Sober Up, part seven

As has been noted so many times on this site, we live in a world of illusions created by the adversary to distract us from the real battle that he is waging to take our souls down into hell for all eternity with him. This battle for our souls is the only one that should matter to us as we have no “friends” in the world of Modernity who can “rescue” us from the consequences that must befall men and nations that are in states of utter and complete rebellion against Christ the King and His Holy Church.

There is no relief to be found from the constant conflict and agitation generated by the endless variety of false opposites that exist in the symbiotic worlds of Modernity and Modernism, both of which are founded on one lie diabolical lie after another. Needless conflict is ever-present in the world, and it is ever-present in the counterfeit church of concilarism.

Obama the Lawless Will Not Leave the Stage

To wit, the lawless statist who is completing his second term as the forty-fourth President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, by issuing a flurry of executive orders and regulations designed to hamstring his successor is promising to continue to defend his agenda of rebellion against the laws of God and the just laws of men after his term expires on Friday, January 20, 2017:

We’ve made extraordinary progress as a country these past eight years.  And here’s the thing: none of it was inevitable.  It was the result of tough choices we made, and the result of your hard work and resilience.  And to keep America moving forward is a task that falls to all of us.  Sustaining and building on all we’ve achieved – from helping more young people afford a higher education, to ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions, to tightening rules on Wall Street, to protecting this planet for our kids – that’s going to take all of us working together.  Because that’s always been our story – the story of ordinary people coming together in the hard, slow, sometimes frustrating, but always vital work of self-government.

It’s been the privilege of my life to serve as your President.  And as I prepare to take on the even more important role of citizen, know that I will be there with you every step of the way to ensure that this country forever strives to live up to the incredible promise of our founding – that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve every chance to live out our dreams.  And from the Obama family to yours – have a happy and blessed 2017.  (Obama Says He Is Sticking Around To Keep Agitating.)

In other words, the current caesar will break ranks with his predecessors, most of whom have kept quiet about their successor’s policies, by doing the only thing that he has ever done in his adult life: serve as a “community organizer,” which means that he will continue to serve as an instrument of agitation in his post-presidential years. Gee, what a surprise.

Obama’s post-presidential agitation in behalf of ObamaCare, illegal immigration, unrestricted baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means, climate change and income “equality” will keep those who believe that their mission in life is to defend Donald John Trump’s policies to the point of keeping quiet about such things as claiming that Jerusalem is the “eternal capital of Israel” quite busy these next four years. Thus it is that adherents of the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right” will continue to treat their anointed secular saviors as practically infallible as they are said to be “better” than the available alternatives. Those who are caught in the diabolical vise will never be convinced that the battles that they fight are all based upon one set of naturalistic lies after another.

Obama's Alliance With Jorge and His Band of Revolutionary Fiends

What makes this situation all the more diabolical is that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro will be enabled in his opposition to President Donald John Trump’s policies by many of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America and by almost all of the apparatchiks who populate the “ce-ment palace” that serves as the headquarters of the United States Conference of Catholic “Bishops” (USCCB) in Washington, District of Columbia. All manner of pro-abortion, pro-“population control,” pro-perversity, pro-environmentalist, pro-feminist, and other socialist advocacy groups, many of which are funded by the billionaire Jewish agnostic named George Soros, have deep ties with the apparatchiks within the USCCB, and they will coordinate their efforts with Obama/Soetoro and his Congressional allies to prevent any erosion of the “gains” our delusional caesar states have been made in the past eight years of his lawless administration.

Unlike the situation that obtained during the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan from January 20, 1981, to January 20, 1989, as the then named National Conference of Catholic “Bishops”/United States Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC) served as a willing arm of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left,” which led many of us to write those letters to Rome to complain about the “bad” bishops and their lefty accomplices at the USCC, Obama/Soetoro and his pals in the USCCB and will have a very outspoken ally in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The false “pontiff” has already shown himself to be a friend of every enemy of Christ the King and His immutable truths on the face of the earth now (and even those no longer alive such as Martin Luther, John Hus, “Bishop” Tony Palmer, Mario Matthew Cuomo, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, Georg Hegel, etc.), and he will gladly serve as an enabler of the “stop Trump” movement.

Although he makes gratuitous references to the unborn now and again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio almost never uses the word “abortion” nor does he denounce those who support the slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means, and he is more than amply demonstrated his admiration of pro-abortion officials in public life, to say nothing of his admiration for the work of an actual baby-killer, Emma Bonino, who is called the Margaret Sanger of Italy:

He also named former foreign minister Emma Bonino, ex-Italian president Giorgio Napolitano, and Lampedusa Mayor Giusi Nicolini as the country's "forgotten greats" for their selfless dedication to building bridges with Africa, to serving Italy, and to upholding the rights of refugees. (See Jorge Praises Feminist Pro-Abortion Radical Emma Bonino as one of Italy’s “Great Ones”.)

ROME, May 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Armed with a home-made abortion device, operated by a bicycle pump, Emma Bonino, Italy’s newly appointed Foreign Minister, started her career in the early 1970s as an illegal abortionist and radical feminist.

Emma Bonino, a member of the Italian Radical party, made her mark in Italian politics by founding the Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion (CISA) in 1975, which advanced the campaign to legalise abortion in 1978. Bonino has boasted that she and her group committed 10,141 illegal abortions. However, she avoided prosecution for the illegal abortions by being elected to public office, thereby gaining parliamentary immunity.

Today, as a leading member of Italy’s new cabinet, she is in a position to champion the pro-abortion and anti-family doctrines of the Italian Radical Party on a transnational level.

In that position Bonino, a strong supporter of the “European Project” of a federalist European superstate, will have inordinate influence at the European and international level. “More than one diplomat is dismayed at having Bonino as their boss,” Barreiro added. 

When the dust settled on Italy’s chaotic general election in February, the nation found itself with no government and a hung parliament. The crisis was not resolved until last week when Enrico Letta was confirmed as President of the Council of Ministers of Italy. His 22-member cabinet was sworn in on April 28th.

After her unsuccessful bid in 2010 for the governorship of Lazio, the region of the Roman capital, Bonino resurfaced in February this year, running for President of the Republic, supported by then-Prime Minister Mario Monti. After the re-election of Giorgio Napolitiano as head of state, many Italians were surprised to see her appointment as Foreign Minister. 

Critics on the right have been perplexed by Bonino’s inclusion in the cabinet and in such a prominent post, saying that her inclusion is mark of “inconsistency” in the present government. 

Bonino’s appointment, Barreiro said, is “a problem of coherence”. “If you look at the coalition that has voted to put her in, it’s made of Catholics,” he said. 

A member of the International Bilderberg Group and a protégé of billionaire internationalist George Soros, Bonino was a Member of the European Parliament and of the Italian Senate, and served as Minister of International Trade from 2006 to 2008. She served on the executive committee of the International Crisis Group that created the International Criminal Court.

During her time as a Deputy, Bonino campaigned for loosening of divorce laws, and the legalization of abortion and drugs. As a leading anti-clericalist, she has been a fervent adversary of the influence of the Catholic Church in Italian politics.

The Italian Radical Party, to which Bonino belongs, has been a fixture on the extreme left of Italian politics since its founding in 1970s. Described as “libertarian” in the American model on economic issues, its social policies include support for abortion, same-sex “marriage,” legal euthanasia, artificial insemination, embryonic stem cell research, abolition of capital punishment and the legalization of “soft drugs.” 

Msgr. Barreiro, a lawyer and former diplomat at the UN, noted that many in Italy have questioned the huge influence of the Radicals on politicians of other parties. 

“The Radicals have an enormous influence but with very few votes. They have an undue ability to put pressure on other politicians that is totally disproportionate to their numbers,” he said.

