Witnesses for the State

What is now called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has a long history of cooperating with and caving to one anti-Catholic bigot in the Federal government of the United States of America after another, starting with the way that James “Cardinal” Gibbons fawned all over President Thomas Woodrow Wilson as the latter involved this country in the immoral and needless conflict taking place on the battlefields of once proudly Catholic countries in Europe to make the “world safe for democracy” by breaking up the last vestige of the Holy Roman Empire and installing secular, anti-Catholic regimes in Eastern and Central Europe that paved the way, proximately speaking, for the rise of Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich.

The American bishops even formed the National Catholic War Council (NCWC) in 1917 to support the war effort and to convince the suspicious anti-Catholic Wilson that American Catholics could be trusted to support the war despite its being waged against some of the lands from which they and/or their ancestors had emigrated. The ad hoc NCWC was renamed the National Catholic Welfare Council in 1919, a name it retained until 1966 when Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI began to implement the “Second” Vatican Council’s call for permanently established national bishops’ conferences along the pioneering model of the NCWC, which became known until 2001 as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the conference’s public policy arm, the United States Catholic Conference (USCC), which was an instrument of leftism, perversity, “social and economic justice, “pacifism,” feminism, environmentalism and pantheism from which emanated all manner of measures designed to “lead” Catholics into what has become Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s brave new world of sin and apostasy in the Twenty-first Century and that served as ready avenue of support for pro-abort Catholics in public life after the Supreme Court of the United States of America had decriminalized the surgical execution of children from the moment of conception up to and including the day of birth in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. The NCCB and USSC became the United States Conference of Catholic “Bishops” in 2001. From its very outset, therefore, what is now the USCCB supported the policies of a rabidly anti-Catholic president who, though not a Freemason himself, was completely imbued with the ethos of Masonry and was indifferent to the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico while pursuing a war against all traces of the Holy Faith in Europe.

This should be kept when understanding the quisling mindset of men such as Timothy Michael Dolan, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of New York since April 15, 2009, and is now just two years away from Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI’s mandatory retirement age of seventy-five. Dolan has always sought to “understand” and to “dialogue” with the likes of Andrew Mark Cuomo and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., whom he once praised as being very “helpful” on some “key issues” during an appearance on Face the Nation in 2012, while being open to accept the nonexistent “credibility” of smears against believing Catholics that emanate from his false sect’s “elder brethren.”

To wit, this is the mealy-mouthed statement Dolan issued following the whistleblower report that the Richmond, Virginia, field office of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation had lifted the Christophobic Southern Poverty Law Center’s inclusion of so-called “radical traditional Catholics” in an internal memorandum about potential sources of domestic terror:

WASHINGTON - In response to reports of a leaked internal memorandum from the Richmond office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding extremist activity among what the memo termed “radical traditionalist Catholics,” Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, issued the following statement:

“Let me first be clear: anyone who espouses racism or promotes violence is rejecting Catholic teaching on the inherent dignity of each and every person. The USCCB roundly condemns such extremism and fully supports the work of law enforcement officials to keep our communities safe.

“I agree with my brother Bishop Barry Knestout that the leaked memorandum was nonetheless ‘troubling and offensive’ in several respects – such as in its religious profiling and reliance on dubious sourcing – and am glad it has been rescinded. We encourage federal law enforcement authorities to take appropriate measures to ensure the problematic aspects of the memo do not recur in any of their agencies’ work going forward.” (U.S. Bishops’ Religious Liberty Chairman Comments on Leaked FBI Memorandum.)

As I noted in Believing Catholics Pose No Threat to a Just Social Order, many of the conciliar “bishops” will be among the cheerleaders when the civil authorities begin to round up the “thought criminals” who happen to believe in the integrity of the Catholic Faith without making any concessions to the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes.”

There are a few observations that I desire to make on this statement.

First, Timothy Michael Dolan’s statement on behalf of the “religious liberty committee” of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an effort to distance from having anything to do with “radical traditional Catholics. It is almost as though Dolan, the man who once said “we want to be with you” to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in the latter’s quest for the socialist, death-dealing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “we are not with these ‘radical traditional Catholics.’ We have nothing to do with them. Don’t confuse us with them.” The statement is thus an effort to give credibility to what are, in truth, nonexistent threats as it commends law enforcement authorities for keeping “our communities safe.”

Safe from what?

From authentic Catholicism?

Is the immutable Catholic Faith that was handed down by Apostles themselves and defended by their own blood and the blood of countless millions of martyrs over the centuries an inherent threat to the “safety” of “our communities.”

Is the refutation of the errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism within the counterfeit church of conciliarism a work of hatred for those who hold to promote these errors anew?

Are the decrees and canons of Holy Mother Church’s twenty authentic general councils to be held inherently “dangerous” to the common temporal good?

Define “extremism,” Timothy Michael Dolan. Just don’t use the term gratuitously. Define the phrase precisely.

Is it an act of “extremism” to point out that Catholicism is the one and only true religion?

Is it an act of “extremism,” Timothy Michael Dolan, that your own admiration of the work of B’Nai Brith’s Anti-Defamation League in 2009 ignored that organization’s efforts to promote, protect, and codify the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and to establish sodomy and its ever-evolving panoply of perversities as found just in the public record at the time you uttered such praise?

“Anti-Defamation League,” which was started by B’Nai B’rith in 1913 and still files Internal Revenue Service Form 990 nonprofit organization tax reports under the title of Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’rith, has been in the vanguard of supporting contraception, abortion, sodomy and all other manner of perversity while vehemently opposing all displays of Christianity in public places, including the concentration camps known as “public schools.” Legal representatives of the Anti-Defamation League have filed one amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief after another to protected “established” practices that are in defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law while also seeking to provide legal “protection” to those who practice the sin of Sodom and its related vices.

Here is just a summary of some of those amicus curiae briefs:

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al. (2005) This Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of The New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act. The Act prohibits abortions for minors unless the parents have been notified, but provides exceptions for abortions necessary to prevent death and for minors who have obtained a judicial declaration that they are mature enough to make a decision concerning abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the Act was unconstitutional because it does not include a health exception and the death exception is too narrow. ADL, together with 41 other religious and religiously affiliated organizations, joined a brief authored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The brief argued, among other things, that in emergency situations, the Act unconstitutionally threatens the health and lives of young women, and undermines their right to choose an abortion in accordance with religious faiths that place great value on women’s health and lives. The variety of religious beliefs about abortion underscores the importance of maintaining a private sphere– free from undue government interference – in which women, including minors, can make choices to protect their own lives and health in accordance with their faiths. Although parental guidance in young women’s major life decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, is important, state-mandated parental involvement can sometimes harm the minor, such as where the family is dysfunctional or where an emergency situation requires immediate action.

Amici are religious organizations and religiously affiliated organizations dedicated to preserving religious freedom for all persons and to protecting a woman’s health and right to carry or terminate her pregnancy in accordance with her religion and values.1 The statements of interest provided by amici, included in Appendix B to this brief, demonstrate their shared interest (from different perspectives) in the right of women of all ages to make reproductive choices in accordance with their individual conscience and free from governmental interference. A full listing of the forty-two (42) organizations signing this brief as amici curiae appears in Appendix A.

Because amici value life and health, and recognize the many divergent theological perspectives regarding abortion, amici agree that all women whose health is at risk should be free to seek the best available medical advice, without governmental coercion or constraint, in making the difficult decision whether to terminate a pregnancy. Adherence to these principles compels amici to support Respondents in this case.

Because amici, cherish human life and health as among their most important values. Many of these religions hold that it is morally appropriate for women of all ages to consider – in accordance with their faiths – the threat to their lives or health in deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy. The New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 132:24-132:28 (Supp. 2004) (the “New Hampshire Act” or the “Act”), lacks a health exception and an adequate life exception, as required by this Court’s precedents. In emergency medical situations, the Act unconstitutionally threatens the health and lives of young women, and undermines their right to choose an abortion in accordance with religious faiths that place great value on women’s health and lives.

