperaments. We have different communities of religious men and women in the Church. Those communities, at least traditionally until they were infected with Modernism and the blight of perverse moral problems condemned in no uncertain terms by Saint Peter Damian, expressed the truths of the Faith in different ways. Each had different charisms and missions. The Benedictines and the Cistercians and the Carmelites and the Dominicans and the Franciscans and the Jesuits and the Pallotines and the Vincentians and the Redemptorists and the Passionists--and countless others--served the cause of the sanctification and salvation of human souls in many and varied ways. In like manner, you see, two Catholic professors of the same subject matter might teach the same course in very different ways without ever once putting any truths of the Faith into question. That's a legitimate understanding of academic freedom.

For example, one professor might prefer the Socratic method of instruction, peppering his students with questions during class time to get them to discern and to defend the truth. Others, including me, prefer the lecture method of instruction. Neither is received from the hand of God. Both are legitimate forms of instruction.

Similarly, some professors may prefer students to respond at length to essay questions in order to demonstrate a profound grasp of the subject matter, more or less forcing the students to "teach" the reader of their essay about a question as though the reader knew nothing about the subject. Other professors may prefer short-answer essays to cover to variety of topics. Still others might desire students to answer "objective" questions (multiple choice, true-false, fill-in-the-blank, which is one of my own favorite devices to test the breadth of student comprehension). Once again, none of these things are de fide. Professors and teachers should be given the widest latitude in the method of instruction and examination they believe will best inform and then challenge their students.

To be sure, there can be lively intellectual discussions and arguments among students and faculty members even when the Faith is transmitted in all of its purity and integrity. Catholic scholarship does not argue about what is true (no less about whether there is such a thing as truth). Rather, authentic Catholic scholars can and do argue, sometimes quite forcefully, about the application of received teaching in concrete circumstances. What sort of governmental system is most conducive to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Is the contemporary state by its very definition and composition a threat to the life of the Faith? What particular policies are the best way to protect the primacy of the Divine positive law and the natural law? What is the correct interpretation of a particular philosopher or a passage from a piece of literature or the correct translation to be used in a piece of scholarship. These, and many other areas, constitute legitimate forms of academic freedom as understood by the Catholic Church.

What is inarguable, however, is the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by our Lord upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and that He has revealed truths which are clear, certain and immutable. Anyone who argues about that is an abject heretic. Anyone who contends that an "opposition" to the Catholic Faith must be presented on equal terms with the Faith, as opposed to examining errors so as to be able to recognize and refute them (which is a necessary part of the educational process), is in league with the devil.

No one has to be "fair" to the "opposition," as the instigator of the secularized "Catholic" university, former University of Notre Dame president Father Theodore Hesburgh himself noted eleven years ago in The New York Times. We must not be "fair" to the devil, the progenitor of all falsehoods. We learn about errors to refute them. For Catholics, you see, must be faithful to each and every one of the truths of the Faith without giving a moment's credibility to anything that is in opposition to those truths and thus harmful to the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood. Professors need to aspire to the holiness of Saint John Cantius, not the worldliness of our present day.

The late Father John A. Hardon, S.J,. said in  a conference given at Saint Ignatius Loyola Church in New York, New York, in August of 1978 that the implantation of doubt in the souls of the young was a crime almost as great as that of killing an unborn child by abortion (whether by chemical or surgical means.) "To cause a young person to doubt the Faith is to help to abort that soul." Father noted, moving his head from side to side, looking straight as his audience for emphasis. Sadly, though, much of what passes for Catholic education (including elementary and secondary schools) in the conciliar structures does precisely this, doing so in the fallacious belief that there can be no true faith without doubt. While it is true that some people may have crises of faith in their own lives from time to time, we are not to encourage doubt. One of the spiritual works of mercy is precisely to counsel the doubting.

Contemporary Catholic higher education in conciliar captivity, at least in most instances, does more that encourage doubt. No, it actually does much to destroy faith by the promotion of atheist, leftist, collectivist, relativist, statist, redistributionist, feminist, positivist, environmentalist, pantheistic, evolutionist, indifferentist and other naturalist ideologies, including those of the New Age ilk. Its participation in the rot of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to personal purity feeds the myth that human beings are beast who are incapable of controlling themselves by means of Sanctifying Grace. And more that a handful of practicing homosexuals and lesbians have been recruited into a lifestyle of perversity and self-destruction as a result of propaganda in favor of sodomy disseminated on the campuses of formerly Catholic colleges and universities (where openly pro-abortion and sodomite-friendly groups are permitted to meet and to participate in the life of those campuses).

As though the hiring of non-Catholic and heretical Catholic faculty members has not caused enough damage to souls over the last forty-five years, the messages transmitted by those faculty members in their classrooms is forcefully reinforced by speakers brought in to address students during special events (or at their graduation ceremonies). Workshops are held and retreats are sponsored to brainwash students in the ways of "progressive" Catholicism. Zen meditation rooms are to be found on supposedly Catholic college campuses. Some of these colleges have even actively recruited a large body of non-Catholic students so as to force anyone who might be inclined to speak authentically as a Catholic (whether students or faculty members) to be dissuaded from doing so in order not to offend the sensibilities of multiculturalism and pluralism and diversity.  "Liturgies" held at most Catholic colleges and universities are generally the worst offered in the world of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, and that is putting the matter very, very mildly. This has all been very insidious, very demonic.

