Viscerally Speaking, part one

As has been noted many times on this site, we are living in a world where most people we meet during the course of a day are devoid of any real understanding of First and Last Things.  A world such as this is one where people react to the events in their own lives and those around them viscerally, that is, by the use of emotions, irrationality, ignorance and “gut” instincts.

While it used to be the case that those who bloviate in such a manner were confined in the expounding of their ignorance and irrationality to their circle of relatives, friends, acquaintances and coworkers, the forums provided by so-called “social media” have made it possible for bloviators to demonstrate their ignorance about First and Last Things–and just about anything and everything else in between, to the entire world. Ramblings and and emotional screeds are sent out in a matter of second as others, much to the delight of admirers and to the consternation of detractors. Some people spend their entire waking hours reacting in what they think are “witty” ways to various events that agitate them to offer their “expert” commentaries for their eager readers or “friends” or “followers.”

Obviously, there are some, such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who are elected because of their ability to use demagogic use of emotion, self-pity, ignorance and outright deceit. What makes this so pitiable is that many of those of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” who oppose him are steeped in the same kind of demagogic emotionalism as he is.

As I have been explaining for nearly eight years now, one of the foremost practitioners of demagoguery and viscera among the luminaries of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is Sarah Heath Palin, the former Governor of Alaska (a Catholic apostate  whose visceral, shoot-from-the-lip approach to politics and public policy has been examined on this site in Gradually Accepting Naturalism’s False Premises, Absolute Insanity, Facts Are Troublesome Things, It’s Still Absolute Insanity and Fratricide in the Lodge), who ctashed in on the fame she gained as the vice presidential running mate of the unreconstructed war hawk named John Sidney McCain III, who would have launched wars all around the world had he been elected on November 4, 2008 (see Different Chief, Same War Drums). This poor woman, who is ignorant of so many things, is admired even by many traditional Catholic as “telling it like it is” even though she is nothing but a mass of viscera prone to emotional outbursts that she believes constitutes rational discourse but is nothing other than what Pope Pius IX rightly termed as “injurious babbling” in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.

Most Americans, however, are so awash in viscera themselves that they have become “inoculated,” if you will, from even the slightest semblance of rationality, desiring the ready, “red-meat” sound bit to satiate their desire to go for the jugular of those who adhere to the whichever of the two false opposites of naturalism they despise. This is why the likes Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro can maintain the unfailing support of his claque of sycophants in the mainslime media, and it is why this support will continue even if the cover-up of his reprehensible failure to send troops to rescue the Americans in Benghazi, Libya, who were under siege from terrorists on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. The “party line”is what matters, nothing else.

The “inoculation” against rationality is not confined to the precincts of the false opposite of the naturalist “left.” Not at all.

Remember, former President George Walker Bush was a master, however artless, of demagogy and raw emotionalism that ignored facts as he made up things to justify his policies of “compassionate” statism and overspending domestically, including to subsidize the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn by means of “family planning” programs, and naked aggression abroad that destabilized a sovereign nation, Iraq, needlessly placing Americans in harm’s way and permitting hordes of Iranian-trained, armed and financed terrorists to flood that country with a wave of violence, much of which was aimed at Chaldean Rite Catholics, two-thirds of whom fled the country as a result. Bush the Lesser was just as ignorant and as demogagic as his successor, and his so-called “Patriot Act” helped to make possible Obama/Soetoro’s use of intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Homeland Security into instruments of punish “enemies” and rewarding political supporters.

Ever trapped in the midst of the viscera that passes for political discourse, those who adhere to one brand of naturalism accept pretty much whatever it is that is said, no matter how offensive or stupid or simply factually wrong,  by their heroes and heroines, as what matters is having a bit of “fun” at the expense of the “enemy.” There are no bounds of propriety in a world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism, a world where most people, including many Catholics, especially those in the conciliar structures, think that it is “funny” to speak indecently or irreverently, and that there is “nothing wrong” with women dressing immodestly or in masculine attire, which equips the psyches of many to act as crudely as many men.