The religious component of the rights of privacy and of reproductive choice have been repeatedly recognized in this Court’s opinions, including in cases as early as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), and as recent as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Many Americans reflect upon their religious beliefs and moral principles when making important private decisions about family, marriage, and procreation. The variety of religious teachings and beliefs about abortion underscores the importance of maintaining a private sphere – free from undue government interference – in which women can make choices to protect their own lives and health in accordance with their faiths and their consciences. This private sphere extends to minor women who are faced with pregnancies that threaten their lives and health. Although amici support and encourage parental guidance in young women’s major life decisions, including whether to end a pregnancy, they recognize that state-mandated parental involvement can sometimes harm the minor, such as where the family is dysfunctional or where an emergency medical situation requires immediate action. The Constitution protects minors from such threats to their lives, health, and religious beliefs. (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.)

Yesterday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urged the Florida Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee to reject a divisive and unconstitutional school prayer bill – SB1360 - at its March 26th hearing. If enacted, SB1360 would permit Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other sectarian prayers at public school assemblies, sports events, dances and other school-related activities.

In a letter to the Florida Senate Education Pre-K-12 Committee, ADL advised that, In our religiously diverse state, such a policy is patently unfair, divisive, and unconstitutional, and it would cost local school districts and taxpayers needless litigation expenses. The First Amendment and federal Equal Access Act provide public high school students with the right to privately pray alone or in groups during non-curricular time and to form non-curricular religious clubs. The clear effect of this policy would be to impose the majority's religious beliefs, which depending on the individual school could be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim, upon all students at school-sponsored high school activities.

Practically speaking, most school-related activities are "noncompulsory" in name only. Students such as sports team members make commitments that require their attendance at games. And other students feel intense peer pressure to attend school-related activities. Regardless of peer pressure, students should not have to choose between attending a school-related activity and being subjected to unwanted religious activity … .

In these difficult times, we urge the Committee on Education Pre-K-12 to focus on matters that unite Floridians and that do not risk unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds. We therefore urge you to vote against SB1360.

In its most recent school prayer case – Santa Fe Independent School v. Doe - the U.S. Supreme Court found that a school policy virtually identical to the policy provided for in SB1360 unconstitutionally endorsed and coerced religion.

David Barkey, ADL Southern Area Counsel, is in Tallahassee today and is available for interviews. (ADL: ADL Warns School Prayer Bill in Florida is Unconstitutional)

This the work of the Anti-Defamation League.

Is it “extremist” to point this out?

By the way, Timothy Michael Dolan, those associated with the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center believe that opposition to the chemical and/or surgical assassination of the innocent preborn is both “extreme” and “violent.”

Is it “extremist” to point out, Timothy Michael Dolan, that your own repeated praise of Talmudic Judaism, which is premised on a book, the Talmud, that blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and your own repeated refusal to exhort Jews to convert to the true Faith is a betrayal of the mission that Our Lord gave to the Apostles on Ascension Thursday and a direct contradiction of His own conversion of Saul the Apostle and, to name just one other example, of Our Lady to convert the Catholic-hating Alphonse Ratisbonne at the Church of San Andrea del’Fratte on January 20, 1842?

Is it “extremist” to point out the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity cannot contradict Himself, meaning that the Council of Florence’s Cantate Domino, February 11, 1442, and Pope Pius XII’s reiteration of the fact that the Mosaic Covenant was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday is incompatible with Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965, Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II’s November 18, 1980, address in Mainz, Germany, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s statement in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, that the Old Covenant was never revoked?

For the record, Timothy Michael Dolan, the decree Cantate Domino, which was composed under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost at the Council of Florence, and Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, put the lie to the heresy you spoke at the Lincoln Square Synagogue on Sunday, June 24, 2013:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Timothy Michael Dolan, February 24, 2013:

Shabbat Shalom!

Thank you so much for your generous invitation and warm welcome. What an honor and a joy to be with you here at the historic and renowned Lincoln Square Synagogue.

Long have I been aware of the prominence of this community, as, during my graduate studies at the Catholic University of America, our course in American Religious History featured attention to Modern Orthodox Judaism, its flagship synagogue here, and the foundational efforts of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin.

Now what a privilege it is to be a part of the celebration of welcome as we thank God for this splendid new sanctuary! As your psalms pray, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who toil!” So, praise God:

I’d say “Alleluia” but I can’t because for us Catholics it’s our penitential season of Lent, and we can’t say that “A-word” until Easter!

Can I get a little personal here? Today is the fourth anniversary of my appointment by Pope Benedict XVI as archbishop of New York.

Four happy years…and the Jewish community of New York is one of the big reasons why. From the start you have welcomed and embraced me. I love you; I respect you; I need you; I thank you.

Tomorrow, the second Sunday of Lent, we always have the Gospel account of what we call the Transfiguration of Jesus on Mount Tabor. There, the Jewish fisherman, the Jewish first pope, St. Peter, said to Jesus, “It is good for us to be here.”

Those words I make my own this morning.

I also appreciate the encouragement this visit gives me in my efforts to repair and restore another historic house of prayer and worship, Saint Patrick’s Cathedral. Don’t worry: I’m not going to ask for money—while recognizing what a tradition that is in both of our religions—although I do happen to have some pledge cards on me!

This beautiful occasion this morning might be a providential occasion to celebrate as well the common values we as Jews and Catholics deeply cherish. Can I mention just two?

One would be the high importance of the Sabbath: you begin with sundown on Friday and go through Saturday; we start with sundown on Saturday and go through Sunday.

We both do it with humble obedience to the Lord’s command, following His own example of rest after the labor of creation, don’t we?

I propose that our fidelity to the Sabbath is good for us, and good for the world.

It’s good for us as we individually, and as a religious community, need worship, prayer, and fellowship to keep our spirits focused and our faith fervent.

A wise mentor once told me, “Science teaches us that the earth is not the center of the universe. Faith teaches me that neither am I.”

God and others come first. The weekly reminder of the Sabbath.

I suppose that’s the message to be found in the startling decision of Pope Benedict XVI to leave the Chair of St. Peter. It’s not about an office, the pomp, the prominence, the prestige, the Holy Father hints, but about Jesus and His Church. It’s really all about God.

That’s what you and I profess every Sabbath! That’s good for us; that’s good for our culture.

Two, we both value love and service. Just ten days ago, on Ash Wednesday, as we began our forty days of fervent prayer, penance, and acts of charity in preparation for our high holy days, the fifty thousand folks who came through Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, heard the words of your prophet, Isaiah.

“This is the worship and fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke; sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own.”

Jesus won’t let me brag about such work that we as Catholics do, since, on that same day, Ash Wednesday, He told us in the Gospel that our good works should be done in secret.

But, I sure can congratulate you for the radiant love, service, and works of charity and justice you do! We’re all impressed by your effective food and clothing drives, your Red Cross blood drives, your community outreach and weekly bags of bread to the West Side Campaign Against Hunger. And we sure appreciated the partnership of the UJA with Catholic Charities in the Feeding Our Neighbors Campaign three weeks ago.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta observed, “There’s a word for faith without love, and that word is a sham.”

And Bl. John Paul II, who so loved you, remarked, “Men and women today learn much more from witness than from words.”

God bless you, Lincoln Square Synagogue, for the radiant witness of your love which make genuine the words of praise we express on the sabbath! (The Gospel in the Digital Age.)

I will take a few selected excerpts from this piece of diabolically-inspired piece of emotionalism in order to make a few brief comments as I am already way, way, way, way past my bedtime.