The bottom line of this is all really quite simple: a Catholic does not possess the right to deny the received teachings of Christ the King. No one is free morally to lead people into error. Indeed, the whole secular notion of academic freedom is itself both an exercise in relativism and hypocrisy. It is an exercise in relativism in that it asserts that scholars must be free to distort history and to relativize known truths into meaninglessness, much in the manner promoted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is an exercise in rank hypocrisy in that those who dissent from the prevailing cultural orthodoxy, no less hold fast to the Church's authentic Tradition, have no freedom at all to teach as they desire in the classroom.  In an utter perversion of a right principle, the very people who profess to be the guardians of academic freedom jealously fight off perceived heresies, denying to others the very freedom they extol. The very people who want liberation from the Church, who is our mater and our magister, make themselves into a magisterium which will impose harsh penalties upon those who dissent from its defense of cultural orthodoxy, theological relativism, and liturgical irreverence.

Although the problems that exist in the fraud and sham that is "Catholic" education at all levels in the conciliar structures today antedate the "Second" Vatican Council, to be sure, the errors of the past fifty years have made it possible for the nascent Modernism of the 1940s and 1950s to become institutionalized so as to deform countless numbers of souls.

One of those errors that has made it possible for Catholic institutions to maintain something of a Catholic "identity" while divesting themselves of their official, de jure connection to the Church is the error of episcopal collegiality. The unwillingness of one conciliar "pope" after another, starting with Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, who did not intervene in the matter of Father Charles Curran's open dissent from Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968), no matter the legitimate problems with that document (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change), while serving on the theology faculty of The Catholic University of America in 1968, to require that Catholicism be taught in supposedly Catholic colleges and universities is the result of their own Modernism and, at least in part, to be seen to be in the least critical of any of their "bishops" or institutions. Even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's Ex Corde Ecclesia motu proprio, issued on August 15, 1990, which was meant to require theology professors to seek an episcopal mandate in order to teach in a Catholic university or college or seminary, was opposed vigorously by many "bishops," including Sean O'Malley's disgraced predecessor, Bernard "Cardinal" Law. Souls have thus been lost and/or grossly deformed by heretics and infidels, causing incalculable damage to the the right ordering of the world itself, which depends upon rightly ordered Catholics to provide it with the leaven of Our Lord's truth and the assertion of His Social Reign over men and nations.

Pope Pius XI wrote directly in Divini Illius Magistri about the dangers of leading students into temptation. His words have direct application to various plays and "queer film festivals," including those that have been held at the University of Notre Dame in the name of "diversity" and "openness":



It is no less necessary to direct and watch the education of the adolescent, "soft as wax to be moulded into vice,"[58] in whatever other environment he may happen to be, removing occasions of evil and providing occasions for good in his recreations and social intercourse; for "evil communications corrupt good manners."

More than ever nowadays an extended and careful vigilance is necessary, inasmuch as the dangers of moral and religious shipwreck are greater for inexperienced youth. Especially is this true of impious and immoral books, often diabolically circulated at low prices; of the cinema, which multiplies every kind of exhibition; and now also of the radio, which facilitates every kind of communications. These most powerful means of publicity, which can be of great utility for instruction and education when directed by sound principles, are only too often used as an incentive to evil passions and greed for gain. St. Augustine deplored the passion for the shows of the circus which possessed even some Christians of his time, and he dramatically narrates the infatuation for them, fortunately only temporary, of his disciple and friend Alipius. How often today must parents and educators bewail the corruption of youth brought about by the modern theater and the vile book!

Worthy of all praise and encouragement therefore are those educational associations which have for their object to point out to parents and educators, by means of suitable books and periodicals, the dangers to morals and religion that are often cunningly disguised in books and theatrical representations. In their spirit of zeal for the souls of the young, they endeavor at the same time to circulate good literature and to promote plays that are really instructive, going so far as to put up at the cost of great sacrifices, theaters and cinemas, in which virtue will have nothing to suffer and much to gain. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

It is clear that most formerly Catholic educational institutions today, the products of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the conciliar church, reject such sage advice as they promote the very things denounced by Pope Pius XI. It is also clear that most formerly Catholic educational institutions today reject the only purpose of Catholic education: to form souls faithfully according to the mind of the Divine Redeemer as He has discharged it solely in the Catholic Church. Once again, the words of Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri are apposite:



The proper and immediate end of Christian education is to cooperate with divine grace in forming the true and perfect Christian, that is, to form Christ Himself in those regenerated by Baptism, according to the emphatic expression of the Apostle: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you."[63] For the true Christian must live a supernatural life in Christ: "Christ who is your life,"and display it in all his actions: "That the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh."

For precisely this reason, Christian education takes in the whole aggregate of human life, physical and spiritual, intellectual and moral, individual, domestic and social, not with a view of reducing it in any way, but in order to elevate, regulate and perfect it, in accordance with the example and teaching of Christ.

Hence the true Christian, product of Christian education, is the supernatural man who thinks, judges and acts constantly and consistently in accordance with right reason illumined by the supernatural light of the example and teaching of Christ; in other words, to use the current term, the true and finished man of character. For, it is not every kind of consistency and firmness of conduct based on subjective principles that makes true character, but only constancy in following the eternal principles of justice, as is admitted even by the pagan poet when he praises as one and the same "the man who is just and firm of purpose." And on the other hand, there cannot be full justice except in giving to God what is due to God, as the true Christian does.