Bonino’s past as an abortionist has not failed to keep up with her. An editorial in Romagiornale.it responded to her bid for the presidency in early April with, “A woman who has trampled all moral and juridical law, including the suppression of more than 10,000 lives, can fill the role of the highest office of the Italian State? This question is a must in the days of the end of the mandate of [President] Napolitano.”

(Bonino is an abortion worshipper and has admitted to conducting 10,141 abortions! Both links found on the most recent Novus Ordo Watch Wire Digest.)

That is quite an impressive pro-abortion resume, and one that can lead this poor woman to one place only if she does not repent before she dies: eternal damnation. Bergoglio may praise such a killer because of her alleged work with refugees, but such praise will damn them both to hell for all eternity as he, believing himself to be the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, has a duty to condemn her baby-killing, the debt of which she owes God, of course, is not canceled out by any good she may have done for "humanitarian" reasons.

Once again, contrast Bergoglio's words of praise for pro-abortion politicians for their alleged "good works" of statism and open borders with how Pope Pius XI described such individuals in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Even the thought of using such language is foreign to the "merciful" mind of the wicked Modernist from Argentina.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow Jacobins/Bolsheviks within the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that while the slaughter of the innocent preborn is regrettable, the more urgent threats to their mythical “better” world are to be found in such things as open borders, youth unemployment, opposing the death penalty—both as a precept of the Natural Law and in in its imposition upon those convicted of heinous crimes after due process of law, protecting the environment, showing “mercy” to unrepentant sinners who desire to be reaffirmed in their lives of impurity, whether natural or unnatural, and ending “income inequality.”

Just Giving Voice Universally to the Bernardin Message of Thirty Years Ago

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is merely giving voice on a universal level to what the “bad” “bishops” of the 1980s sought to promote in the United States of America as they de-emphasized opposition to abortion by advancing the “consistent ethic of life” as a means of enabling and empowering the merchants of death in both organized crime families of naturalism, especially that of the “left,” the Democratic Party. Indeed, it was the nefarious Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin who gave the “consistent ethic of life,” known also as the “seamless garment,” its first episcopal boost (Bernardin was a true bishop, but not a true members of the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church) in an address he delivered at Fordham University, Borough of The Bronx, City of New York, New York, on December 6, 1983:

The substance of a Catholic position on a consistent ethic of life is rooted in a religious vision. But the citizenry of the United States is radically pluralistic in moral and religious conviction. So we face the challenge of stating our case, which is shaped in terms of our faith and our religious convictions, in non-religious terms which others of different faith convictions might find morally persuasive. . . . As we seek to shape and share the vision of a consistent ethic of life, I suggest a style governed by the following rule: We should maintain and clearly communicate our religious convictions but also maintain our civil courtesy. We should be vigorous in stating a case and attentive in hearing another's case; we should test everyone's logic but not question his or her motives. ("A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue".).

Contrast the late "Cardinal" Bernardin's rejection of opposing various evils on the basis of the Catholic Faith with Pope Leo XIII's specific injunction to speak authentically as Catholics at all times and without any equivocation whatsoever:

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

Truth be told, of course, even "Cardinal" Bernardin was not mouthing anything substantively new.

As has been demonstrated on this site, then Governor Alfred E. Smith in New York, a Democrat, promoted the American concept of 'freedom of conscience" in a pluralistic society (see Cut From the Same Cloth) in 1927, a year before he became the first Catholic nominated for the presidency of the United States of America by a major political party. Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of New York, from 1938 to 1967, effectively told the Puerto Rican bishops in 1960 to stay out of a referendum on making contraceptives legal in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: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)

It was five years after this travesty that “Cardinal” Cushing told a Boston radio station that he could not interfere with the “consciences” of state legislators as they considered whether to support or to oppose a bill in the Massachusetts General Court (the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). This made it far easier for the Kennedys and the Careys and Cuomos and the Bidens and the O’Neills, among others, to support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in the 1970s with the full support of the ultra-progressives in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, one of whose leaders, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, another true bishop, invented the “consistent ethic of life” (“the seamless garment) slogan to provide pro-abortion Catholics with the cover of “respectability” as long as they opposed the death penalty and supported one statist measure after another to confiscate wealth and then to redistribute it to the poor while “empowering” illegal immigrants at the same time:

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.)

The Argentine Apostate's Constant Warfare Against the Gravity of Killing The Innocent Preborn

Today’s Pontius Pilates such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow revolutionaries had lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s abd 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to a blind eye as Catholics in public support each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and it is entirely unsurprising, therefore, that Bergoglio is said to be considering removing the penalty of automatic excommunication incurred by women who kill their babies by surgical means:

“Archbishop” Vincent Paglia is the current leader of the Vatican’s “Pontifical Academy for Life”. Until September 1 of this year, he headed the “Pontifical Council for the Family”, which was then absorbed into the new “Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life” as a part of Francis’ ongoing reform of the Roman Curia. On Nov. 23, 2016, the Italian newspaper Il Resto del Carlino published an interview with “Abp.” Paglia, in which he was asked this very question: “But is it possible that in the near future the excommunication for abortion will be overcome?”

Archlayman Paglia answered as follows:

Yes, this cannot be excluded…. Whether it will be Francis himself who abrogates the canon, I do not know; one would need to ask him. What is certain is that the Code [of Canon Law] has been revised dozens of times in the last decades. It would not be surprising, therefore, that the progress of life should lead to an updating [aggiornamento] of canon law. This lies in the nature of reality; the tradition of the Church is a living body, not a blocked code [of regulations].

(Interview with “Abp.” Vincent Paglia; in Giovanni Panettiere, “L’arcivescovo e l’aborto perdonato «anche la scomunica può saltare»”, Il Resto del Carlino, Nov. 23, 2016; our translation.)

In short, the head of the Vatican’s “Pontifical” Academy for Life thinks it is quite possible that Francis will abrogate altogether the law that currently prescribes an excommunication latae sententiae (meaning it is incurred automatically, without a declaration or other intervention of church authority) for committing an abortion! That’s certainly one way to deal with that pesky problem of having to give special faculties to confessors to work around canon law: Simply change the law so that procuring an abortion no longer incurs automatic excommunication in the first place. Presto! (Novus Ordo Watch Wire: Francis Might Abolish Excommunication for Abortion.)

The blogger at Novus Ordo Watch Wire went on to reveal a story that has been circulating to effect that the dogmatic evolutionists of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are considering “tolerating” the surgical execution of innocent preborn children during the first trimester of their lives. It is interesting, however, that rumors concerning “pastoral adjustments” in Catholic moral teaching (administration of what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics, permission granted for the baptism of the children of those of the same gender who are said to be “married” to each other, an approach of “gradualness” to “accompany” fornicators, sodomites, transvestites, and those who have had undergone surgical mutilation in an attempt to “change” their gender, etc.) have a way of being rather prophetic.

The speculation of the Novus Ordo Watch Wire blogged is not far-fetched as Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear in the past by his words and actions that he thinks that the “decision” to carry a child to term is “difficult” for women to make, and some conciliar officials have gone so far as to state that there are circumstances in which what they believe that the killing of preborn children can be justified. 

Among so many other examples that could be given, Lombardi even used the phrase “therapeutic abortion” to justify “Archbishop” Salvatore Rino Fisichella’s criticism in 2009 of a conciliar “bishop” of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho who had excommunicated the butchers who killed the twin babies of a nine year-old girl who been assaulted by a relative:

ROME, February 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), has told the Associated Press that he has no intention of stepping down after five senior members of the Academy issued a statement last week expressing their loss of confidence in his leadership.

“I won’t respond to these people. Too much space already has been given to them,” Fisichella told AP.

Fisichella’s response follows comments late last week from Fr. Frederico Lombardi, the head of the Holy See Press Office and a subordinate of the cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who told media that the statement has not been received by either the pope or Bertone. Lombardi, who has gone on record supporting Fisichella, told the Catholic News Agency that issuing the statement to the press was an “astonishing” move.