Excerpt Number One:

I love you; I respect you; I need you; I thank you, (The Gospel in the Digital Age.)

Brief Comment:

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants to effect the conversion of the all non-Catholics, including adherents of the Talmud, to the true Faith. He loves all men in that He wills their eternal good, which is the salvation of their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. Authentic love is not an expression of naturalistic sentimentality or emotionalism. It wills the good others. In this regard, you see, Timothy Michael Dolan is a false friend to the congregation at Lincoln Square Synagogue as he did not seek their conversion to the true Faith and expressed "respect" for those who adhere to a false religion that denies Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacred Divinity and his hideous in his sight, a false religion whose Biblical ancestor was abolished when He breathed His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross and the curtain in the Temple was torn in two as the earth shook and quaked.

Respect?

You're not supposed to do this, Timothy Dolan.

Let's turn to Saint John Chrysostom to handle this one:

Let that be your judgment about the synagogue, too. For they brought the books of Moses and the prophets along with them into the synagogue, not to honor them but to outrage them with dishonor. When they say that Moses and the prophets knew not Christ and said nothing about his coming, what greater outrage could they do to those holy men than to accuse them of failing to recognize their Master, than to say that those saintly prophets are partners of their impiety? And so it is that we must hate both them and their synagogue all the more because of their offensive treatment of those holy men." (Saint John Chrysostom, Fourth Century, A.D., Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews.)

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance".But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)

I need you?

Need?

You're not supposed to do this, Timothy Dolan.

Timothy Michael Dolan "needs" adherents of the Talmud?

To what end?

Human respect and his own self-esteem, that's what end.

What was this moron doing, asking the adherents of the Talmud for their support in the 2013 "conclave" so that they could pray to the devil who controls their religion to have him be the successor of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI? As it turns out, Talmudists of the reform vareity got an even better

Excerpt Number Two:

Those words I make my own this morning. (The Gospel in the Digital Age.)

Brief Comment:

Blasphemy!

Utter and complete blasphemy.

"Good for us to be here."

You're not supposed to do this, Timothy Dolan.

Saint John Chrysostom, would you mind repeating yourself here?

Timothy Michael Dolan's whole speech revolved around the blasphemous assertion that God is worshiped at Lincoln Square Synagogue. To enter such a place is forbidden and carries with it an censure of automatic excommunication:

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

Excerpt Number Three:

Jesus won’t let me brag about such work that we as Catholics do, since, on that same day, Ash Wednesday, He told us in the Gospel that our good works should be done in secret.

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta observed, “There’s a word for faith without love, and that word is a sham.”

And Bl. John Paul II, who so loved you, remarked, “Men and women today learn much more from witness than from words.”

God bless you, Lincoln Square Synagogue, for the radiant witness of your love which make genuine the words of praise we express on the sabbath! (The Gospel in the Digital Age.)

Radiant love?

Works of charity and justice?

Charity and justice?

What about the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs?

"Modern Orthodox Judaism" seems to support such killing in at least some instances, although one would be hard-pressed to find any statement of the fact on its website. Obviously, its rabbis support the chemical assassination by means of contraception.

Does that matter to Timothy Michael Dolan?

Of course not.

Timothy Dolan departs from the Catholic Faith in this as does in almost everything else, which is why he may have a chance, however slim it appears, to be a possible new universal public face of apostasy.

You're not supposed to do any of this, Timothy Dolan.

Night and day, ladies, and gentlemen. The night of the matter comes from the adversary and is promoted by the counterfeit church at the behest of its Talmudic masters. The light and truth of the matter is from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the very Light of the world.

The Old Covenant has been superseded. It has the power to save no one. Anyone who contends that it does is a heretic. There are not two “parallel paths” to salvation.

Here is a reminder of how widespread this heresy has been in the conciliar structures for so long a time now.

To wit, John Joseph "Cardinal" O’Connor, who was the conciliar "archbishop" of New York from March 19, 1984 to May 3, 2000, a man who protected moral perverts within his clergy, told the Masonic B'Nai Brith organization in March of 1998 that "Catholicism and Judaism were meant to coexist side by side until the end of time. This is not what I teach. This is what my boss, Pope John Paul II, teaches, and I work for my boss." Jewish rabbis were amazed at what they heard. Here is an account offered by a "papal" knight, the late Rabbi Leon Klenicki, a pro-abortion rabbi who was present at that Anti-Defamation League dinner in 1998:

Once we invited him [John "Cardinal O'Connor] to talk at one of the Anti-Defamation League dinners. He was there to help present a booklet we had put out. During his speech, he told a story about how he once went to a Reform synagogue and he was the only one there with a yarmulke. Several Reform rabbis who were there looked at each others--I think they couldn't believe it--but everybody was laughing. The Cardinal had a serious point, too. Later that night, he said that he was in pain because there are Jews who do not want to exercise their Judaism because of assimilation or other reasons. It is their duty to practice their faith, he said, to prove that God exists and to refute the Holocaust. He sounded very much like a rabbi when he spoke. The crowd was all around him afterwards, shaking his hand and embracing him. I told him if he ever needed a job I knew a congregation that could use him. (Page 148 of Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor.)

Yes, the events of World War II, as horrible as they were, have been exaggerated and exploited by the Talmudists to shame Catholics into feeling guilty about crimes for which they were not responsible. Indeed, it was the Talmudic exploitation of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that led directly to the rise and subsequent godless “philosophies” and “ideologies” of Bolshevism and Nazism, which were just two sides of the same socialist coin. Jewish bankers and industrialists were very much responsible for helping to create the religiously indifferentist civil state in Europe.

Adolph Hitler was merely the end-product of what had been championed by the Freemason Otto von Bismarck sixty years previously. Bismarck started a Kulturkampf against the Holy Faith. Hitler’s own quasi-religion, Nazism, was simply result of four hundred years of revolution against the Divine Plan to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, a revolution that was aided and abetted by Talmudists at every turn.

It is thus reprehensible that the conciliar revolutionaries still continue to invoke the “Shoah” in order to justify their false religious sect’s “new relationship with the faith of Israel,” which was described by the “restorer of Tradition,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, as follows in his infamous Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005:

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)

No event of secular history can cause the Catholic Church to breathe new life into a false religion that is hated by God.

The events of World War II have been used by various adherents of the Talmud to demonstrate their deeply held belief that the spilling of Jewish blood is more horrible a crime than the spilling of the blood of others. Indeed, the Zionists in Israel have treated the Palestinians, who were thrown out of their own homes and had their property seized from them in 1948 and have been subjected to all manner of degrading conditions since that time, as the same sort of sub-humans as the Jews and others, especially the Poles, were treated by the Nazis. The exploitation of the crimes of the Nazis during World War II has resulted in an endless effort to impose "guilt" on anyone and everyone who dares to proclaim the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in public, no less hold to everything that He has revealed to us in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and has entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of His Catholic Church for Its explication and eternal safekeeping.

It is no act “extremism” to point out any of this, and it is not act of “extremism” to point out that the most virulent anti-Semites in the world today are the conciliar revolutionaries, who are content to leave Jews in their false religion that has the power to sanctify and save no one.

Is it an act of “extremism” to point out that the conciliar concept of “religious liberty” was condemned repeatedly by our true popes as the need arose for them to do so starting in the late Eighteenth Century, that the Catholic Church, recognizing the unfavorable situation in which her children live in the world of Modernity, will make use of civil liberties to afford while making no concessions to the false contention that error has rights? Error has no rights before God, and it has no rights in civil society.

Is it an act of “extremism” to point out that conciliar concept of “living tradition” or the “hermeneutic of continuity” is philosophically absurd as truth is what it is and is not subject to change according the tenor of times or how many people reject it?