The scope and aim of Christian education as here described, appears to the worldly as an abstraction, or rather as something that cannot be attained without the suppression or dwarfing of the natural faculties, and without a renunciation of the activities of the present life, and hence inimical to social life and temporal prosperity, and contrary to all progress in letters, arts and sciences, and all the other elements of civilization. To a like objection raised by the ignorance and the prejudice of even cultured pagans of a former day, and repeated with greater frequency and insistence in modern times, Tertullian has replied as follows:

'We are not strangers to life. We are fully aware of the gratitude we owe to God, our Lord and Creator. We reject none of the fruits of His handiwork; we only abstain from their immoderate or unlawful use. We are living in the world with you; we do not shun your forum, your markets, your baths, your shops, your factories, your stables, your places of business and traffic. We take shop with you and we serve in your armies; we are farmers and merchants with you; we interchange skilled labor and display our works in public for your service. How we can seem unprofitable to you with whom we live and of whom we are, I know not.'

The true Christian does not renounce the activities of this life, he does not stunt his natural faculties; but he develops and perfects them, by coordinating them with the supernatural. He thus ennobles what is merely natural in life and secures for it new strength in the material and temporal order, no less then in the spiritual and eternal.

This fact is proved by the whole history of Christianity and its institutions, which is nothing else but the history of true civilization and progress up to the present day. It stands out conspicuously in the lives of the numerous Saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education, and who have in every way ennobled and benefited human society. Indeed, the Saints have ever been, are, and ever will be the greatest benefactors of society, and perfect models for every class and profession, for every state and condition of life, from the simple and uncultured peasant to the master of sciences and letters, from the humble artisan to the commander of armies, from the father of a family to the ruler of peoples and nations, from simple maidens and matrons of the domestic hearth to queens and empresses. What shall we say of the immense work which has been accomplished even for the temporal well-being of men by missionaries of the Gospel, who have brought and still bring to barbarous tribes the benefits of civilization together with the light of the Faith? What of the founders of so many social and charitable institutions, of the vast numbers of saintly educators, men and women, who have perpetuated and multiplied their life work, by leaving after them prolific institutions of Christian education, in aid of families and for the inestimable advantage of nations? (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

So much for "openness" to the world and to the "traditions" of mankind.

Indeed, Father Theodore Hesburgh was "open" to "different" theological perspectives that he hired none other than Hartford's Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard McBrien, who sported a  jacket-and-tie on campus a la Father Joseph Ratzinger at the "Second" Vatican Council, to destroy the Faith in the souls of Catholics who listened to here my master's alma mater.

That it was still possible with good academic advisement from the selected number of tenured professors at the University of Notre Dame for students to receive some semblance of Catholicism during Hesburgh's thirty-five years its president, especially in the twenty-two years between the close of the "Second" Vatican Council and his retirement, was the result solely of Our Lady's graces being showed upon the university that bears her holy name. The situation, though, is worse now than when Hesburgh left, and he bears complete responsibility for his and is unrepentant for anything he has done to bring this about.

Father Hesburgh Played Footsie With Anti-Life Forces For the Sake of Filthy Lucre and Human Respect

Starting with Father Hesburgh himself, the administrators University of Notre Dame du Lac have taken an aloof view of the life issues for a very long time. Why not? What has been their attitude towards the Sacred Deposit of Faith itself?

The university's administrators still take money every year from the rabidly pro-contraception, pro-abortion Ford Foundation, which has been funding various programs and projects at the university for over sixty years. This is blood money. And it is this blood money that talks on the campus of Our Lady, whose Immaculate Heart is indeed so sorrowful that a university named for her dishonors her as it honors pro-aborts and as it takes money from a foundation that seeks to overturn laws in the Catholic countries of Latin America that provide some legal protection to the innocent preborn.

The directors of the Ford Foundation are very proud of its support for baby-killing, as can be seen in this page from its website:

Increasing their understanding of their sexuality, and reducing their vulnerability to unsafe practices and treatments. The Cairo office has supported the dissemination of health information and the publication of an Arabic health guide for women, similar to the U.S. volume Our Bodies, Ourselves. The Brazil office has helped the SOS-Corpo Women's Health Group hold workshops on women's health and sexuality and to organize self-help groups among adolescents and women in poor neighborhoods of Recife. The group's educational methods—which include producing skits and modeling with clay—have been successful in engaging women, their partners, and children in discussions of health and human reproduction. Members of the group have increasingly been called upon to advise other community groups and government health programs on health services for poor women.

The Foundation has also devoted attention to the controversial problems of freedom of reproductive choice and access to safe and sanitary abortion services. Safe, accessible abortion services are essential to the health and economic security of women, especially low-income, disadvantaged women, many of whom are single mothers with dependent children. Although Foundation support for abortion-related activities dates back to 1973, when the Preterm Institute received a grant for disseminating standards for safe abortion services, special appropriation funds enabled the Foundation to expand the range of grantees and to try a variety of approaches. Grants have been made to encourage dialogue among those who occupy the large middle ground between polarized extremes, to strengthen the voice of groups such as Catholics for a Free Choice, and to produce a major study of the assumptions of opposing groups, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Kristin Luker. Fewer abortion-related grants emerged in the field offices, with the important exception of Bangladesh, which provided support to the Bangladesh Women's Health Coalition for educating and training providers of menstrual-regulation services. (Created Equal: A Report on Ford Foundation Women's Programs)


It was in 1973, the year that the pro-contraception and pro-"population control" Ford Foundation began its support for baby-killing in the United States of America and around the world, that its directors voted to fund a "civil rights" center at the University of Notre Dame. It did not matter to Father Hesburgh, then a former Chairman of the United States Civil Rights Commission, that the Ford Foundation had come out in support of baby-killing. He accepted the money and established with its blood money the "civil rights" center (on which I was asked by a constitutional law professor at the University of Notre Dame to serve; I attended one meeting, which centered around "reparations" for slavery, whereupon I resigned):

The Ford Foundation has awarded a $750,000 three-year grant to the Center for Civil and Human Rights (CCHR) at the University of Notre Dame to conduct academic, research and advocacy projects on the subject of accountability for gross human rights abuses worldwide.