Well, behold the aforementioned Sarah Heath Palin, whom some in the traditional Catholic world thought was a “bright” face in American politics when she burst on the national scene as McCain’s vice presidential running mate in August of 2008 even though she quickly demonstrated her shallowness and complete unpreparedness for the vice presidency of the United States of America in short order, who received a standing ovation at the convention of the National Rifle Association on Easter Saturday, April 26, 2014, when she compared the form of torture called “waterboarding” with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, which she herself received shortly after her birth on February 11, 2014, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, in Sandpoint, Idaho:

INDIANAPOLIS — Catholics and other Christians have criticized Sarah Palin’s recent comments comparing waterboarding to baptism, calling them disrespectful, irreverent and even blasphemous.

“Not all intolerant, anti-freedom, leftist liberals are hypocrites. I’m kidding; yes, they are. And they are not right policies that poke our allies in the eye and coddle adversaries, instead of putting the fear of God in our enemies. Come on! Enemies who would utterly annihilate America,” Palin said April 26 at a National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis.

“They who’d obviously have information on plots, say to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote April 29 at his blog, In the Light of the Law, that regardless of one’s political affiliation, Palin’s statement about baptism “should shock the conscience.”

He referred to Deacon Ed Kandra of the Brooklyn Diocese, who wrote April 28 at the website Patheos, “Equating torture with baptism is extremely offensive — and, in fact, blasphemous.” (Palin Rebuked For Comparing Waterboarding to Baptism.)

While it is certainly true that a multitude of pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholics in public life, including the likes of United States Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and House Minority Leader Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, regularly display their ignorance of truths, supernatural and natural, and facts as they act their own parts as unreconstructed demagogues who live in a visceral world of their very own, no amount of visceral demagoguery on the “left” can justify that employed by the visceral demagogue named Sarah Louise Heath Palin.

To compare waterboarding with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism is reprehensible. What is even more reprehensible is that lots of people, including, presumably, a lot of Catholics, applauded her and can even think that it is possible to defend her utterly offensive remarks, which were compounded by her “doubling down” on them by calling those who took umbrage at them as “wusses.”

Let’s just put it to you this way: Sarah Louise Heath Palin knows nothing of the true femininity of Our Lady or of Saints Elizabeth of Hungary, Saint Margaret of Scotland, Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Hedwig of Silesia, Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, each of whom were married and took seriously the requirement to imitate the Mother of God at all times.

Sarah Louise Heath Palin is, of course, a victim of the heresy of Americanism and the conciliar revolution that was influenced in no small measure by its precepts of “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” and “separation of Church and State.” While the particulars as to why Mrs. Palin’s father, Charles R. Heath, decided to take his family out of the Catholic Faith in the 1970s after they had moved to Alaska, the revolutionary changes wrought by the counterfeit church of conciliarism may have played a role, especially when one considers the fact that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is a celebration of the errors of Modernity, including those of Protestantism, many of which have become integral parts of the conciliar ethos.

Taking nothing away the horror of Sarah Louise Heath Palin’s deplorable comparison of American sponsored torture (waterboarding) with the indwelling of the very life of the Most Blessed Trinity in a soul by means of Sanctifying Grace at Baptism as Original Sin is washed away in the Sacrament of Baptism and without for a moment taking nothing away from the many times that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has misused, misquoted and misrepresented the Holy Gospel to defend his statist agenda of unbridled evil as he break the laws of God and man, these pitiable naturalists are simply the byproducts of a world that is celebrated by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, given his prominence as the universal public face of apostasy, is the greatest blasphemer on the face of this earth.

Why should Sarah Louise Heath Palin or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro know anything about the truths of the Catholic Faith when the man who is thought to the “pope” by almost everyone in the world demonstrates his own utter contempt for those truths practically every day?

Why does it not “shock the conscience” of Catholics for a putative “pope” to speak in ways that have been condemned by the authority of Holy Mother Church and that blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Our Lady while fearing not to misrepresent the very nature of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution.

Why were not Catholics shocked when Jorge Mario Bergoglio called the Catholic Church the “widowed church” seven months ago now?