It is, therefore, an act of “extremism” to point out that the conciliar concept of “living tradition” or the “hermeneutic of continuity” is nothing other than the Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism that has been condemned as follows:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3: 24 April 1870.)

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God, we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and Lord.” (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

“Some hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […] It is evident from what We have already said, that such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Extremism, Timothy Michael Dolan?

No, just fidelity to Catholicism.

Nothing else.

Insofar as “racism” is concerned, although I speak only for this website, which went live online nineteen years ago today as the continuation of the work of the eponymous printed journal that was in existence from 1996 to 2004, I do know some of the people who are associated with the other eight “radical traditional Catholic” “hate groups.” Not one of them is a racist. Not one. Such a charge is a smear, and the fact that the likes of Timothy Michael Dolan chose to give it credibility in a left-handed manner shows that he is either prone to accept the Southern Poverty Law Center’s contentions at face value and/or that he is truly ignorant of the character of those whom this Christophobic money-making machine have maligned so viciously.

Thus, let me reprise the following passages that were included in an article I wrote eleven years after I was invited to speak at a white supremacist meeting when Christ or Chaos had made the “hate group” list in 2012:

I must reject without equivocation your invitation.

Please note that I am not interested in any further invitations.

Please note also these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, that I append below.

The Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, as It is lifted high by His Catholic Church unites men of all races as they strive for personal sanctity as the consecrated slaves of Our King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen,

Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.
Publisher-Editor
www.christorchaos.com

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community -- however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things -- whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God's sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators' right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.

None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah xI, 15). (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

As Catholics, my friends, we know that God does not judge us on the basis of the race or ethnicity. Our immortal souls are made unto His own very image and likeness in that we have a rational soul with an intellect to know Him and a will to choose with which to love and to serve Him. Human beings do not love God as "blacks" or as "whites" or as "Latinos or Latinas" or as "Orientals" or as "Native Americans" or as "Italians" or as "Croatians" or as "French" or as "Americans" but as creatures whose immortal souls have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Human beings are called upon to love God as He has revealed Himself to them through His true Church, the Catholic Church, and to love their own immortal souls as they have been redeemed at so great a cost. Our principal identity as human beings is as members of the Catholic Church. Everything else about us (race, ethnicity, nationality, gender), although occurring certainly within the Providence of God, is secondary.

As I tried to explain to students during my days as a college professor, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ embraced all of the legitimate joys and sorrows of this passing, mortal vale of tears as He underwent His fearful Passion and Death. We suffer or experience joy as human beings, as redeemed creatures, not as mere animals identifiable by external characteristics. There are no such things as "black" tears or "white" tears or "Indian" tears. There is no such thing as "white" joy or "black" joy" or "Latino" joy. The use of the "race" or "ethnicity" or "gender" card is the refuge of cowardly scoundrels who seek privilege and/or to indemnify slothful or corrupt behavior.

We are to see in each person the very impress of the Divine Redeemer and to treat Him accordingly, rendering unto each person that which is his due. We are to discriminate unjustly (we must discriminate justly in many circumstances of our lives as we choose which merchant to patronize, which person to employ, who to admit to a seat in a college or a professional school, to deny employment or privileges to those steeped in public scandal, etc.) against no one nor must we use the external characteristics of a human being to extend privileges that are undeserving and/or would result in an injustice to someone else.

Human beings are supposed to be bound together by the common bonds of the Catholic Faith, not to break into warring tribes along ethnic or racial or geographic lines, seething with hatred and resentment at those who have "more" (power, money, fame, prestige, accomplishment) than they do. We are to help each other get home to Heaven as members of the Catholic Church who aspire to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our sins, fulfilling these words of Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians as we seek to build up each other as members of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth:

[16] From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity. This then I say and testify in the Lord: That henceforward you walk not as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, [18] Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts. [19] Who despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness. [20] But you have not so learned Christ;

[21] If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus: [22] To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. [23] And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: [24] And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth. [25] Wherefore putting away lying, speak; ye the truth every man with his neighbour; for we are members one of another.

[26] Be angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger. [27] Give not place to the devil. [28] He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need. [29] Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good, to the edification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers. [30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.

[31] Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. [32] And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ. (Ephesians 4: 16-32.)

We are to be bound together by the common bonds of the Catholic Faith. We advocate Christ the King and deep devotion to His Most Blessed Mother, nothing else.

This is not “racist.”

Catholicism is the one and only true religion, and it alone provides us with the means of viewing all men as redeemed creatures and to treat them as we would treat Christ the King Himself in the very Flesh.

Mind you, everything thus far in this commentary has been a response to the gratuitous claim made by Timothy Michael Dolan about rejecting “extremism,” “violence, and “racism” as though there was even a hint of truth about the concerns that prompted someone in the Richmond, Virginia, field office of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue an internal memorandum based upon the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “radical traditional Catholic” “hate group” list. The memorandum was withdrawn, but only when a whistleblower made the matter public.

Insofar as the second paragraph of the United States Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops’ religious liberty’s committee’s statement on the FBI memorandum is concerned, it is interesting that Timothy Michael Dolan relied upon a statement issued by the conciliar “bishop” of Richmond, Virginia, Barry Knestout, which called upon members of Congress to condemn the religious profiling and that the memorandum was “troubling” as it relied upon “dubious sourcing rather than relying upon the following statement issued by “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, the conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas:

Sadly, the experience of Mark Houck provides evidence that this type of surveillance is not beyond the realm of possibility. It underscores our societies deep ignorance of what it means to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ or as presently stated “radical traditional Catholic.” Our Lord tells us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us. Deeply committed Catholics are the last people the authorities should be concerned about. Yes committed traditional Catholics will defend the unborn and others who are helpless but attacks of violent aggression are antithetical to what it means to be a radically committed traditional Catholic. Let us pray for all in positions of authority and especially those in law enforcement. (USCCB condemns 'extremism' while saying FBI memo targeting Catholics is 'troubling and offensive.)

Many other points could be made about the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, religious liberty, and the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty. However, to raise these issues once again would be to rewrite Believing Catholics Pose No Threat to a Just Social Order, and there is just no need to do such a thing.

It is probably useful, though, to point out that Timothy Michael “Cardinal” Dolan, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of New York since April 15, 2009, and is twenty-one months my senior in age, is a glib gladhander who loves the bright lights and who has spoken in blasphemously glib terms about the Holy Name of God Himself. This is what he said in a television interview on WPIX-TV, Channel 11, New York, New York, prior to thanksgiving day, Thursday, November 25, 2010:

Thanksgiving is a time of the year when people are open to the Lord, and we don't think about ourselves. We're grateful to God. We're conscious that somebody, some call him or her, whatever you want, somebody beyond us is in charge, and we are immensely grateful. (Is 'Superman' Catholic?)

Let me repeat the quote from Pope Pius XI's Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

No faith in God can for long survive pure and unalloyed without the support of faith in Christ. "No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him" (Luke x. 22). "Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (John xvii. 3). Nobody, therefore, can say: "I believe in God, and that is enough religion for me," for the Savior's words brook no evasion: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John ii. 23) (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

I guess, however, that calling God "whatever you want" is enough reason for Timothy Michael Dolan to give "thanks" for the religious "diversity" of the United States of America.

“Cardinal” Dolan long ago lost his sensus Catholicus to such an extent that he believes a "thanksgiving day is a celebration of what he considers to be a "strength" of the United States of America, "religious diversity." However, it is this precisely this "religious diversity" that makes it next-to-impossible, humanly speaking, to retard various social evils such as chemical and surgical baby-killing and perversity and immodesty of dress and indecency of speech and open pornography and blasphemy that is televised on the "mainstream" television network as it is this "diversity" this utter religious relativism and indifferentism, that is proximately responsible for giving us these evils under cover of the civil law. This “religious diversity” is responsible for the rise of atheism among young Americans and for the celebration of the adversary about three miles south of the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in the Borough of Manhattan.