The author of the statement, Luke Gormally, an Ordinary Member of the Academy and the former director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London, told LSN that he did not intend to pursue the matter any further.

Gormally told LSN, “Certainly, for the immediate future I have no further action in mind.”

The five signatories to the statement say they believe that Archbishop Fisichella’s speech at the Academy’s plenary meeting made it clear that he does not grasp the meaning of the Catholic Church’s absolute prohibition on the killing of unborn children.

His speech, they said, “had the effect of confirming in the minds of many academicians the impression that we are being led by an ecclesiastic who does not understand what absolute respect for innocent human lives entails.” They called this an “absurd” situation.

Fisichella, they said, maintained that the article he wrote last year, which appeared to condone the abortion of the twin children of a nine-year-old rape victim in Brazil, had been “vindicated” by a clarification issued in July 2009 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Fisichella wrote in his article, published in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that the doctors who aborted the twins did not deserve excommunication and accused the pro-life local bishop of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of acting hastily and failing to meet the pastoral needs of the girl.

“There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust,” hewrote. 

These assertions were roundly refuted at the time by a statement from the Brazilian diocese detailing the assistance that the girl and her family had been receiving from the local priest and the diocese before she was spirited away by a pro-abortion group for the abortion. This response was never given space in either the secular press or in L’Osservatore Romano and no official response to it was ever publicly made by any office of the Vatican, although Bishop Cardoso was later honoured for his actions by the pro-life group Human Life International.

Gormally told LSN today that his statement had originally been meant only as his own response to LSN’s request for information on the outcome of the PAV plenary meeting, but that later other members expressed an interest in signing. The group later released it to other news outlets.

He said he is “content” with the situation as it is and said that the statement has achieved what it set out to do by clarifying for the public what he believes the true situation is with the Academy. The statement said that within the Vatican Curia, it is “widely perceived” that Fisichella is an “inappropriate” president of the Academy.

Gormally told AP that an article by Catholic News Service, in which Fisichella had declared that there was “harmony” at the PAV plenary meeting, had been a work of deliberate “disinformation.” The statement, he said, had corrected this situation.

On Friday, February 19, Vatican Spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi said the statement by the five PAV members “was received neither by the Holy Father, nor by the cardinal Secretary of State, who would seem to be the natural recipients,” nor, he said, had it been presented at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, “which would have been the natural place to address the matter.”

“It’s a bit strange that persons who are members of an academy address a request of this kind without addressing it to the competent authorities. It’s astounding and seems incorrect that such a document should be given public circulation,” Lombardi said.

However, Fr. Lombardi himself has had a hand in the growth of the controversy surrounding the PAV and Archbishop Fisichella’s article.

On March 21 2009, just days after Fisichella’s article was published, Fr. Lombardi, while accompanying the pope on a visit to Africa, told media that in his speech to Angolan dignitaries Benedict XVI had in no way intended to condemn “therapeutic abortion.” In his speech, Pope Benedict had observed, “How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare!”

Lombardi, aware of the growing scandal surrounding Fisichella’s statements, hastened to assure journalists that the comments had nothing to do with the Brazilian case, and openly endorsed Fisichella’s assertions.

He said, “In this regard the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply, when he lamented in L’Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something quite different … The Pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected.”

Fr. Lombardi later declined LSN’s direct request for a clarification of his remarks. (Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics; see also So Long to the Fifth Commandment, the Statement of those "Pontifical Academy for Life" members who criticized Fisichella, Dr. Marian Therese Horvat's The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position, and Rotten To The Very Roots.

It is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being under any circumstances.

To elaborate on this for bit before turning to his spinning for “Pope Francis’s” most recent and most outrageous interview to date, it should be pointed out that “Pope Benedict XVI” did not contradict Salvatore Rino Fisichella seven years ago or the great moral theologian at the Press Office of the Holy See, “Father” Federico Lombardi.

Mind you, the killing of the nine year-old girl’s twin babies in 2009 was not a debatable interpretation of what constitutes the double-fold effect that justifies the undertaking of a particular course of action, morally licit in and of itself, that has foreseen but unintended evil consequences. This was not even a debate, for instance, over what constitutes truly extraordinary means to sustain human life. This was a matter moral black and moral white that wound up being obfuscated by illogic and sentimentality and emotional hand-wringing.

The fact that two officials of the conciliar Vatican could make it appear that it is ever morally licit to directly and equivocally attack an innocent human life in order to exculpate those who kill such life speaks to us yet today, seven years later, as proof that the men who masquerade as "Vatican officials" are apostates who have long defected on very clear matters of objectively morality just as much as they have defected from articles contained in the Deposit of Faith. As is patently evident by now, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has given full rein to those who base courses of moral conduct on the casuistry of sentimentality and pure emotionalism, not according to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not weigh in publicly at the time of “Bishop” Jose Cardoso Sobrinho’s excommunication of all those involved in killing those twin babies seven years, he has, though, shown every confidence in Salvatore Rino Fisichella. This is because, despite his occasional gratuitous denunciations of the surgical killing of the innocent preborn, he does not think that much can or even should be done about it in the practical order of things.

To wit, Bergoglio tasked none other than Salvatore Rino Fisichella in 2015 with the duty of sending out “missionary” presbyters to forgive women of the crime of killing their babies, making it very clear that he has the exact same attitude about the surgical execution of innocent preborn children as does the President of the United States of America, the nefarious statist and globalist named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro:

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence. (Jorge Extends Faculties to Conciliar Priests and Presbyter to Forgive the Sin of Abortion.)

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.

He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama/Soetoro Speech at the University of Notre Dame du Lac.)

Please note the subjectivist nature of the false “pontiff’s” remarks, a clear indicator that he believes that he does not believe that the killing of an innocent preborn baby differs to any significant extent at all from a child’s using “the dog ate my homework” excuse with his teacher. In other words, the killing of a preborn baby is really no “big deal” in Jorge’s warped view as a woman has a supposedly “existential” decision to make, thus making a “choice” to “terminate her pregnancy” entirely excusable. To speak of the acceptance of baby-killing in terms of a "changed relationship with respect to life" reveals that, despite the times that he calls abortion a crime, he cannot bring himself to use the language of the Catholic Church (one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a direct violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and of the Natural Law, a Mortal Sin in the objective order of things, etc.) to speak of the carnage of the innocent preborn nor to assign blame to anyone in particular for this carnage.

Although Bergoglio was not wrong in saying that many women have killed their babies surgically as a result of pressure being placed upon them by the fathers of their children and/or their own parents and friends, to say nothing of the butchers at facilities such as Planned Barrenhood and of obstetricians and gynecologists who love to strike fear into the hearts of older women about the "dangers" to themeslves and their preborn child if they do not kill the baby, the false "pope" did not name the source of this pressure, thus leaving open for the consideration of other "pressures" (such as the necessity of holding onto a particular job, pursuing one's studies, facing economic poverty, the possibility of a child to be born with one or more birth defects) as making a woman's "decision" more difficult to the extent that they experience what he describes as an "existential and moral ordeal." Obama/Soetoro referred to a "heart-rending decision."

Without for a moment minimizing the scars of women who have had their babies killed by surgical executioners, the fact remains that there is no "decision" to be made, only a child to be welcomed and love unto his eternal salvation. A woman must be instructed in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance that she must be sorry not only for the act of child-killing but must repent of the act of fornication that led to the conception of the child she paid to have murdered if she is in the state or to repent for the act of adultery in the case of a married woman. Moreover, married women who have killed their children because of pressure from husbands and/or the various ecomonic considerations must be counseled to welcome as many or as few children as God wills for them to have without seeking to frustrate the natural process of the transmission of life. Then again, the counterfeit church of concilairism has inverted the ends of marriage, making it "understandable" to the likes of Bergoglio that a married woman might have to "agonize" over accepting the child given her by God.