Long recognized as a leader in this area of human rights, the CCHR will dedicate the Ford Foundation funding to analysis of issues such as truth and justice in transitions to democracy, universal jurisdiction, and international criminal justice, including support for an International Criminal Court.

More specifically, the grant will enhance Notre Dame's place as a primary research center on human rights accountability by increasing the University's collection of library materials on the topic, drawing invited practitioners with experience in the field to campus as visiting fellows, and placing attorneys and other professionals in internships with tribunals, truth commissions and appropriate nongovernmental organizations.

The center also will organize conferences, publish the results of scientific research, and attract to its master's and doctoral programs lawyers from around the world who demonstrate a strong commitment to a serious study of all aspects of accountability.

The grant to Notre Dame is one of the first awarded by the Ford Foundation in its "Enforcing Human Rights" initiative, which features a new International Center for Transitional Justice that will collaborate with the CCHR and other similar centers to provide advisory services to governments and civil society. One early example is a recent trip by Juan Mendez, director of the CCHR, and three other international experts to Peru, where there are plans for a truth commission.

It was a grant from the Ford Foundation that led to the creation of the Center for Civil and Human Rights at Notre Dame in 1973. The center initially focused on civil rights issues in the Untied States, but in recent years has expanded its work to the international human rights arena.

Over several decades, the Ford Foundation has been a major force supporting the field of human rights worldwide. An independent, nonprofit grant-making organization, it has headquarters in New York and offices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Russia. More information is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fordfound.org.(Ford Foundation grant supports study of human rights)


What about the human rights of the innocent preborn? Such rights are not recognized by the directors of the Ford Foundation who fund various projects and programs at the University of Notre Dame:

The Ford Foundation is another key supporter of anti-life extremism in Latin America.

To Mexico, the foundation sent:


      • $350,000 from 1999 to 2000 to Mujer Z Modem, a feminist pro-abortion group.
      • $100,000 in 2000 to Communication and Information for Women, a feminist news agency.
      • $300,000 in 2000 to CFFC "to build a pro-choice alliance in Mexico by expanding the Catholic constituency for reproductive rights."
      • $434,000 from 2000 to 2001 to CFFC for additional pro-abortion activities.

To Brazil:



      • $553,000 in 1999 and 2001 to the Executive Secretariat of the National Feminist Network for Health and Reproductive Rights.
      • $286,000 from 1999 to 2000 to CFFC's Brazil branch.

To Chile:



      • $225,000 in 2001 to the Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network.
      • $145,000 in 2001 to Isis International, Chile's leading feminist pro-abortion group.

To Peru:



      • $383,000 for 1999 and 2001 to the Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristán (Flora Tristan Center for Peruvian Women), Peru's main feminist pro-abortion organization.

In addition, the Ford Foundation channeled $772,000 from 1999 to 2001 to the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women's Rights (CLADEM), a feminist pro-abortion organization with branches in every Latin American country.

To enable someone to have an abortion is a serious enough crime. But to use force and fraud to compel an entire hemisphere to kill its unborn children is nothing short of genocide. When such money could be used to do good for so many people, it is simply a tragedy that American foundations are bent on using our country's great wealth to subsidize the slaughter of Latin America's youth.  (American Foundations: Funding Pro-Abortion Extremists in Latin America)


What has this mattered to the presidents of the University of Notre Dame du Lac and their associates at the University of Notre Dame du Lac who take blood money from the Ford Foundation every year?

What has it mattered to Father Hesburgh in retirement or his successors and their associates at the University of Notre Dame du Lac that the Ford Foundation funds the oxymoronic "Catholics for a Free Choice" organization that supports the destruction of the innocent preborn under cover of law?

In promoting its political agenda, one of the world’s largest philanthropic agencies has made itself the biggest single financial contributor to a self-described Roman Catholic group dedicated to vigorously fighting the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and birth control.

For more than 20 years, the Ford Foundation and Catholics For A Free Choice (CFFC) have forged a strong political and financial alliance that sacrifices the lives of the unborn to a discredited view of international economic development.[1]

Founded in 1973, CFFC has been led since 1982 by Frances Kissling, a feminist who has actively promoted abortion for more than three decades. Before joining CFFC’s board in 1979, Kissling opened an abortion clinic in New York in 1970, and in 1976, founded the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion clinics.

Kissling, who grew up in a working-class Roman Catholic family and left her convent at the age of 20, revealed her feelings about the church to Mother Jones Magazine in 1989: “I spent 20 years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic Church.”[2]

CFFC’s uncompromising support for abortion directly opposes the ancient position of the Catholic Church -- and all of Christendom. The Roman Catholic Church’s catechism states that the embryo “must be treated from conception as a person…must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.”[3]

Catholic opposition to abortion is uncompromising. “The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life,” the catechism states.[4]

Nevertheless, Kissling advances her agenda with Ford’s support. One campaign involves promoting abortion and contraception in Latin America. (CFFC has offices in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico.) Another campaign seeks to downgrade the Vatican’s status at the United Nations from that of a permanent observer to that of a non-governmental organization, which cannot vote or block United Nations decisions.[5]

CFFC even hopes to force Roman Catholic hospitals to offer abortion and contraception; Ford helped fund a briefing paper detailing how mergers with Roman Catholic hospitals could threaten the availability of such services.[6]

Ford supports CFFC more than any other group does. The foundation provided more than $2 million of the $8 million in grants CFFC received between 1980 and 1994, including a two-year grant for $775,000 in 1994. Since that time, the proportion of Ford’s support for CFFC dramatically increased. Between 1996 and 2000, CFFC raised $10 million, with $4.4 million coming from Ford grants.[7]

Funding from such agencies as Ford keeps CFFC alive, as the group’s income records for 1993 demonstrate. That year, CFFC declared $1,530,636 in total income. Of that total, $1,501,412 came from various foundation grants. Only $29,224 came from other sources, and $17,876 was interest from cash accounts and savings.