Far from being something to "celebrate," this "religious diversity" is something to be deplored as we seek to plant the seeds for the conversion of everyone in our nation to the true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Pope Leo XIII reminded us in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that the religious indifferentism of the "pluralistic" civil state of Modernity results in the triumph of a spirit of practical atheism as the lowest common denominator over the course of time:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

"Whatever you want?"

Perhaps a little reminder from something called the First Commandment might get you to speak about God with reference and precision, not a breezy, flippant casualness that reaffirms, even if by inadvertence, Catholics and non-Catholics alike that it really does not matter what you call God or how or even if your worship Him if you participate in the spectacle of a "thanksgiving day" that features many Americans gathering around their turkey dinners "thanking" "God" that they live in land where they can practice "freedom of choice" when it comes to killing innocent babies, a land of "liberty and justice" for all except for the Sacred Rights of Christ the King and for the innocent babies themselves, a land where it really does not make difference you call God as long as you remember that this is, after all, "one nation under God" even though it does not matter Who this God is or what He has revealed to us or that every nation has an obligation to profess belief in the one and only true God of Divine Revelation:

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

Timothy Michael Dolan, who once kicked out his leg while dancing with the Rockettes in his clerical garb in 2016 (see Card. Dolan dances with the Rockettes, which features scatological images of the Rockettes but a very amusing satirical commentary written by yet another condemned “radical traditional Catholic” “hate group,” Tradition in Action), told a group of Protestants the following in May of 2013:

We used to be the premier supporter of the ‘union of throne and altar.’ We used to say that we’re all for religious freedom, as long as it’s in a Catholic-dominated state.”

Catholics have since learned, Cardinal Dolan said, “that that’s not only bad for human rights, that’s bad for religion, because religion needs to be the freest of any human enterprise. And once we try to enforce it, once we try to have government regulating it, it’s destructive, not only for the faith, but [also] for freedom and for government and for culture.”

While Catholic leaders in Europe and the Vatican were at first puzzled by the American experiment, the cardinal said they eventually came around.

“America then became a light to the world, and that finally captured the imagination of the rest of the Catholic world, and it was enshrined as part of the [teaching] of the Second Vatican Council in the decree on religious freedom,” he said.

Asked about the new Pope Francis’ stance on religious liberty, Cardinal Dolan replied, “I don’t have any personal sense, but I think I could bet [Sunday’s] collection on the fact that he would be a staunch defender of religious freedom. He’s a man who has given enthusiastic support to the renewal of the Second Vatican Council, a cornerstone of which has been religious liberty. He himself has been a defender of religious freedom in Argentina. He has been particularly close to the evangelicals and the Jewish community, so he certainly extols a world, a culture, where religions exist in amity and where the freedoms of all are protected.” (Dolan symbolizes warming conciliar-evangelical ties. Dolan's formal speech can be viewed here in all of its ecumanaical splendor: Wilberforce Award Speech.)

So much Americanism, so little time.

Alas, there is no need to repeat here what has been written in any other articles on this site about Timothy Michael Dolan (see Timmy's In The Well (Of Americanism, That Is), Making Everyone Happy Except God, Unhappy Is The "Happy" "Bishop", Whatever You Want, Ominous Offenders Offending Ominously, Memo To David Axelrod And Other Social Engineers, John Carroll's Caesar, Victims of Compromise, Taking A Figure Of Antichrist At His Worthless Words, Prisoners Of Their Own Apostasy, Timothy Dolan, Meet Timothy Dolan (And Friends), Still Celebrating Half A Century Of Apostasy, Candidate For Man Of The Year?, From John Carroll To James Gibbons To Timothy Dolan, To Help The Children, Fake, Phony, Sanctimonious Fraud, Happy As A Stuffed Clam With Himself, Impossible To Fight Moral Evils With Blasphemy And Error, Still Trying to Make Everyone Happy Except God Himself, Just Another Ordinary Outrage Permitted by a Conciliar "Ordinary", Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part two, Auditioning To Be The Next Universal Face of Apostasy, "You're Not Supposed To Do This", Vast Is The Damage, Francis And Other Judases Abound In Holy Week and Modernism Repackaged as Newness.)

Thus it is that I desire to send Timothy Michael "Cardinal" Dolan, who has been the conciliar "archbishop" of New York since April 15, 1969, the following memorandum: Catholics never say "We used to say."

Catholics always say what Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial, and that teaching is immutable, irreformable. It is binding on all men in all places at all times until the end of time itself.

Catholics, "Cardinal" Dolan, never say "We used to say," about any papal reiterations of the immutable teaching of Holy Mother Church on Church-State relations and on "religious liberty."

One true pope after another, dating back, oh, say, around 1500 years ago, has condemned the very thing that the conciliar “popes” have endorsed, defended, protected, and promoted: the separation of Church and State.

As early as 494 A.D., Pope Gelasius made the proper distinctions between the ecclesiastical and civil realms that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI claims have come to the fore in "recent" times.

Pope Gelasius had indeed spoken of the "two powers" that govern man, indicating that those who hold ecclesiastical office should not hold civil office. Pope Gelasius did not teach, however, that a State must not favor the Catholic Faith, a little fact overlooked by apologists of the conciliar embrace of the separation of Church and State. Indeed, Pope Gelasius wrote Emperor Anastasius in the year 494 A.D. to remind him of the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal, keeping in mind that even in the exercise of purely temporal power the Last End of man must be kept in mind:

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.

If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger m the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain - which God forbid -when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church. (Letter to Emperor Anastasius)

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.)

As mentioned four few days ago in Seeing the Hand of God in the Chastisements of the Moment, it is a joy, truly a joy, to suffer persecution and calumny for the sake of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy Church despite our own unworthiness to be the beneficiaries of such calumny. It is humbling to know that even though most people even in the relatively small universe of what passes for traditional Catholicism might hold one’s work of no account that the enemies of the Holy Faith believe it necessary to castigate and smear us with falsehoods. Deo gratias!

We must simply pray for the conversion of all who caricature us as we pray daily to Our Lady to send us the graces that we need to repent of our own sins and to be converted on the path to holiness with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The penitential season of Lent begins in just two days! We are on the cusp of entering into our six weeks, four days’ journey in the desert to take stock of our interior lives as beg Our Lady to persevere in our Lenten sacrifices and devotions.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s meditation for Monday in Quinquagesima Week explains that we must find ourselves in a life of sacrifice and to root out all that impedes the sanctification and salvation of our immortal souls:

The life of a faithful Christian, like that of the patriarch Abraham, is neither more nor less than a courageous journeying onwards to the place destined by him by his Creator. He must put aside everything that could impede his progress, nor must he look back. This is, undoubtedly, hard doctrine; but if we reflect, for a moment, on the dangers which surround fallen man during his earthly pilgrimage, and on what our own sad experience has taught us, we shall not think it hard or strange, that our Saviour has made the renouncing and denying of ourselves an essential condition of our salvation. But, independently of this, is it not far better to put our life under God’s guidance, than to keep it in our own? Are we so wise or so strong, as to be able to guide ourselves? We may resist as we please, but God is our sovereign Lord and Master; and by giving us free-will, whereby we may either resist His will or follow it, He has not abdicated His own infinite rights to His creatures’ obedience. Our refusal to obey would not make Him less our Master.

Had Abraham, after receiving the divine call, chosen to remain in Chaldea, and refused to break up the home which God had bade him leave, God would then have selected some other man to be the patriarch of His chosen people, and father of that very family, which was to have the Messias as one of its children. This substitution of one for another in the order of grace is frequently forced upon divine justice; but what a terrible punishment it is for him that caused the substitution! When a soul refused salvation, heaven does not therefore lose one of its elect: God, finding that He is despised by the one He called, offers the grace to another, until His call His followed.