It is no accident that the figure of Antichrist in the White House who supports unrestricted baby-killing and the figure of Antichrist in the Casa Santa Marta within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River who says that he is opposed such killing speak of the crime of willful murder with such great "understanding" of the "difficulties" involved. Most, although far from all, of those "difficulties," however, are entirely self-made, stemming from an unwillingess to keep oneself from the near occasion of sin and a casual embrace of contraception as that which is normal, natural and completely morally acceptable.

To write as "Pope Francis" did to Salvatore Rino Fisichella makes it appear as though there are circumstances in which a woman may be convinced that it is "necessary" for her to kill her preborn child and that she can do so with the certain knowledge of absolution in the conciliar church's "Sacrament of Reconciliation" no matter her rationale for having done so. A good confessor must make the necessary distinctions in each circumstance is presented before him, and if he cannot administer absolution if it is his judgment that the pentinent is not comittted to amend her life after having killed the fruit of her womb. Will she give up her sins of fornication if she is single or, if giving, give up her adultery?

These are not heartless or insensitive questions. As the late Father John Joseph Sullivan instructed his students at Holy Apostles Seminary when I was his student there, priests do not beat up penitents in the confession. At the same time, however, they have the obligation to ask prudent questions in a fatherly manner that bear on the circumstances of a sin if they judge such questions necessary. Bergoglio, though, is making it appear as though there can never be a circumstance in which a woman who has killed her child can be denied absolution (not that it is available from a conciliar presbyter, of course) in the “Sacrament of Reconciliation.” Sadly, there are such circumstances if a priest judges that there is not true contrition and a firm purpose on the part of the penitent to amend his life. Bergoglio is making it appear that the retention of sins in the case of abortion would not be “merciful.”

Thus, my very good and most patient few readers, it is that the answer that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave on Wednesday, February 17, 2016, concerning the use of contraceptives to prevent the spread of the Zika virus and, it is said, to avoid the conception of babies with deformities that the “medical experts” want us to believe is caused by a virus about whose source is mysteriously unknown is simply part of a well-established pattern of doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral wreckage:

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Always the Friend of Statist Pro-Aborts

Although “Pope Francis” called abortion a “crime,” it is one that he believes does not make anyone involved in its commission, funding or political support a moral or legal criminal. If he truly believed that abortion is a crime before God, he would say so before the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., the pro-abortion members of the Congress of the United States of America, the various pro-abortion moochers who live high on the hog off the taxpayer subsidies of the United States of America at the United Nations (and their counterpart moochers who live off the subsidies of Europeans at the European Union), City of New York, New York Mayor Warren Wilhem/“Bill de Blasio,” and, among others, State of New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo.

Ah, Bergoglio goes out of his way to praise pro-abortion politicians for their “open borders” policies and for their embrace of all manner of draconian measures to “save the planet” from “global warming.” He even went so far as call the late Governor of the State of New York Mario Matthew Cuomo a “great man” when greeting his son the aforementioned Andrew Mark Cuomo, and his concubine, Sandra Lee, at the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, on Thursday evening, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:

Pope Francis’ warm and forgiving nature was on display again Thursday when he said he would pray for Gov. Cuomo’s late father, Mario, sources told The Post.

The pontiff told Cuomo that Mario — who himself led New York state from 1983 to 1994 — was a great man despite Mario’s support of abortion rights.

Francis also blessed the governor’s gal pal, Sandra Lee — a cancer survivor — when the couple met the pontiff outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral before a service.

“The pope gave Sandra a special blessing for her health and her recovery and Cuomo asked the pope to say a prayer for his ­father,” the source said.

“The pope told him . . . that his father was a great man and he would keep him in his prayers.” (Jorge "blesses" Andrew Cuomo's Live-in Girlfriend and Praises Mario Cuomo.)

A supposed “pope” gave a “blessing” to a woman who is living in sin with the divorced, pro-abortion, pro-perversity Governor of the State of New York, Andrew Mark Cuomo, while praising Figlio di Sfachim’s father, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo (see  It Is Still A Terrible Thing to Fall into the Hands of the Living God).

Support the killing of babies as a “legal right” of women to “choose”?

No problem with Jorge as long as you are for “social justice” and oppose the death penalty, both in theory and in practice. All the better, of course, if you throw in support for programs to deal with "climate change" and 

On the other hand, of course, Bergoglio has taken all manner of shots against Donald John Trump, and he will make more once the latter is sworn into office eighteen days from now. Bergoglio's opposition to Trump, which will be spearheaded in this country by the all-around no-goodnik known as Blase Cupich, the conciliar "archbishop" of Chicago, Illinois, will futher encourage many Catholics, especially those attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the tragically mistaken belief that this synthetic entity is the Catholic Church, to transfer their fealty from the man they belive to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to President Trump. As a result of this, of course, many Catholics will look the other way as Trump enables the lavender agenda and empowers the murdeous policies of the Zionist State of Israel. To criticize Trump, many will contend, is to support his critics, including the false "pontiff."

Obviously, it is not to support any public official's critics on the false opposite of the "left," including Jorge Mario Bergolio, when policies are proposed or undertaken that are contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law or when such policies give a blank check to the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to prepare the way for the coming of the Antichrist. Lost on those caught up in the deception of this conflict is that both Trump and Bergoglio will further pave the way for the coming of the Antichrist, albeit by different means and for different reasons. Truth of any kind, supernatural or natural, and the true common temporal good of men and their nations must be the losers in such conflicts.

A Long and Sorry History of Enabling and Empowering Those Who Support Baby-Kiling in Public Life

Although some "conservative" Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have tried to compare Jorge Mario Bergoglio's refusal to condemn abortion in strong terms while at the same time showing great affection for pro-abortion public officials around the world to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's frequent condemnations of the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in his mother's womb, the "canonized" "Saint John Paul II" did nothing in practical terms to impose any kind of sanctions on pro-abortion Catholics in public life, and he was mute as many of his "bishops" in the United States of America enabled the likes of Edward Moore Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Hugh Carey, Mario Cuomo, Barbara Mikulski, Geraldine Ferraro, George Pataki, Tom Ridge, Rudolph Giuliani, Robert Torricelli, Robert Menendez, Richard Riordan, Susan Collins, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Kerry, Thomas Harkin, Richard Durbin, Loretta Sanchez Brixey, Carolyn McCarthy, Rick Lazio, Susan Molinari, Carol Mosely Braun, James Moran, Charles Rangel, Marty Meehan, Christopher Dodd, Kathleen Sebelius, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Patrick Leahy, Maurice Hinchey, Thomas Foley, Thomas P. O'Neil, Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Jack Reed, George Mitchell, Linda Sanchez, Sherwood Boehlert, Mike Arcuri, Jim Doyle, et al. time and time again.

John Paul II was presented with an ultimatum by about forty Catholic members of the United States House of Representatives, including then Representative Robert K. Dornan (Republican, California), who threatened to go to Rome en masse to insist on Drinan's removal from electoral politics if Rome did not act to do beforehand. (Dornan has spoken about this publicly, including at a panel I hosted for the Society of Catholic Social Scientists at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1997.) Drinan went on to support the winner of the Democratic Party primary, held in September of 1980, to replace him in the House of Representatives, a chap by the name of Barney Frank. Drinan openly supported then Representative Geraldine Ferraro's (Democrat, Queens, New York) views on abortion in the 1984 general elections, pitting him on a Crossfire program on the Cable News Network (CNN), hosted by that program's original co-hosts, Tom Braden and Patrick J. Buchanan, in August of that year against Father Vincent P. Miceli (who had been a Jesuit until 1983), who eviscerated him in their debate.