Grant funding becomes pivotal for CFFC in light of decreasing revenue from subscriptions to the group’s magazine, Conscience. Subscription income fell from $3,427 in 1989 to $1,542 in 1993.

Ford supports a wide variety of CFFC projects. In 1982, the foundation gave CFFC $19,560 to study what the Foundation Grant Index (FGI) called, “effects of religious upbringing and religious attitudes on (the) decision to have (an) abortion.”

Two years later, a Ford grant of $25,000 created a “fellowship program in journalism and moral theology dealing with…contraception and abortion.”


In 1991, Ford issued a $300,000 grant good for two-and-a-half years. As part of that grant, $150,000 went for “family planning and reproductive health programs in developing countries,” and $50,000 went for “education on reproductive health and rights in Latin America,” as reported by the FGI.


Ford’s concern with “reproductive health” extends far beyond CFFC. In 1993, Ford approved $22 million in grants to various organizations promoting population control, especially in poor countries.

But here are the critical questions: Among the endeavors it could support, why does Ford direct such resources toward “family planning” (that is, abortion) and what role does CFFC play in Ford’s efforts?


A bit of history will help. The roots of Ford’s interest extend to the first decade following World War II. Secular organizations began worrying about the possibility that unchecked population growth in poor countries would stifle economic development and increase competition for natural resources, thereby accelerating international tensions. (Others -- including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger -- were outspoken racist eugenicists.)

That concern revived interest in the theories of the 18th century English economist, Thomas Malthus. Malthus believed that since population tends to increase faster than the food supply, nations must control their birth rates to avoid worldwide disaster.[8]


Malthus viewed famine and war not only as inevitable consequences of overpopulation, but even as necessary means to limit growth if nations refused to do so. In Malthus’ economy, such tragedies reduce the number of poor people, who tend to have more children than they can afford, thus making overall conditions worse.[9]

Agricultural improvements in the 19th century refuted Malthus’ assertions. Nevertheless, various postwar books and articles began addressing such issues as environmental protection and international peace in Malthusian terms. A bestseller from 1948, Road to Survival, even cast Japanese imperialism as the result of a costly pursuit of resources stemming from Japan’s refusal to control its birth rate.


The author, William Vogt, argued that growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union would be reduced, and war avoided, if both nations pursued aggressive birth control policies: “If the United States had spent $2 billion developing…a contraceptive instead of the atomic bomb, it would have contributed far more to our national security.”


In 1952, Ford helped found the Population Council, designed to create an international network to promote population control. Ford made its first grant of $600,000 to the council in 1954 and followed with grants of $1 million in 1957 and $1.4 million in 1959.

But standing in the way of this Malthusian approach to world progress and harmony is the Catholic Church. John M. Swomley, professor emeritus of social ethics at the St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri, expresses the prevailing attitude toward Malthus and Catholicism in a 1997 article for Christian Ethics Today. That article criticized the Reagan administration’s decision to remove financial support for international “family planning” programs, including the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, after consultations with the Vatican. Swomley wrote:

The consequences are enormous. The editor of the National Catholic Reporter, in an editorial in the June 19, 1992, issue, said, “I feel the church is causing great harm to the planet, making millions suffer unnecessarily...Among today’s 5.2 billion, as many as one-fifth, mostly children, are undernourished. About 1 million die from hunger or hunger-related causes yearly.”

Moreover, those hunger-related problems have led to massive economic migrations which, in turn, have led to population wars such as those in Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, and in India where “nine or ten million refugees from East Pakistan were driven out.”


CFFC, therefore, provides a useful counterweight to the Vatican’s position in public debate. Joseph O’Rourke, a former Jesuit and president of CFFC, told the conservative National Catholic Register in 1984, “CFFC really was just kept alive for years because the mainline pro-choice movement wanted a Catholic vote.”

But does CFFC embrace a neo-Malthusian perspective? Barbara Crossette, writing for Conscience, provides the answer in an article that otherwise criticizes the arbitrary brutality of Chinese population control:

(I)n human terms…enough diverging numbers…can be linked to the social benefits of China's sharply reduced population growth and India's slower progress. Infant mortality in China, according to United Nations figures, is 36.5 deaths in every 1,000 births. In India, there are 64.7 deaths per 1,000 births. Life expectancy in China now stands at 71 years; in India it is 64.

Large numbers in a poor country put great strain on a family's resources as well as a nation's. In India, nearly a quarter of the population is undernourished, with nearly half the children under five already underweight and undersized. In China, United Nations figures show a national malnutrition rate of nine percent, with about 10 percent of children underweight and 17 percent undersized.[10]

Support for neo-Malthusian ideology gives the lie to CFFC’s advocacy of “free choice.” After all, if choice were the ultimate criterion, the way a woman exercises that choice, through abortion, adoption or child-rearing, would be secondary. Not so, wrote Marjorie Reilly Maguire, one of CFFC’s founders, to the liberal National Catholic Reporter in 1995:

Various personal experiences with CFFC have led me to believe that its agenda is no longer simply to defend the legality of a woman’s abortion choice…I now see CFFC’s agenda as the promotion of abortion, the defense of every abortion decision as a good, moral choice and the related agenda persuading society to cast off any moral constraints about sexual behavior. I don’t think this is a Catholic or pro-woman agenda….