The Christian life consists in this untiring, unreserved obedience to God. The first effect of this spirit of submission is, that it takes the soul from the region of sin and death, wherein she was wasting away her existence; it takes her from the dark Chaldea, and places her in the promised land of light. Lest she should faint on her way along the narrow path, and fall a victim to the dangers which never leave her because they are within herself, God asks her for sacrifices, and these brace her. Here, again, we have Abraham for our model. God loves him, and promises him the richest of blessings; He gives him a son, as pledge of the promise; and then, shortly after, tests the holy patriarch’s devotedness, by commanding him to slay with his own hand this dear child, on whom he has been told to build his hopes!

Man’s path on earth is sacrifice. We cannot go out from evil except by the way of self-resistance, nor keep our footing on good ground but by constant combating. Let us imitate Abraham: fix our eyes steadfastly on the eternal hills, and consider this world as a mere passing dwelling, a tent, put up for a few days. Our Jesus has said to us: “I came not to send peace, but the sword; for I came to separate.” Separation, then, and trial are sure to be sent us; but we are equally sure that they are for our good, since they are sent us by Him who so loved us that He became one of ourselves. But this same Jesus has also said: “Where thy treasure is, there too is thy heart.” Christians! can our treasure be in this wretched world? No, it must be in that fair land above. There, then, must we be, in desire and affection.

These are the thoughts the Church would have us meditate upon during these days, which immediately precede the forty of Lent. They will help to purify our hearts and make them long to be with their God. The noise of the world’s sins and scandals reaches our ears: let us pray that the kingdom of God may come to us and to those poor sinners; for God’s infinite mercy can change them, if He will, into children of Abraham. Not a day passes but He so changes many a sinner. He has, perhaps, shown that miracle of His mercy to us, and those words of the apostle may be applied to us: “You, who some time were afar off, are now made nigh (to God) by the Blood of Christ.”

Let us pray for ourselves and for all sinners, in these beautiful words of the Mozarabic breviary.

We beseech thee, O almighty God! that whereas our sins have angered thee against us, our prayers and praise, which thou inspirest, may propitiate and please thee: that thus, by thy mercy, the vexations of this world may not cast down our soul, nor hurtful delusion possess her, nor the darkness of unbelief surround her; but may we gleam with the light of thy countenance, wherewith thou hast signed us, and ever, by firmness in the true faith, walk in the brightness of the same. Amen. (From: Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Monday in Quinquagesima Week.)

Every Rosary we pray helps us to be ready to make the sacrifices required of us to save our souls and to be more and more detached from all the agitations of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

May these upcoming six weeks of Lent find us better Catholics than we are now, and for this we need the help of the Mother of God now, and at the hour of our death.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

Appendix

The American Bishops’ Support of Statist, Anti-Catholic Presidents and Their Policies

The "identification" of Catholics with the Democratic Party was such that a story was told in the 1930s of a woman in Boston, Massachusetts, who was praying a Novena to Saint Monica for the return of her son to the Faith. A friend asked her what had happened to her son. The woman praying the Novena said in great distress, "He's become a Republican!" Yes, being a Democrat and being a Catholic were considered to be inseparable by the lion's share of Catholics in the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries.

This alliance of Catholics with the Democratic Party was such that they overlooked the blatant anti-Catholicism of the likes of Thomas Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt time and time again. After all, it was the "party" that mattered. Oh, it was too bad that Wilson supported the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico. Catholics just voted for the Democratic Party, which permitted Franklin Roosevelt, who, unlike his statist predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, in whose administration he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, cultivated friendships with Catholic prelates in order to coopt them into supporting his own statist plans, to unleash a veritable campaign team of Catholic bishops and priests to denounce any "conservative" Catholic who dared to criticize his policies. As noted in We're Not in Kansas Any More in 2009, Roosevelt unleashed the "Right Reverend New Dealer," Monsignor John A. Ryan, to denounce the courageous Father Charles Coughlin for him during his re-election campaign in 1936. And Francis Cardinal Spellman was known as "FDR's errand boy in a miter."

It was, however, after World War II that fissures began to break in the solid Catholic support for the Democratic Party. The threat posed by the spread of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe and the fall of China to the forces of Mao Zedong in 1949 led some Catholics to turn more and more to the Republican Party, convincing themselves that they could purge that stronghold of anti-Catholic Masons and nativists and transform it into a bastion of "conservatism" to turn back the New Deal and to win the Cold War. Additionally, American pluralism made matters that are beyond debate subjects for endless debate that were subject to the whims of plebiscites, executives, legislators and judges, thus manifesting more clearly the cracks in the Masonry, shall we say, that had existed amongst the American hierarchy prior to the “Second” Vatican Council that became very pronounced as Montini/Paul the Sick appointed one like-minded leftist and sodomite-friendly, if not sodomites to the conciliar “hierarchy” before and then after the implementation of conciliarism’s invalid rite of episcopal consecration in 1969.

Fissures Among the Americanists in the Conciliar Hierarchy

1960: Demonstrating their desire to do everything possible to assure the election of United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), Richard “Cardinal” Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, and Francis Cardinal Spellman, travelled to Puerto Rico to campaign against the efforts of the Puerto Rican bishops to work against a referendum in support of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s draconian birth control program:

In 1960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. The Catholic resistance was led by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national political party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.

When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U.S.-based contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization experimental programs, became increasingly concerned for their own political futures. Then unexpected help arrived in the unlikely person of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York.

One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions. While on the island, Spellman agreed to meet with CAP's major political rival, Governor Luis Munoz Marin, leader of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and a supporter of federal population control programs for Puerto Rico.

In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics from voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts. Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said.

Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never been a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cushing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might overflow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for the White House.

The national election turned out to be a political disaster for CAP. Munoz and the PDP won by a landslide. Bishop Davis was forced to end the tragic state of confusion among the Catholic laity by declaring just before the election that no penalties would be imposed on those who voted for PDP.

Two years later, with the knowledge and approval of the American hierarchy and the Holy See, the Puerto Rican hierarchy was pressured into singing a secret concordat of "non-interference" in government-sponsored birth control programs--a sop being that the programs would now include instruction in the "rhythm method." While insisting on their right to hold and express legitimate opposition to such programs, the Puerto Rican bishops promised they would "never impose their own moral doctrines upon individuals who do not accept the Catholic teaching."

When the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo this same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 647-649)

One can see that the anti-liturgical Sillonist, Jansenist, Modernist and Rosicrucian named Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, a lover of Latin, you understand, was already hard at work effecting his “aggiornamento” in Puerto Rico of the sort that that has made possible Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own “aggiornamento” to pro-aborts, sodomites, lesbians, transvestites, mutants and all out-and-out Marxists.

1964: Relieved that they no longer had to work behind closed doors and that Roncalli’s “window” open to the world was in the process of being smashed by Montini/Paul VI and the “Second” Vatican Council, some fully uncloseted Modernists and unabashed moral relativists, including the notorious Father Charles Curran of the Diocese of Rochester and the uber-notorious “Father Death, Robert Drinan, S.J., advised the Kennedy family how to support the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in public life while maintaining their “good standing” as Catholics:

For faithful Roman Catholics, the thought of yet another pro-choice Kennedy positioned to campaign for the unlimited right to abortion is discouraging. Yet if Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of Catholics John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, is appointed to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, abortion-rights advocates will have just such a champion.

Ms. Kennedy was so concerned to assure pro-abortion leaders in New York, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Dec. 18, that on the same day Ms. Kennedy telephoned New York Gov. David Patterson to declare interest in the Senate seat, "one of her first calls was to an abortion rights group, indicating she will be strongly pro-choice."