Drinan was the president of the pro-abortion Americans for Democratic Action for a few years in the 1980s, giving a blistering speech in behalf of "reproductive rights" in the summer of 1984 in that capacity. Despite this, however, he has been honored by several "Catholic" universities, including the Saint John's University School of Law, Jamaica, New York, where he gave the commencement address in 1995, and at Saint Joseph's College, Brentwood, New York, in 1998, two years after he supported then President William Jefferson Clinton's veto of the conditional, partial ban on partial-birth abortions. That Drinan remains in good standing in the conciliar church, which professes its opposition to baby-killing, and has been accorded such accolades by "Catholic" institutions is just another symptom of the bankruptcy of Faith, especially as it pertains in this instance to the conciliar novelty of Collegiality, that permeates the conciliar structures.

Pro-abortion Catholics in public life during the reign of both Wotyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lived and died as "Catholics" in perfectly good standing in what they thought was the Catholic Church but is actually her counterfeit ape. And they were lauded by alleged prelates and clerics long after their deaths.

You want a review of some of the more notorious examples of Catholics in public life who received the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo "Mass of Christian Burial" despite their support for baby-killing and/or perversity during the years of the "pro-life" Wojtyla and the "traditional" Ratzinger.

Why, of course, I am more than happy to oblige the twelve of you who will be reading this article:

The late New York State Senator Edward Speno was permitted to have a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Raphael Church in East Meadow, Long Island, New York, in 1972, two years after he had voted in favor of the bill to permit surgical baby-killing-on-demand in the first trimester of pregnancy following his death from a sudden heart attack. (See the appendix below for material I unearthed about Speno in an article published some years ago now.)

The late Thomas P. O'Neill was eulogized as a splendid Catholic by the man who later served as the conciliar archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, the protector of perverted priests, including one who started an organization to promote something so unspeakable that it will not be repeated here, by the name of Bernard "Cardinal" Law, in 1994 despite O'Neill's constant support for abortion "rights."

The "late" Father Robert Drinan, S.J., known as "Father Death," who served in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1971, January 3, 1981 (endorsing one Barney Frank to be his successor when the conciliar Vatican forced him to refrain from seeking a sixth term in 1980), remained a priest in "good standing" in the conciliar church until his death on January 28, 2007 despite his unrepentant support of surgical baby-killing under cover of law, including the procedure known as "partial-birth abortion."

Drinan was also instrumental in helping the Kennedy clan to plot a strategy to separate their "private" beliefs about abortion from their public policies ( See WSJ.com - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma.) Drinan even received an award from Saint Joseph's College in Patchogue, New York, in the late-1990s for his work in behalf of "peace and justice," a travesty that I covered for The Wanderer at the time. Drinan's "Mass of Christian Burial" was held at the Jesuit church in downtown Washington, D.C., Saint Aloysius Church, on February 1, 2007. Edward Moore Kennedy was one of those who "eulogized" "Father Death. Nancy Pelosi was another:

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

Edward Moore Kennedy believed that supporting abortion was "God's work." Ah, yes, just some more of Kennedy's "accomplishments" praised by Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley (see Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite).

The late Associate Justice William Brennan of the Supreme Court of the United States of America was given a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Matthew's Church on July 29, 1997. This was permitted by the then conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, D.C., James "Cardinal" Hickey, despite the fact that Brennan cast one of the seven affirmative votes in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, and despite the fact that Brennan served also as one of the seven affirmative votes in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that invalidated a long-unenforced Connecticut state statute that banned the sale of contraceptives to married couples, a case that provided a good deal of the "legal reasoning," such as it was, for the Roe and Doe cases, especially by inventing the so-called "right to privacy" as found in what were called the "penumbras" (little shadows of emanations) from could be found various provisions of the Bill of Rights and made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty and due process of law clauses.

William Brennan's "Mass of Christian Burial" was a travesty from beginning to end. The pro-abortion, pro-Communist, pro-Fidel Castro, pro-South Central Los Angeles rioters United States Representative Maxine Waters was so impressed by that travesty, which featured an auxiliary "bishop," William Lori, now the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in attendance as the official representative of the archdiocese, that she asked that its program be inserted into the Congressional Record (see Appendix A below).

One of those who gave a "eulogy," a tribute that used to be forbidden, at least formally, even by the rules of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, at this travesty was then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy did so as well. Another featured eulogist was none other than Father "Death" himself, the pro-abortion Reverend Robert Drinan, S.J., who was himself buried as a Catholic priest in "good standing" in the conciliar structures following his death on January 20, 2007.

The late United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York) was permitted to have a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, in 2003 despite his consistent support for abortion "rights," mitigated, some believe, because he did vote to partially ban partial-birth abortions. To oppose a particular form of child-killing while maintaining the "right" of women to murder their children by other means does not constitute a "mitigation" of one's support for a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

Noting the fact that Mario Matthew Cuomo died on January 1, 2015, during the conciliar presidency, shall we say, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a final example from the Wojtyla-Ratzinger years of a pro-abort being buried in good standing out of Catholic church in conciliar captivity was the notorous pro-abort named Geraldine Ann Ferraro-Zaccaro, who died on March 26, 2011 (see To Fall Into The Hands of the Living God and  Just Another Ordinary Outrage Permitted by a Conciliar "Ordinary").

Get the idea?

Sure, I knew the twelve of you would.

Moreover, how many people remember that it was back that was in early January of 1995, eighteen years ago now, that the conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, Normandy, France, Jacques Gaillot, was removed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after years upon years of protests by Catholics about his words and actions, including his open and unapologetic support for the human pesticide, the French abortion pill, RU-486? (See Farley Clinton's February 2, 1995, article in The Wanderer, Gaillot Stripped of His Bishopric. I had my own commentary on the matter at the time that ran in the same newspaper.) That it took something approaching a revolution from Catholics attached to the conciliar structures in France to effect Gaillot's removal after years of complaints--and even admonitions from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II himself--speaks volumes about the paralysis caused by the conciliar novelty of episcopal collegiality, one of the triumphs of the Modernist spirit in favor of democracy that had been described so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Two False Opposites That Produce Conflicts Leading to One End: Antichrist

Modernity itself is based on the lie that it is possible for men to know social order absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church and absent a firm reliance upon Sanctifying Grace to grow in the virtues and to rise to the heights of personal sanctity. Social order depends upon the order within the souls of men. Behold the disorder that exists at the present time, a disorder that, of course, is exponentially greater now because of the barrenness, of the false doctrines and the liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The proliferation of error is so pronounced and so widespread in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the average Catholic, noting, of course, exceptions here and there, has become so very accustomed to apostasy that he is incapable of recognizing that is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, for a Catholic to enter into a place of false worship and then to praise that place of diabolical rites as "sacred" and to praise the "values" held by the adherents of that false religion.

Very few Catholics have ever expressed any sense of outrage for the honor and majesty and glory of God when Antipope Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's called a mosque in Jordan as a "jewel" that stands out on "the face of the earth" during his visit there in 2009 or when he took off his shoes to enter the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem while calling this place that is hideous in the sight of God as "sacred" or entering into Jewish synagogues or Protestant churches to engage in serial acts of false ecumenism. Although many in the conciliar structures have denounced Jorge Mario Bergoglio's serial outrages against the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and all truth, whether supernatural or natural, most them kept their mouths shut about Ratzinger's offenses because they did not to jeopardize Summorum Pontificum as it was under attack by "bad" "bishops."

These Catholics have come to accept such acts of apostasy and sacrilege as "natural" and "normal," if not actual "obligations" required of Christian charity so as to demonstrate to all men of "good will" that a "loving God" does not make distinctions between people who have different beliefs about Him. I know of only a handful of Catholics who expressed publicly any outrage at all for the honor and majesty and glory of God after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008. That silence was and remains culpable before God for those who knew such esteem to be what it was: an act of apostasy.