It seems that the only acceptable “choice” for CFFC and its backers is one that reinforces a particular theory of population control – a discredited theory that some of the world’s wealthiest foundations still hold to be in vogue in an era of zero population growth – at the expense of the unborn. That they do so in the name of the Roman Catholic Church is sacrilegious. Yet the Ford Foundation continues to pour the funds into CFFC, because CFFC renders Ford an invaluable service: a war by proxy with the Pope and his church. (FrontPage Magazine)


The authors of this important piece of research obviously accepted the "legitimacy" of the conciliar "pontiffs." However, it is these conciliar "pontiffs" who have done nothing but flap their jawbones occasionally to talk about the Catholic "character" of universities and colleges which receive funding from organizations such as the Ford Foundation whose directors promote baby-killing with an evangelical zeal. No conciliar "interdict" has been placed on these universities and colleges, which make warfare against the Faith as their administrators and professors frequently go beyond the approved apostasies and novelties of conciliarism to plant the seeds of doubt and unbelief in the souls of the students who believe, despite all of the empirical evidence that has been amassed in the past forty years, that these institutions represent the Catholic Church, which, of course, they do not.


Readers will note that the Ford Foundation was instrumental in establishing the Population Council in 1952. This did not deter administrators of the University of Notre Dame, which was under Father Hesburgh's nefarious leadership, at the time from accepting grant monies from the Ford Foundation:

Notre Dame University received a grant of $57,500 for faculty research in East European affairs and the advanced research training of a number of graduate students.

The grant, extending over five years, will help in the acquisition of special research materials, provide a small number of research assistantships, and permit additions to the present teaching program. (Ford Foundation Annual Report 1954 | Archives | Ford Foundation; see also Ford Foundation Annual Report 1956 and Ford Foundation Annual Report 1963 for proof of the University of Notre Dame's blithe association with a foundation that was funding the evil of "population control" that paved the way for the acceptance of the slaughter of the innocent preborn. This association continues to this day despite the facts one can find by clicking this link: Foundation Giving to Contraception and Abortion.)


A protege of the Ford Foundation was appointed by United Masonic Nations Organization Ban Ki-moon to become that body's "high commissioner for human rights:"

NEW YORK - United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to name abortion advocate Navanethem "Navi" Pillay of South Africa as the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) this week, despite reservations from the United States.

According to the New York Times, the United States has privately raised concerns about Pillay's nomination to the top human rights post because of her strong support for abortion. Pillay is a founding member of the international non-governmental organization Equality Now, a group that has spearheaded campaigns for abortion access in Poland and Nepal. Pillay remains on the board of the organization which receives major funding from pro-abortion foundations, including George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation.(UN Secretary General Nominates Abortion Advocate)


Yes, Father Theodore Hesburgh and those who have succeeded him as administrators of the University of Notre Dame, a place where God is offended daily in the "offerings" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and where the Faith is assaulted in one classroom after another, recognizing that there are exceptions here and there to this assault, have a long and bloody track-record of associating with pro-aborts. It made perfect sense for Hesburgh's second immediate successor, "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. to have invited the fully and unapologetically pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to address the graduating classes of 2009. After all, the University of Notre Dame under Hesburgh gave then President James Earl Carter, Jr., a forum to give his "we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism" commencement address on May 22, 1977. Why not give a forum to a Communist pro-abort on May 17, 2009?

"Father Ted" and the Pols: Americanism At Work

Indeed, Hesburgh, who was nearly ninety-two years of age when Obama/Soetoro spoke at the university he, Hesburgh, headed for thirty-five sordid years of spiritual destruction, applauded "Father" Jenkins's decision to invite the currently reigning caesar to the University of Notre Dame du Lac:


SOUTH BEND — The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, who served as the University of Notre Dame's president for 35 years, says in an interview that he believes the school was right in inviting President Barack Obama to speak at this weekend's commencement.

The 91-year-old Hesburgh said in an interview Thursday with WNDU-TV that universities are supposed to be places where people of differing opinions can talk.

"It's like a common place where people who disagree can get together, instead of throwing bricks at one another, they can discuss the problem and they can see different solutions to difficult problems and those solutions are going to come out of people from universities. They aren't going to come from people running around with signs," he said.

The school's decision to award an honorary degree to Obama has sparked criticism, including from at least 70 bishops, because of the president's support of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.

Notre Dame had Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan as commencement speakers while Hesburgh was president of the school from 1952 to 1987. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush also spoke at Notre Dame commencements.

"None of them have agreed with us on all issues, but I think just coming here and seeing another point of view and mingling with people who look upon something like abortion as an abhorrent thing — that will have an effect on them," Hesburgh said. "We're not a place that hides out in the corner and says we believe this and that's that and we're not going to talk to anybody that doesn't agree with us. We say, 'Hey, we know we disagree on things. Let's get together and talk.'" (Ex-ND president Hesburgh approves of Obama's visit.)

A "common place where people who disagree can get together," Father Hesburgh.

I have some news for you: There is No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error.

The taking of innocent human life is just "one issue" with which all people do not have to agree?

What is there to "talk about" concerning the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment?

How has all of the talking worked with pro-aborts, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, in public life?

"People running around carrying signs"? Father Hesburgh?

What about the people who ran around with signs during the the civil rights movement of the 1960s you supported?

What about the brave eighty-eight souls who were arrested for daring to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary when Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in the days leading up to the time that he spoke at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, May 17, 2009?