Within the first week of her candidacy, Ms. Kennedy promised to work for several causes, including same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In responding to a series of 15 questions posed by the New York Times on Dec. 21, Ms. Kennedy said that, while she believes "young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults," she would oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. On the crucial question of whether she supports any state or federal restrictions on late-term abortions, Ms. Kennedy chose to say only that she "supports Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk." Presumably Ms. Kennedy knows that this effectively means an unlimited right to abortion -- including late-stage abortion -- because the "health of the mother" can be so broadly defined that it includes the psychological distress that can accompany an unintended pregnancy.

Ms. Kennedy's commitment to abortion rights is shared by other prominent family members, including Kerry Kennedy Cuomo and Maryland's former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Some may recall the 2000 Democratic Convention when Caroline and her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, addressed the convention to reassure all those gathered that the Democratic Party would continue to provide women with the right to choose abortion -- even into the ninth month. At that convention, the party's nominee, Al Gore, formerly a pro-life advocate, pledged his opposition to parental notification and embraced partial-birth abortion. Several of those in attendance, including former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, had been pro-life at one time. But by 2000 nearly every delegate in the convention hall was on the pro-choice side -- and those who weren't simply kept quiet about it.

Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race. But this was not always the case. Despite Ms. Kennedy's description of Barack Obama, in a New York Times op-ed, as a "man like my father," there is no evidence that JFK was pro-choice like Mr. Obama. Abortion-rights issues were in the fledgling stage at the state level in New York and California in the early 1960s. They were not a national concern.

Even Ted Kennedy, who gets a 100% pro-choice rating from the abortion-rights group Naral, was at one time pro-life. In fact, in 1971, a full year after New York had legalized abortion, the Massachusetts senator was still championing the rights of the unborn. In a letter to a constituent dated Aug. 3, 1971, he wrote: "When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

But that all changed in the early '70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.

In some cases, church leaders actually started providing "cover" for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion." ( See WSJ.com - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma. David Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, ultimately chose another pro-abortion Catholic, Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been the junior senator of the State of New York since January 26, 2009. For a review of David Paterson's moral corruption, see Little Caesars All (Pizza! Pizza!)

Thus began process of soothing the consciences of Catholic in public life who wanted to remain au courant and not pose as a sign of contradiction by their complete fidelity to the Sign of Contradiction, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church has deep roots in the heresy of Americanism, as the ground work for groundwork for moral relativism had been laid at Hyannisport the year before the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, invalidating a long unenforced Connecticut statute banning the sale of contraceptives to married couples.

1965: Emboldened by his success in Puerto Rico, Richard “Cardinal” Cushing, the Kennedy family’s principal ecclesiastical enabler, said that he had no business interfering in the legislative judgments of Catholics who served in the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the state legislature), thus giving a fully developed apologia for the “I’m personally abortion to [name moral evil: contraception, abortion] but can’t ‘impose’ my morality on non-Catholics”:

Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. (As a matter of historical interest, the repeal effort was sponsored by a young state representative named Michael Dukakis, who would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the US presidency 23 years later.) In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, "An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,” and effectively scuttled the opposition.

Cardinal Cushing announced:

“My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position—moral beliefs or religious beliefs—upon those of other faiths.”

Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that "I could not in conscience approve the legislation" that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, "I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others."

So there it was: the "personally opposed" argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to "impose" his opinion.

Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. "But my thinking has changed on that matter," he reported, "for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do."

(Notice that the Catholic position is reduced still further here, to a matter of purely sectarian belief—as if it would be impossible for a non-Catholic to support the purpose of the Birth Control law. The cardinal did not explain why that law was enacted in 1899 by the heirs of the Puritans in Massachusetts, long before Catholics came to power in the legislature.)

Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: "If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church."

Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the "personally opposed" politician had his rationale. (Cushing's Use of The "Personally Opposed" Argument.)

Today’s Pontius Pilates had lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s and the 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to support each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance without any semblance of ecclesiastical sanction whatsoever. Quite instead, the “peace and justice” bishops and faux bishops gave their full support to their liked-minded adherents of their true shared religion: leftism.

It is no accident that the “peace and justice” crowd at the now-named United States Conference of Catholic Bishops associated with one pro-abortion and pro-sodomite group after another, many of which received funding from both Catholic Charities and the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development (see the following two news stories of the past decade, although like examples abound today all around the world: Signs of Apostasy Abound and Randy Engel on Catholic Relief Services.)

1973: The fissures in the American conciliar hierarchy opened up wider than the Grand Canyon immediately following the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, as the “peace and justice” crowd reaffirmed Catholics in public life to take Cushing’s “personally opposed” position and while the “conservatives” were divided amongst themselves between incrementalists and absolutists in their efforts to reverse those Court decisions and to restore full legal protection to the innocent preborn without exception. The incrementalists advocated doing what they deemed subjectively to be “possible” while the absolutists sought to evangelize in behalf of a firm no exceptions policy that had to be reflected in public law, although neither set of divided “pro-life” Catholics in the conciliar structures at time understood that the very fact the surgical assassination of the innocent preborn was even up for debate was the result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and their own false church’s “official reconciliation” with the foundational anti-Incarnational principles of the modern civil state.

One of the most maddening phrases around is the "pro-life" slogan, which is meant to convey that someone is opposed to the surgical killing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs. The slogan, however, is precisely that, a slogan. As I have tried to communicate endlessly in the past two decades or more since refusing to apply the slogan to careerist politicians of the naturalist "right" in the organized crime family of naturalism that is the Republican Party, the phrase "pro-life" is misused in the realm of partisan politics and public discourse, usually by leaders or representatives of "establishment" "pro-life" organizations such as the National Not So-Right-to-Life Committee and its state affiliates, who actually support the chemical assassination of children in all instances and who support the surgical slicing and dicing of children in what they call the "hard cases."

The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee itself, being a completely secular organization, although it grew out of the work Monsignor James T. McHugh, that notorious protege of a notorious criminal against the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, who helped to devise and promote the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandment (see Origins of Classroom Instruction in Matters of Purity in Catholic Schools and The McHugh Chronicles), at the Family Life Bureau of the so-called United States Catholic Conference in the late-1960s, takes no stand against contraception and actually supports the nonexistent "right" of mothers to kill their innocent preborn children in the event that their own lives are said to be in jeopardy from carrying their babies to birth. What is thus considered to be the "leader" of the "pro-life" movement in the United States of America actually supports direct, intentional surgical abortion in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is in jeopardy as a matter of principle, not as a matter of what they would consider to be legislative expediency.

Indeed, the American “bishops” have long spoken empty words about the surgical killing of the innocent preborn. They have also indemnified and emboldened every Catholic pro-abortion politician and office-holder by refusing to excommunicate them from their non-Catholic sect that poses as the Catholic Church, starting with how the likes of two formerly “pro-life” Catholic United States Senators, Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and one Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), were able to switch their positions after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, without having been warned and then excommunicated. The “bishops” worried about a backlash, although the truth is that they emboldened the forces of bodily death in the United States of America just as surely as the “Second” Vatican Council turned them into active agents of spiritual death by the promotion of propositions condemned by our true popes and by staging a liturgical abomination that has convinced most baptized Catholics that they might as well belong to the world rather than bother to go to the community fellowship meeting posing as a the “Eucharistic celebration.”

Even the conciliar “bishops’” weak-kneed efforts to oppose surgical baby-killing was based upon the false premise of the "life of the mother exception” that they have embraced as an integral, indispensable part of every legislative proposal introduced in Congress without even attempting to pressure supposedly pro-life members of various legislatures, including those in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, believing that doing so will help to convince "reasonable" people that they and the politicians they support are not "radicals" or "extremists," that such concessions are "necessary" to make in the realm prudence.