Thus it is that the coming series of conflicts between President Donald John Trump and Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin revolutionaries over illegal immigration, statist schemes of universal health care, "climate change" and income inequality will see all manner of very, very well-meaning Catholics lining up to defend the new president while continuing to act in such a manner that disparages the respect and the obedience to one who they deem to be the very Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. The same silence that many Catholics maintained as Ratzinger/Benedict offended God so frequently, starting with the former "pontiff"s" attack on the very nature of dogmatic truth, which is an attack upon the nature of God Himself, will maintained for the next four years in order to defend a man who is fully supportive of the lavender agenda and of the Zionist State of Israel against an egregious heretic who is a both a naturalism and a moral relativist.

Sober up.

The peace and prosperity of nations is not built on such false conflicts.

On the Feast of Holy Name of Jesus

Today is the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus.

One of hard facts that many so-called "realists" among Catholics refuse to accept is that many of the founding fathers of the United States of America despised the Holy Name of Jesus and His Catholic Faith, which they blasphemed and derided very openly:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. (President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-1788)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away {with} all this artificial scaffolding…" (11 April, 1823, John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594).

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821)

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."—James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr„ April I, 1774

". . . Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."—James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."—-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813.)

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger Weigthman, June 24, 1826, ten days before Jefferson's death. This letter is quoted in its entirety in Dr. Paul Peterson’s now out-of-print Readings in American Democracy. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt, 1979, pp. 28-29. )

Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.

John Adams was the first vice president and second president of the United States of America.

James Madison was the secretary of the Constitutional Convention, which met from May 25, 1787, to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (and it is in that capacity that he is considered to be the “Father of the Constitution”), and the fourth president of the United States of America after having served as Jefferson's Secretary of State.

Jefferson’s letter to Roger Weightman, written just ten days before his death on July 4, 1826, precisely fifty years to the day after the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence (a date of death his shared with his one-time friend turned adversary and then friend again, John Adams), demonstrates clearly this wretched naturalist’s hope for a world freed from the shackles of what he believed to be “monkish superstition.” It is generally not a good thing to go before Christ the King at the moment of one’s Particular Judgment after having written about “monkish superstition.”

The founding of the United States of America was a work of both Protestantism's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and its revolution against the Catholic Churh as well as being the work of Judeo-Masonry to keep the Holy Name of Jesus off of the lips of "enlightened" men in public life, and you will not hear the Holy Nane of Our Lord Jesus Christ pass from the lips of President Donald John Trump unless it is in a speech that also mentions Abraham, Moses, and Mohammed. 

Similarly, the conciliar “popes” have acted as though the courage of the Apostles themselves, who had been enjoined by the Sanhedrin never to speak the Holy Name of Jesus again, was nothing other than a personal choice on their part that carries with it no binding obligation today, especially after the events of World War II that keep being used as a pretext for the apostate conciliar “doctrine” concerning the “enduring” nature of the Old Covenant.

Let us face facts: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is ashamed of the Holy Name of Jesus before Jews and Mohammedans. He is afraid even to give a phony "blessing" in public places outside of a conciliar setting for fear that some atheist or infidel might be "offended" by his doing so. Bergoglio is the very opposite of the Saint Peter, who spoke as follows to the Sandhedrin as recorded by Saint Luke, writing under the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in the Acts of the Apostles:

[26] Then went the officer with the ministers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. [27] And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, [28] Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. [29] But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. [30] The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

[31] Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. [32] And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. [33] When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. [34] But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. [35] And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

[36] For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. [37] After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. [38] And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; [39] But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. [40] And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

[41] And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. [42] And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 26-42.)

The refusal of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of revolutionaries to utter the Holy Name of Jesus when in  the presence of those who do not believe in Our Lord’s Sacred Divinity stands in stark contrast to the examples provided us by millions of martyrs, many of whom died with the sweet Name of Jesus on their very lips as they died after refusing to disown the only Name given to men by which they can be saved.

One of those martyrs was Saint Rene Goupil, who was killed on the Feast of the Dedication of Saint Michael the Archangel, on September 29, 1642, in what is now called Auriesville, New York, where the blood of the martyrs was shed right in what wold become the United States of America:

"After René and I had been captives in Ossernenon (Auriesville, New York) for six weeks (September 1642) we lost all hope of again seeing Three Rivers (the Jesuit mission). We consoled one another at this decree of Divine Providence and kept preparing ourselves for anything that God might ordain. René evidently did not perceive as clearly as I our present peril. For this reason I kept warning him to be prepared for the worst...

"One evening with sad hearts, René and I went beyond the village stockade to pray more reverently apart from its noise. Two Indian youths came after us ordering us to go back to our long house. I sensed some foreboding of what would happen and said to René: 'My dear brother, let us commend ourselves to our Lord and to our dear Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am afraid these Indians have some evil design...

"A few minutes earlier René and I had offered ourselves to Our Lord with intense devotion. We begged God to accept our lives and our blood, and to unite them to His life and His blood for the salvation of these pagan tribes. We were returning to the village, praying our Rosary, of which we had already said four decades...

"We paused at the gate of the stockade to hear what the two Iroquois had to say. One of them drew a tomahawk from under his blanket, and dealt René a blow on the head. René fell prostrate to the ground, uttering the holy Name of Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. We had often reminded each other to end our speech and our lives with that most holy Name...

"At the sound of the blow I turned around and beheld the tomahawk dripping with blood. I fell to my knees to receive the blow that would unite me to my dear companion. The Iroquois delayed. I rose again and rushed to René's side as he lay expiring, but not before I had given him absolution. Since our captivity I had absolved him regularly every other day after his confession...

"It was the Feast of St. Michael, September the 29th, 1642, that this angel in innocence and martyr of Jesus Christ, René Goupil, gave his life for Christ Who had offered His life on the Cross for him. The Indians ordered me to go back to my long house. There I awaited that day and the next the same deadly tomahawk. Everyone believed that I would not have to wait long. But Our Lord averted this...

"Early the next morning I eagerly inquired where the Indians had thrown that blessed body. I wanted to bury it, cost what it might. Some of the Iroquois who wanted to save my life said: 'Do you not see those young braves leaving the village? They will kill you once you are beyond the palisade.' This did not stop me. I went out, I searched, and with the help of a captive Algonquin Indian, I found the body of René...

"After René had been killed, the Indian children stripped him. They tied a rope around his neck and dragged him to a torrent which flows through the ravine beyond the village. The dogs had already gnawed at his thighs. At this sight I could not hold back my tears. I lifted up the body and, with the Algonquin Indian's help, lowered it into the stream. I weighted it down with large stones to hide it from view. I intended to bury René the next day..."

"The next day, as the Indians were seeking to kill me, my Indian "aunt" sent me to her friend to escape them. This forced me to delay the burial until the next day. It rained all that night, and the stream became a raging torrent. I borrowed a hoe from another long house, the better to conceal my plan. On approaching the spot I could not find the blessed body of René. Alas, my brother's body had been carried away...

"I waded into the torrent already quite cold. I plodded back and forth. I sounded with my feet to see whether the torrent had not risen and carried off the body. What groans did I utter then! I found nothing. How many tears I shed which fell into the torrent! I sang as best I could the psalms which the Church chants for the dead. After all I found nothing. I searched the woods on the opposite bank. All, all in vain...

"The young braves had taken the body up and dragged it to an adjoining wood, where during the Fall and Winter it became the food of the dog, the crow, and the fox. When I had been told in the Spring that the body had been dragged there, I went several times without finding it. Finally on the fourth trip I found René's head and some half gnawed bones. These I buried. Reverently did I kiss them as the bones of a martyr of Jesus Christ.