What about the two years of legal persecution to which "Father" John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., subjected these good souls?

For Father Hesburgh, of course, this is all a matter of "discussion" and "civility, which is why he was feted on Capitol Hill recently by both pro-abortion politicians, such as the aforementioned Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and House Minority Leader Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, and "pro-life" politicians, most of whom support the slaughter of the innocent preborn in one or more "hard" cases" (just like Enda Kenny, of course), on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, Ember Wednesday in the Octave of Pentecost, just a short time after he had met again with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro at the White House:


Testimonials rained down upon Holy Cross Father Theodore Hesburgh, the retired president of the University of Notre Dame, during a bipartisan congressional tribute in the U.S. Capitol as the priest neared his 96th birthday and the 70th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood.

The May 22 reception, three days before the priest's birthday, included Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., both of Indiana's senators, and former U.S. Ambassador to India Tim Roemer, a Notre Dame alumnus. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who issued invitations to the reception, could not attend because of various appointments, according to Pelosi.

About one-fourth of those at the reception applauded when Pelosi asked who had graduated from Notre Dame, although by the sentiments expressed later on, everyone felt a kinship with the Fighting Irish.

"In 1972 I ran for public office as a 29-year-old kid because of your passion for civil rights," Biden told Father Hesburgh, who uses a walker to aid his movement. "You're one of the reasons I've been so proud to be a Catholic."

Father Hesburgh, early in his 35-year tenure as president of Notre Dame, was appointed to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1957 by President Dwight Eisenhower, becoming its chairman in 1969 until he was dismissed by President Richard Nixon in 1972 because the priest had voiced opposition to Nixon's policies.

Next to the podium was a photograph on loan from the National Portrait Gallery showing Father Hesburgh and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. from a 1964 rally in Illinois, arms crossed in front and hands linked as they were singing the civil rights anthem "We shall Overcome."

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, prefacing his opening prayer at the reception, called Father Hesburgh one of "four great Americans." The cardinal, who is the retired archbishop of Washington, named three presidents whose likenesses are chiseled on Mount Rushmore: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. But the fourth American he cited -- a "Teddy" -- was not Roosevelt but Father Hesburgh.

Each president brought a quality to his service to an emerging nation, and Father Hesburgh built upon each of those qualities in his priestly ministry, according to Cardinal McCarrick.

Just as Washington began to build a nation, Father Hesburgh showed "an understanding of what a country should be," Cardinal McCarrick said. Just as Lincoln showed his concern for the poor, Father Hesburgh showed how the poor "should be a concern for all of us," he added. And as Jefferson knew what freedom of religion was, Father Hesburgh, the cardinal noted, "has tackled the whole question of human relations."

Roemer, a former congressman and former ambassador whose parents worked at Notre Dame and who got his graduate and doctoral degrees there, said he conferred with Father Hesburgh when Roemer was approached about taking the ambassadorial post.

He said Father Hesburgh told him, "Tim, reach out to all faiths, and not just the Christians and the Catholics, but also the Muslims and the Hindus, the Buddhists and the Jains, the Sikhs."

"This room is filled with people who love you, who respect what you've done," Roemer said.

Father Hesburgh also had a private meeting with President Barack Obama prior to the congressional reception.

In his own remarks at the gathering, Father Hesburgh played down the adulation given him by the roster of speakers, which also included Indiana's Senate delegation, Dan Coats, a Republican, and Joe Donnelly, a Democrat. Father Hesburgh uttered a phrase in Italian, giving the translation as, "By golly, it may not all be true, but it sure sounds good."

"You made me sound good and I'm not all worthy of it," he added. "No guy can be worthy of all of it.

Father Hesburgh said he asks for the Holy Spirit's help each morning when he wakes. "If you're Notre Dame people, you're always out there trying to make this a better world."

Father Hesburgh was ordained to the priesthood June 24, 1943. (Bipartisan tribute on Hill celebrates Father Hesburgh's life, ministry.)

Father Theodore Hesburgh certainly has a legacy. Unfortunately for him, however, it is as a vast whirlwind of spiritual destruction who helped to make possible outrages such as the one that took place at Boston College on Monday, May 20, 2013.

The quotations highlighted above certainly demonstrate Father Theodore Hesburgh's firm commitment to his faith. That faith, though, is in the false religion of man called conciliarism, not Catholicism. Pray for his conversion back to the true Faith before he dies as he is personally responsible for the loss of many souls and for the harm that they have done to themselves, their children and the world as a result.

Obviously, formerly Catholic institutions of higher education are in the control of the conciliar revolutionaries.

They will be restored one day when a true pope actually consecrates Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, thereby restoring the Mass of all ages as normative in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church and restoring right doctrine in all of the Church's educational institutions and parishes.

Until that time, however, we must continue to denounce the errors of the present day and seek to protect ourselves and our children from those errors as we have nothing to do with the conciliar officials.

We must continue our to present the truths of the Faith with clarity and in charity and to call errors by their proper names until that time, at which point our work will be as commonplace in the Age of Mary Immaculate as it was in the time before Modernism began to eclipse the Faith and started to lead souls into temptation and despair.

Do not worry about any of the difficulties besetting us from the lords of Modernity and the lords of Modernism. The Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end.

May we simply pledge ourselves to Christ the King through Mary our Immaculate Queen, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, knowing that we must belong to Our Lady in this life if we desire to enjoy the glories of Heaven with her and all of the angels and saints, including our Good Saint Joseph.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Gregory VII, pray for us.

Pope Saint Urban I, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

The Consistent Teaching of the Catholic Church Condemning Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State

(With explanatory text extracted from an earlier article)



"The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

"But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

"After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

"Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

"Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").