Here is a reminder:

The Bridegroom is gone and she walks in history, hoping to find him, to meet with Him – and she will be His true bride. In the meantime she – the Church – is alone! The Lord is nowhere to be seen. She has a certain dimension of widowhood … and that makes me makes me think of the widowhood of the Church. This courageous Church, which defends her children, like the widow who went to the corrupt judge to [press her rights] and eventually won. Our Mother Church is courageous! She has the courage of a woman who knows that her children are her own, and must defend them and bring them to the meeting with her Spouse.”

The Pope reflected on some figures of widows in the Bible, in particular the courageous Maccabean widow with seven sons who are martyred for not renouncing God. The Bible, he stressed, says this woman who spoke to her sons “in the local dialect, in their first language,” and, he noted, our Mother Church speaks to us in dialect, in “that language of true orthodoxy, which we all understand, the language of catechism,” that, “gives us the strength to go forward in the fight against evil”:

“This dimension of widowhood of the Church, who is journeying through history, hoping to meet, to find her Husband… Our Mother the Church is thus! She is a Church that, when she is faithful, knows how to cry. When the Church does not cry, something is not right. She weeps for her children, and prays! A Church that goes forward and does rear her children, gives them strength and accompanies them until the final farewell in order to leave them in the hands of her Spouse, who at the end will come to encounter her. This is our Mother Church! I see her in this weeping widow. And what does the Lord say to the Church? “Do not cry. I am with you, I’ll take you, I’ll wait for you there, in the wedding, the last nuptials, those of the Lamb. Stop [your tears]: this son of yours was dead, now he lives.”

And this , he continued, “is the dialogue of the Lord with the Church.” She, “defends the children, but when she sees that the children are dead, she cries, and the Lord says to her: ‘I am with you and your son is with me.’” As he told the boy at Naim to get up from his deathbed, the Pope added, many times Jesus also tells us to get up, “when we are dead because of sin and we are going to ask for forgiveness.” And then what does Jesus “when He forgives us, when He gives us back our life?” He Returns us to our mother:

“Our reconciliation with the Lord end in the dialogue ‘You, me and the priest who gives me pardon’; it ends when He restores us to our mother. There ends reconciliation, because there is no path of life, there is no forgiveness, there is no reconciliation outside of Mother Church. So, seeing this poor widow, all these things come to me somewhat randomly – But I see in this widow the icon of the widowhood of the Church who is on a journey to find her Bridegroom. I get the urge to ask the Lord for the grace to be always confident of this “mommy” who defends us, teaches us, helps us grow and [teaches] us to speak the dialect.” (Reflecting on our Mother Church.)

Was Blessed Peter Julian Eymard, the founder of the Blessed Sacrament Fathers, wrong when he questioned as to who would now dare to call the Catholic Church “widowed” from her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom?

People who have never set foot inside one of her churches think she is widowed. They look upon her as a corpse, and upon her temples as places where only death and suffering are spoken of. But today the very ones who never attend her solemn festivals will see her in all her wealth and beauty, in a natural attractiveness which God, her Bridegroom, will enhance with His presence. What magnificence in the processions as they pass by! What reverence in the faithful as they kneel down! ! The Church shows to everyone her Bridegroom in the radiant monstrance. Ah! Who today will presume to say she is widowed? Her friends are in adoration and her enemies tremble. Jesus shows Himself to all men; He gives His blessing. to the good; He looks on sinners with compassion; He calls them and draws them to Himself. The Council of Trent calls this Feast the triumph of faith, and rightly so. It is also the triumph of the Church through her Divine Bridegroom. (THE REAL PRESENCE.)

No one who understands basic Catholic ecclesiology can claim, no matter how “randomly,” that the Catholic Church is widowed.

Why are so many Catholics so silent?

Are they as ignorant as Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Do they agree with Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Do they dismiss “off-handed” remarks made publicly by a putative “pope” to be of no consequence?

Why, then, the outrage over the comments of an ignorant naturalist who is a victim of the revolutions of Modernity and Modernism?

Why was there no outrage just five months ago when Jorge Mario Bergoglio blasphemed the Blessed Virgin Mary by stating out out that the ever Immaculate Mother of God could have uttered “Lies!”, “I was deceived” as she stood so valiantly at the foot of her Divine Son’s Holy Cross?

The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” (Ever Talkative Apostate: Silence guards one’s relationship with God.)