"I give René this title of martyr, not only because he was killed by the enemies of God and of His Church out of ardent love of his neighbor by placing himself in open peril for the love of God, but precisely because he was killed for prayer, and expressly for making the Sign of the Cross." It was because René, in the simplicity and childlike piety which overflowed from his loving heart, had guided the tiny hand of a little Mohawk boy in the sign of the Cross, that the boy's grandfather, in a demonic rage, had ordered his death. (From Saint Isaac Jogues, S.J., “War of Martyrdom,” as found at: War of Martyrdom.)

Saint Rene Goupil, S.J., did not seek to compromise the Faith in order to save his life. He freely gave up his life as he made the Sign of the Cross and invoked the Holy Name of Jesus. Then he again, he was a real Jesuit, albeit a lay brother, as opposed to the heretical lay Jesuit, Bergoglio, who is neither a priest or a bishop or a member of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori explained that the saints always had the Holy Name of Jesus on their lips as they were never ashamed of Him and His doctrine before men:

The name of Jesus is strange to some, and why is it? Because they love not Jesus. The Saints have always on their lips this name of salvation and love. There is not a page in all the epistles of St. Paul in which he does not name Jesus many times. St. John also names Him often. The blessed Henry Suso, the more to increase his love for this holy name, one day, with a sharp iron, engraved the name of Jesus on his bosom over his heart; and being all bathed in his blood, he said, Lord, I desire to write Thy name on my heart itself, but I cannot; Thou Who canst do everything, imprint, I pray Thee, Thy sweet name on my heart, so that neither Thy name nor Thy love may ever be effaced from it. St. Jane of Chantal imprinted the name of Jesus on her heart with a hot iron.

Jesus Christ does not expect so much from us; He is satisfied if we keep Him in our hearts by love, and if we often invoke Him with affection. And as whatever He did and said during His life, He did it all for us, so it is but just that whatever we do, we should do it in the name of Jesus Christ, and for His love, as St. Paul exhorts us: All whatsoever you do, in word or in work, all things do ye in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. [34] And if Jesus has died for us, we ought to be ready willingly to give our lives for the name of Jesus Christ, as the same Apostle declared he was ready to do: For I am ready, not only to be bound, but to die also in Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus. [35]

Let us now come to the conclusion. If we are in affliction, let us invoke Jesus, and He will console us. If we are tempted, let us invoke Jesus, and He will give us strength to withstand all our enemies. If, lastly, we are in aridity, and are cold in Divine love, let us invoke Jesus, and He will inflame our hearts. Happy are they who have this most tender and holy name always on their lips! A name of peace, a name of hope, a name of salvation, and a name of love. And oh! happy shall we be if we are fortunate enough to die pronouncing the name of Jesus! But if we desire to breathe out our last sigh with this sweet name on our tongue, we must accustom ourselves to repeat it often during our life.
Let us also always add the beautiful name of Mary, which is also a name given from Heaven, and is a powerful name which makes Hell tremble; and is besides a sweet name, in that it reminds us of that Queen who, being the Mother of God, is also our Mother, the Mother of mercy, the Mother of love. (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Incarnation, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, pp. 161-163. See htThe Incarnation, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio keeps silent about the Holy Name of Jesus and that of Our Lady herself when in “mixed” company. So do his “bishops.” How much more proof does one have to present of their being apostates whose false, Protestant-Judeo-Masonic and Modernist beliefs have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church in accord with the following words of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896?

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ" (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (11-12). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Father Maurice Meschler’s reflection on the Holy Name of Jesus that was uttered publicly for the first time on the Feast of the Circumcision of Our Lord indicates just how far the conciliar revolutionaries are from possessing the Catholic Faith in its entirety:

Fourthly and lastly, our Saviour wished by the Circumcision to win His Name of Jesus and the glory attaching to it. This glory consists, in the first place, in its origin. God Himself was the Author of this Name. He communicate it to Mary (Luke i. 31. Isa. vii. 14) and to Joseph (Matt. i. 21), who as, legal father, gave it to the Saviour. –Further, the glory of this Name consists in its signification. It signifies “God is salvation, the Saviour”, and thus expressly fully and forcibly the nature and being as well as the task of the God-Man. He had been proclaimed by the prophets as a Saviour (Isa. xii. 2; lxii. 1. Mich. Vii. 7. Zach. Ix. 9. Hab iii. 18). Jesus, then, is the personal and full name of the God-Man. –Finally, the glory of the Name of Jesus consists in its effects and blessings for us and for our Saviour. It is a real sacramental for us. All that our Saviour has become to us, His Name is also: viz. a pledge of the forgiveness of our sins, and of the granting of our prayers and petitions (John xvi. 23); a pledge of comfort in temptations, in life and in death; indeed a pledge of comfort in temptations, in life and in death; indeed a pledge of all blessings (Acts iv. 12). And for our Saviour His Name is the instrument of glory and splendour, because all honour comes to Him through it; invocation, trust, reverence, adoration, love, and the glory of the miracles that are wrought in this Name. It is, as it were, the glorious recompense for the labour of the Redemption, so that now at this Name every knee bows, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. Ii. 10). It is indeed a great and glorious Name. The God-Man had many names (Isa. vii. 14; ix. 6 Zach. vi. 12. Dan. vii. 13), but none was dearer or more pleasing to Him than this, chiefly because it constantly reminded Him of us. For this reason it resounds everywhere; it is spoken of His cradle, and it stands above His Cross.

From what has been said it follows, first, that we must love the Divine Saviour, Who thus vouchsafes to be our like and equal in everything, even to belong to a religion, and Whom now really assumes the form of the servant, the sinner, and the victim of atonement, and takes a name by which He is to be all in all to us.

Further, it follows form this mystery that we must submit readily and generously to everything to our religion and vocation exact in the shape of duties and sacrifices (Col ii. 11 12). Our Saviour undertook far harder duties out of love for us, by the Circumcision and the Name that He assumed. He was to die in atonement for our sins. And He has fulfilled everything. He could never see or hear this Name of His without feeling urged to do so and suffer all for us. Should it not be thus with us also, out of love to Him?

The last conclusion is that we should honour, glorify and make use of the Name of Jesus. We can honour it by pronouncing it devoutly, with reverence and heartfelt love, such as the angel felt when he spoke this Name for the first time; like Mary and Joseph, who so often had it upon their lips; like all good Christians and faithful adherents of Jesus; like all apostles and marytrs, who confessed it and uttered it with their last breath. –And we can make use of it by sealing all our undertakings with it, doing everything in it, invoking it in all dangers and temptations (Cant viii. 6). –Lastly, we glorify it by bearing it, as Christians, with honour, by extending the knowledge and service of it as far as we can, and trying to make all subject to it. Each of these ways of using and of glorifying the Name of Jesus surrounds it with a new halo of glory in heaven. Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 143-144.)

The silence about the Holy Name of Jesus as maintained by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his conciliar revolutionaries has only emboldened the forces of Judeo-Masonry abroad in the world to step up their attacks on those who dare to profess the Holy Name of Jesus in public. Anyone among the relatively few Catholics who maintain that it is necessary to pray for the restoration of a true pontiff on the Throne of Saint Peter to consecrate Russia to His Most Blessed Mother’s Immaculate Heart with all of the world’s true bishops in order to fulfill her Fatima request and thus usher in her own reign and that of Our Divine King Himself.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is both the King of men and their nations whether or not He is acknowledged as such by the lords of the world or the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Can it be any accident that the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus does not exist in the liturgical calendar of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service or that the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, which was invoked—along with that of the Holy Name of Jesus Itself—by King Jan Sobieski as the Mohammedans were turned back at the Gates of Vienna on September 12, 1683, is but an “optional memorial” on September 12?

Unlike the conciliar “pontiffs,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Pius XI explained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, that Catholics have an obligation to proclaim the Holy Name of Jesus in public assemblies: 

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

This obligation does not have an expiration date.

Yet it is that The Holy Name of Jesus has no place in public life in the United States of America, a point that I made nearly six years ago on this site in Not A Mention of Christ the King.