For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. 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.)

Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

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 in The Syllabus of Errors, 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.)

There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life  (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, June 20, 1888.)

From this it may clearly be seen what consequences are to be expected from that false pride which, rejecting our Saviour's Kingship, places man at the summit of all things and declares that human nature must rule supreme. And yet, this supreme rule can neither be attained nor even defined. The rule of Jesus Christ derives its form and its power from Divine Love: a holy and orderly charity is both its foundation and its crown. Its necessary consequences are the strict fulfilment of duty, respect of mutual rights, the estimation of the things of heaven above those of earth, the preference of the love of God to all things. But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor selfdevotion. Man may indeed be king, through Jesus Christ: but only on condition that he first of all obey God, and diligently seek his rule of life in God's law. By the law of Christ we mean not only the natural precepts of morality and the Ancient Law, all of which Jesus Christ has perfected and crowned by His declaration, explanation and sanction; but also the rest of His doctrine and His own peculiar institutions. Of these the chief is His Church. Indeed whatsoever things Christ has instituted are most fully contained in His Church. Moreover, He willed to perpetuate the office assigned to Him by His Father by means of the ministry of the Church so gloriously founded by Himself. On the one hand He confided to her all the means of men's salvation, on the other He most solemnly commanded men to be subject to her and to obey her diligently, and to follow her even as Himself: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" (Luke x, 16). Wherefore the law of Christ must be sought in the Church. Christ is man's "Way"; the Church also is his "Way"-Christ of Himself and by His very nature, the Church by His commission and the communication of His power. Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.

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.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men.  It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the states and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption.  It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, it makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes  It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty.  Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

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. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church [according to the Modernists] does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. 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.)

Let the Princes and Rulers of peoples remember this truth, and let them consider whether it is a prudent and safe idea for governments or for states to separate themselves from the holy religion of Jesus Christ, from which their authority receives such strength and support. Let them consider again and again, whether it is a measure of political wisdom to seek to divorce the teaching of the Gospel and of the Church from the ruling of a country and from the public education of the young. Sad experience proves that human authority fails where religion is set aside. The fate of our first parent after the Fall is wont to come also upon nations. As in his case, no sooner had his will turned from God than his unchained passions rejected the sway of the will; so, too, when the rulers of nations despise divine authority, in their turn the people are wont to despise their human authority. There remains, of course, the expedient of using force to repress popular risings; but what is the result? Force can repress the body, but it cannot repress the souls of men. (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers. On the other hand, any reformatory zeal, which instead of springing from personal purity, flashes out of passion, has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy. No doubt "the Spirit breatheth where he will" (John iii. 8): "of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs" (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world.

In your country [Germany under the Third Reich], Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: "Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10). And turning to the Church, he shall say: "Thou, my mother since my infancy, the solace of my life and advocate at my death, may my tongue cleave to my palate if, yielding to worldly promises or threats, I betray the vows of my baptism." As to those who imagine that they can reconcile exterior infidelity to one and the same Church, let them hear Our Lord's warning: -- "He that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God" (Luke xii. 9).(Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

This is, of course, just a partial listing of the constant teaching (God cannot contradict Himself, ladies and gentlemen; the Catholic Church can never be spotted by any taint of error or contradiction) of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of the civil state recognizing her as the true religion and of the Social Reign of Christ the King that such a recognition makes possible. Sure, as has been noted on this site most repeatedly, Holy Mother Church must make concessions to the actual realities of a given situation where she is favored with the protection of the law, doing so without ever conceding the nonexistent validity of the separation of Church and State and without ever once relenting in teaching her children what the correct doctrine is and exhorting them to plant the seeds for the restoration of the Catholic City. Pope Leo XIII made this point clear in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895:

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.)


A system of civil governance that fosters conditions that are inimical to man's last end is bound to degenerate over the course of time into a such a state of lawlessness that a "state religion" will be imposed by the brute force of the the civil state, namely, that of statism itself, the worship of the state and of its leaders as omniscient and omnipotent. The antidote to this is not found in any naturalistic philosophy, such as libertarianism or conservatism, but in Catholicism alone. There is no way--as in no way--to retard the evils caused by the separation of Church and State wrought by Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry and their actual, concrete expressions in the American and French Revolutions except by planting the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.

The conciliar "popes" have believed in none of this. Their "way" represents that of "progress." Past "popes" were imprisoned by the limits of the "paradigms" in which they found themselves, unable to "escape" from a mentality of living in what he, Ratzinger/Benedict, has called "the Catholic ghetto." Let me repeat so as to make myself understood very clearly: the conciliar "popes" have been and continue to be in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis enemies of the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus of the good of the very civil states he believes have been "helped" by the separation of Church and State as social order is dependent upon the the state of the souls of individual human beings, who must strive at all times to cooperate with Sanctifying Grace to live in accord with the binding precepts found in Deposit of Faith.

Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, exhorted us to be soldiers in army of Christ the King:

Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?" If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."

When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. "You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men." If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.

If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth -- he who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: "My yoke is sweet and my burden light." Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! "Then at length," to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, "then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father". . . .

If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.


We should consider our privilege to run the risk of whatever calumnies may come our way for being steadfast in behalf of the cause of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, offering to the Most Sacred Heart of Our King all of our sufferings and humiliations for reminding everyone, including the apostates in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believe are the latter-day apostles of the heresy of Americanism, that He must rule over men and nations, making this offering to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother. (See also Open Letter to Pretended Catholic Scholars, Scholarship in Conciliarism's Land of Oz and, of course, Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contribute to the Rise of Conciliarism.)


© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.