Why should we expect naturalists, whether of the false opposites of the “left” or of the “right” to have more respect for the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and/or have reverence for the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church when the conciliar revolutionaries have supplanted the true Faith with a false one and have destroyed the validity of every liturgical rite save for Baptism, which is mocked when public sinners, including those who are steeped in perversity, are permitted to have public baptismal ceremonies for their “children”?

No, blame not the pitiable likes of the truly ignorant product of “freedom of speech,” Sarah Louise Heath Plain, or the reprehensibly lawless likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

Blame the men who look askance and mock the following warnings given us by our true popes concerning the nature of Modernity and where its errors would lead the world over time, something that we can see very clearly with our own eyes today:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

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

“So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) November 1, 1885.)

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

There is no one on the face of the earth who is a bigger enemy of Christ the King and thus of the eternal and temporal good of men than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who rejects each of these irreformable statements of Catholic truth as so much “Pharisaical” nonsense. His ignorance is thus far more dangerous than that of the likes of Sarah Louise Heath Palin or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro as he is content to leave these lost souls alone in their errors without ever once seeking with urgency their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The second part of this two-part commentary will provide a few more examples as to the truly shocking thing about Catholics today is that so few of them are capable of being shocked by the blasphemies, sacrileges, apostasies and heresies of the conciliar revolutionaries, who love to tickle the itching ears of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Making reparation, as always, as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own sins and those of the whole world, may the Rosaries we pray during this month of May, the month of Our Lady, help us to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the true bishops in the world.

Vivat Chistus 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.

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.


This entry was posted in The Bergoglio Files, The Conciliarism Files, The Follies of Naturalism by Thomas Droleskey. Bookmark the permalink.

About Thomas Droleskey

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a Catholic writer and speaker . He is the publisher-editor of Christ or, a site that has featured over 900 articles since the beginning of 2006, many dealing with his embrace of sedevacantism. Hundreds of his articles appeared in The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper, between 1992 and 2000. He was a contributor to The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture between 2001 and 2003. Droleskey's articles have appeared in the American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine. He also contributed articles to The Remnant and for Catholic Family News. His articles also appeared for two years in The Four Marks. Dr. Droleskey was an adjunct professor of political science at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University between January of 1991 and July of 2003, reprising his association there for a winter intersession course, which was taught between December 28, 2006, and January 11, 2007. He had taught political science around the nation since January of 1974, receiving numerous awards for excellence in teaching. Many of his students have converted to the Catholic Faith. Formerly a pro-life activist, Droleskey was the candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. He was the party's candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997, and he challenged then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the party's senatorial nomination in 1998, receiving over 37% of the primary vote. Droleskey has campaigned for pro-life candidates around the country. He is now retired from all involvement in partisan politics, concentrating instead on the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. Dr. Droleskey has lectured extensively around the nation for the past twenty years, driving nearly 1,000,000 miles in the last twenty-five years of his lecturing around the nation. His thirty-six hour lecture program, Living in the Shadow of the Cross, has been given in twenty different venues across the United States. Another lecture program, "To be Catholic from the Womb to the Tomb," was given in eleven different places across the nation. His work is dedicated to the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Droleskey is devoted to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. His first book, Christ in the Voting Booth, was published by Hope of Saint Monica, Inc., 1998. His second book, There Is No Cure for this Condition, was published by Chartres Communications in 2001. G.I.R.M. Warfare (The Traditional Latin Mass versus the General Instruction to the Roman Missal) was published in 2004; Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations, Droleskey's compendium of fifty-three articles about the immutable doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, was published in June of 2005. Three e-books, There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition, Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to the Rise of Conciliarism and Meeting the Mets: A Quirky History of a Quirky Team, have been published in the past four years. The latter book, for which this particular Word Press site was created initially in 2012, is also available in a paperback format. Droleskey served for some years on the Board of Advisers of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He has served on the boards of the National Association of Private and Independent Catholic Schools and on the board of 100% Pro-Life Pac. He is listed in the 2001-2002 edition of the Marquis Who's Who in America. Droleskey, who was born on November 24, 1951, is married to the former Sharon Collins. Their first child, Lucy Mary Norma, was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on March 27, 2002. A native of Long Island, Droleskey and his family now live in the United States of America.