We utter the Holy Name of Jesus fifty-three times when we pray one set of mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, bowing our heads as we do so. May this daily utterance of the sweet and Holy Name of Jesus during the praying of the Most Holy Rosary help us to have fortitude to invoke the Holy Name of Jesus without hesitation and to have the courage to suffer both the white martyrdom of persecution, ridicule and ostracism and actual blood martyrdom if such a golden opportunity to save one’s soul should be within the Providence of God to give us.

Most Holy Name of Jesus, be my love.

Most Sweet Name of Mary, be my salvation.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 A

The Program For William Brennan's "Mass of Christian Burial"

Mass of Christian Burial--The Honorable William Joseph Brennan, Jr., April 25, 1906--July 24, 1997 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997, Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle, Washington, DC)

Faith in Ordinary People `

`The Dream though old is never old, like the Poor Old Woman in Yeats' play Cathleen Ni Hoolihan:

[[Page H6016]] ``

`Did you see an old woman going down the path?' asks Bridget.

`No, I did not;' replies Patrick, who had just arrived after the old woman left. `But I saw a young girl' he said, `and she had the walk of a queen.' ''--The Honorable William Joseph Brennan, Jr.

Ministers of the Liturgy

Reverend Milton E. Jordan: Principal Celebrant. Reverend John T. O'Hara:

Homilist. Reverend Monsignor W. Ronald Jameson:

Rector of the Cathedral.

Priests of the Cathedral,

Visiting Priests:

Concelebrants. Reverend Mr. Ulysses S. Rice, Reverend Mr. Lawrence C. Gordon, Reverend Mr. Bart Merella:

Deacons. Reverend James D. Watkins, Reverend Charles V. Antonicelli: Masters of Ceremonies.

Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Honorary Pallbearers.

Law Clerks to Justice Brennan: Richard Arnold, Owen Fiss, Merrick Garland, John McInespie, Daniel O'Hern, Daniel Rezneck, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Clyde Szuch, Paul Washington: Pallbearers. Hugh Brennan, Nancy Brennan:

Lectors. William Joseph Brennan IV:

Reader of the Intercessions. Mary Anne Gaffney, Constance Phelps: Giftbearers.

Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist of the Cathedral. Seminarians of the Archdiocese of Washington,

Altar Servers of the Cathedral:

Servers. Ushers of the Cathedral:

Ministers of Hospitality.

Jay R. Rader, Cathedral Organist,

Conductor; Jennifer Muller,

Cantor; Ann Kramschuster, Assistant Organist;

Members of the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle Chorale: Ministers of Music.

The Order of Celebration

Prelude Jesu dulcis memoria (Jesus, the sweet thought of you)-- Tomas Luis de Victoria. O taste and see.--Ralph Vaughan Williams.

Entrance Procession Joyful, Joyful, We Adore You.--Henry Van Dyke; Ludwig van Beethoven; Tune: Ode to Joy:

Joyful, joyful, we adore you, God of glory, Lord of love; Hearts unfold like flowers before you, Opening to the sun above.

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness; Drive the dark of doubt away; Giver of immortal gladness, Fill us with the light of day!

All your works with joy surround you, Earth and heav'n reflect your rays, Stars and angels sing around you, Center of unbroken praise; Field and forest, vale and mountain, Flowery meadow, flashing sea, Chanting bird and flowing fountain, Praising you eternally!

Always giving and forgiving, Ever blessing, ever blest, Wellspring of the joy of living, Ocean depth of happy rest! Loving Father, Christ our brother, Let your light upon us shine; Teach us how to love each other, Lift us to the joy divine. Mortals join the mighty chorus, Which the morning stars began; God's own love is reigning o'er us, Joining people hand in hand.

Ever singing, march we onward, Victors in the midst of strife; Joyful music leads us sunward In the triumph song of life.

Introductory Rites

Greeting and Sprinkling with Holy Water.

Opening Prayer.

Liturgy of the Word

First Reading

Responsorial Psalm

General Intercessions

Liturgy of the Eucharist

Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts

Preface Acclamation

Memorial Acclamation Great Amen From Mass of Creation by Marty Haugen.

Communion Rite Lord's Prayer

Sign of Peace

Breaking of the Bread

Agnus Dei Music

During the Communion Procession How lovely is thy dwelling place--from Requiem by Johannes Brahms.

Prayer After Communion

Eulogies final commendation

Invitation to Prayer Song of Farewell: Come to His Aid--Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J., Louis Bourgeois; Tune: Old Hundredth. (Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 109, Tuesday, July 29; for a truly brilliant and very funny article on the Brennan travesty, please see InsideCatholic.com - Speaking Well of the Dead by a well-known conciliar presbyter who was in my own acquaintance, however casual and most intermittent, for about twenty years).

Appendix B

Edward Speno's Early Support for Abortion

New York State Senator Edward Speno who voted for the original baby-killing law in New York on March 18, 1970, maintained his "good standing" what he thought was the Catholic Church. His bishop, Bishop Walter Philip Kellenberg, who was named by Pope Pius XII as the founding bishop of the Diocese of Rockville Centre on April 16, 1957, did not discipline him in the slightest. God, however, had other plans for Speno, who died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of fifty, less than a year after he voted to permit baby-killing under cover of the civil law in the State of New York. This is the section from Speno's obituary in The New York Times:

Although the Senator, a Catholic, was identified with his church on school aid, he broke with the hierarchy last year and voted for abortion liberealization. He explained his stand by saying that he did not want to impose his personal beliefs on others. (The New York Times, "Senator Edward Speno Dies; Favored Parochial School Aid, February 17, 1971. This is one of those articles that I had to purchase to get the exact quote that I wanted before typing in the text manually. I may not be--and have never claimed to be an intellectual., great or otherwise. I am, however, a pretty decent researcher.)

Edward Speno did not "want to impose his personal beliefs on others." He was reminded at the moment of his own Particular Judgment that morality exists in the very nature of things. The tenets of the Natural Law are knowable by reason. The Catholic Church is merely the eternal guardian and infallible explicator of those tenets so as to remove confusion from the minds of men so clouded by, at least in some instances, Original Sin (and its vestigial after-effects in the souls of the baptized) and Actual Sins to aid them in understanding the Natural Law more clearly and to strengthen their wills by means of Holy Mother Church's sanctifying offices to speak up in their defense. There also happens to be Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

As Pope Leo XIII explained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 11, 1890:

Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.

Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters, for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.

As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men." This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.) 

Did Edward Speno know this?

Well, perhaps he was taught this at Niagara University, which is under the control of the Congregation of the Mission (the Vincentian Fathers of Saint Vincent de Paul) when he studied there from 1938 to 1944. Perhaps. He sure did not learn it from his own bishop, Walter P. Kellenberg (who was the bishop who confirmed me at Saint Aloysius Church on March 21, 1961).

Why not?

Well, the bishop who consecrated Father Walter P. Kellenberg, a native of the Borough of the Bronx in the City of New York, as a auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of New York on October 5, 1953, was none other than Francis Cardinal Spellman, who, as noted in the body of this commentary, enabled the Sangerite forces on Puerto Rico fifty-seven years ago to make it more possible for United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) to become the first Catholic to be elected to the American presidency later that year, 1960.

Although Bishop Walter Kellenberg did not insist that the pastor, Father Francis Bain, of Saint Raphael's Church in East Meadow, New York, who refused Speno a "Mass of Christian" Burial reverse himself, he did permit such a "service" to be staged at Sacred Heart Church in North Merrick, New York. This was the first known instance, at least to me, of a Catholic who cooperated formally in making surgical baby-killing "available" under cover of the civil law receiving what purported to be a Catholic funeral service. Many have been the occasions since this that this has been done, scandalizing "pro-life" Catholics and "pro-life" non-Catholics alike.