This is, of course, the exact same moral casuistry that gave us "natural family planning" and explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that has corrupted what passes for Catholic moral theology in so many places that high level officials in the Vatican itself can speak of "therapeutic" abortions as being within the moral law (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots).

Some tried very hard to warn the "bishops" as early as the first years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, that the acceptance of "exceptions" would lead to the further institutionalization of baby-killing under the cover of the civil law in the mistaken belief that some killings would be prevented.

1974: Realizing that they would never be sanctioned by anyone what they believed to be the Catholic hierarchy in the United States of America, one Catholic in public life after another, including those who had once been “pro-life,” began to mouth the “personally opposed” slogan that had been developed in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, a decade earlier and then endorsed by Richard Cushing himself a year after that.

As I have noted on this site in the past, the late Mario Matthew Cuomo said in a debate held in Albany, New York, on August 25, 1974. among the three individuals vying for the Democrat Party lieutenant governorship nomination (State Assemblyman Anthony Olivieri and State Senator Mary Anne Krupsak were Cuomo's opponents), that he would have voted against the 1970 bill that decriminalized surgical baby-killing in the first trimester of life in the State of New York if he had been a member of the New York State Legislature at that time. And it was the case that Cuomo, then an attorney with an office on Court Street in Brooklyn, New York, had been called upon by the Diocese of Brooklyn to speak against abortion to various parish organizations and other groups as its official representative.

Defeated in his bid to be the Democrat Party lieutenant governor nominee in 1974, Cuomo learned to parrot the line that had been mastered by his political mentor, then United States Representative Hugh Leo Carey, who was elected as Governor of the State of New York in 1974 and served two terms, that he was "personally opposed to abortion, but would never impose" his "morality upon others." Cuomo, was appointed by Carey to be the Secretary of State of the State of New York in January of 1975, used this line repeatedly when he ran unsuccessfully for the Democrat Party nomination for the Mayoralty of the City of New York in 1977 and when he ran in the general election that year as the nominee of the Liberal Party of the State of New York against the pro-abortion Democrat nominee, then United States Representative Edward Irving Koch, and the Republican Party nominee, the pro-abortion New York State Senator Roy Goodman, and the Conservative Party nominee, radio talk show host Barry Farber.

Defeated by Koch in the general election for Mayor of the City of New York in 1977, Cuomo won the Democrat Party nomination for lieutenant governor in 1978 (then Lieutenant Governor Krupsak, also a pro-abortion Catholic, challenged her pro-abortion Catholic Governor, Hugh Carey, unsuccessfully in a primary that year), and was Carey's heir apparent in 1982 when the latter chose not to seek a third term. Cuomo turned the tables on his old adversary Koch, defeating him in hard fought primary in 1982 for the Democrat Party's gubernatorial nomination, going on to defeat Rite Aid magnate Lew Lehrman, the nominee of the Republican and Conservative parties, and the Right to Life Party nominee, Robert Bohnar. Cuomo loudly defended "abortion rights" during that 1982 general election campaign and was known to telephone priests in various conciliar parishes if he got wind of any criticism uttered about him from pulpits during sermons.

Cuomo's support for "abortion rights" came to the national forefront in 1984 after the conciliar "bishop" of Scranton, John Joseph O'Connor, was appointed to be the conciliar "archbishop" of New York. Even before his "installation" at Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Monday, March 19, 1984, O'Connor told longtime WNBC-TV newsman Gabe Pressman that he, O'Connor, "was sick and tired" of politicians who say that they are "personally opposed" to abortion while supporting a nonexistent "right" of a woman to choose to kill her preborn baby. This inflamed Cuomo, who has quite a temper, who started a war of words with the new "archbishop." Things escalated rather rapidly, and O'Connor refused to recognize Cuomo's presence at his installation "Mass" on March 19, 1984, while recognizing Mayor Koch of the City of New York, the Mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, and the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, William Wilson. Cuomo was livid. I know. I saw him process out of Saint Patrick's Cathedral as he walked right in front of where I was sitting in the right transept. He was not a happy camper.

Cuomo sought to provide "intellectual muscle" to the "I'm personally opposed to abortion" position in the address that he gave at the behest of Hartford's Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard P. McBrien, then the Chairman of the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, on Thursday, September 13, 1984:

The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or nonbeliever, or as anything else you choose.

We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us.

This freedom is the fundamental strength of our unique experience in government. In the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies, its preservation must be a persuasive and dominant concern. . . .

As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created. We thought church doctrine was clear on this. Life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That—to my less subtle mind—by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed . . . reverence.

But not everyone in our society agrees.

And those who don’t—those who endorse legalized abortions—aren’t a ruthless, callous alliance of anti-Christians determined to overthrow our moral standards. In many cases, the proponents of legal abortion are the very people who have worked with Catholics to realize the goals of social justice set out in papal encyclicals: the American Lutheran Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, B’nai B’rith Women, the Women of the Episcopal Church. There are just a few of the religious organizations that don’t share the church’s position on abortion.

Certainly, we should not be forced to mold Catholic morality to conform to disagreement by non-Catholics, however sincere or severe their disagreement. Our bishops should be teachers, no pollsters. They should not change what we Catholics believe in order to ease our consciences or please our friends or protect the church from criticism.

But if the breadth, intensity, and sincerity of opposition to church teaching shouldn’t be allowed to shape our Catholic morality, it can’t help but determine our ability—our realistic, political ability—to translate our Catholic morality into civil law, a law not for the believers who don’t need it but for the believers who reject it.

And it is here, in our attempt to find a political answer to abortion—an answer beyond our private observance of Catholic morality— that we encounter controversy within and without the church over how and in what degree to press the case that our morality should be everybody else’s, and to what effect.

I repeat, there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule, for spreading this part of our Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals.

And so the Catholic trying to make moral and prudent judgments in the political realm must discern which, if any, of the actions one could take would be best. (American Rhetoric: Mario Cuomo --"Religious Belief and Public Morality)

Apart from the disregard of the facts of biology that young attorney Mario Matthew Cuomo used to provide to groups before which he spoke as a representative of the Diocese of Brooklyn in the 1960s, Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo--Mario Pilate/Pontius Cuomo, an admirer of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., had the audacity to refer to "our" morality when referring to the immutable and eternally binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that proscribe the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human being. God's laws apply to everyone without regard to whether anyone accepts them. Civil law must be conformed to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls, and Catholics have the positive moral obligation to work in behalf of such a conformity. Catholics are not permitted to privately hold one thing while publicly speaking and acting in a contradictory manner.

Pope Leo XIII made this abundantly clear in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Along with other Catholic pro-aborts in public life, Cuomo supported the legal "right" of mothers to support the execution of their babies under cover of law, attempting to cover himself in a mantra of not seeking to "impose" "his" morality upon others, while doing precisely that when it came to the issue of capital punishment. Cuomo said that it was his moral duty as a Catholic to oppose capital punishment even though a majority of the citizens of the State of New York desired its restoration. What hubris. What incredible arrogance to consign the innocent preborn to cruel, merciless deaths under cover of law while criminals convicted of heinous crimes after the exhausting of the levers of due process of law are considered to be above the ultimate punishment for their crimes.

1977-1983: The first alleged success of the pragmatists in the pro-life movement came in 1977 when Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) was able to attach an amendment to the funding of Medicaid that prohibited the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for poor women except in cases where a mother's life was said to be endangered. The legislation containing the Hyde Amendment, which was "liberalized" in 1993 to include the rape and incest exceptions, was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Far from being a success, however, the Hyde Amendment conceded the false idea that innocent human beings could be put to death under cover of law and that American taxpayers could licitly pay for their savage murders. The flawed nature of the single exception contained in the original Hyde Amendment was the basis of its eventual, if not inevitable, expansion sixteen years later.

You are here

Witnesses for the State

Support Christ or Chaos