As has been noted many times on this site, the soon-to-be “canonized” Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick, was enamored of Marxist principles. Indeed, Father Michael Roach, who taught Church History at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, said in a class lecture in the Fall of 1981 that he had been with the then rector of the seminary, Monsignor Harry Flynn, who would later denounce Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., as an “anti-Semite” in 1997 (see Disconnects) in his capacity as the conciliar “archbishop” of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the time of the death of Montini/Paul VI on August 6, 1978. According to Father Roach, the then Monsignor Flynn, a priest of the Diocese of Albany, New York, said, “Ah, yes, Paul VI. A marvelous man. A Marxist, but a marvelous man nonetheless.”
All of his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Jorge Mario Bergolio is just as enamored of Marxist principles as was the depraved heretic that he will “beatify” on October 19, 2014.
Look, this is really very, very simple.
For the sake of your reading pleasure and my own sanity, well, what’s left of what, if any, I ever possessed, that is, to permit me to summarize this in very succinct terms.
First, Karl Marx believed that all of the problems in the world were caused by the inequitable distribution of wealth So does Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
To wit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is constantly talking about the “need” for there to be a “legitimate redistribution of wealth” by the civil state. He has identified “youth employment” is the principal problem facing the young today. He has reduced the message of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to nothing other than a message of temporal well-being in the name of “serving the poor.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as much as an economic reductionist or economic determinist as Karl Marx himself.
To wit, Jorge Mario Bergolio has been fawning in his praise for the supposedly “misunderstood” advocates of “liberation theology” and “servants of the poor,” including out-and-out Communists such as the Communist and homosexual advocate Don Michele De Paolis, a ninety-three year-old priest who belongs to the Salesians of the Saint John Bosco. Jorge went so far as to kiss this reprobate’s hand when he met with him in the Casa Santa Marta on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, something that is documented with superb commentary on the Call Me Jorge website.
Support Communism and perversity, thereby enslaving countries to a false ideology and leading souls to eternal ruin as they persist in one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?
Why this is enough to get one “beatified” and “canonized” in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Second, Karl Marx, an atheist who rejected the supernatural and thus contended that the human being was merely matter without a soul, denied Original Sin, believing that peace would reign on earth once the bourgeoisie was killed off everywhere in the world and their property confiscated, thus permitting the representatives the “proletariat” to redistribute wealth “equitably” according to the following Marxist principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
As noted above and in yesterday’s article, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that the “legitimate redistribution” of material wealth by the civil state will help the “poor” and thus alleviate tensions among men. One who believes this, of course, cannot believe that Original Sin is the proximate cause of all human problems, no less that the Actual Sins of men cause those problems to multiply, especially when men refuse to admit their sins and then to confess them to a true priest, worse yet that they persist in such sins and seek to have their commission protected under cover of the civil law and exalted in all the precincts of what passes for popular culture. Indeed, the unrepentant sinners in our world today want to consider anyone who condemns their actions as sinful as guilty of “hate crimes,” something that does get in the way, at least just every now and again, you understand, if one who does criticize such behavior and is harmful effects upon man in their own individual lives and in their own nations and the world attempts to hold or to secure employment. [This might, emphasis on might, be the subject of an upcoming article.]
Writing in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI explained that the entirely of what is called, most laughably, “public education” (see Inside the Prison Walls and Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama) is based upon the forgetfulness of Original Sin:
60. Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those modern systems bearing various names which appeal to a pretended self-government and unrestrained freedom on the part of the child, and which diminish or even suppress the teacher’s authority and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative, and an activity independent of any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
Indeed, the whole point of my “Living in the Shadow of the Cross” lecture program, which includes much of what I used to teach in college classrooms (see Living in the Shadow of the Cross, part one; there are sixty-four others, these can be found on my You Tube channel, listed in reverse order of uploading) was to explain that it is impossible to understand human problems without understanding the doctrine of Original Sin as it is taught infallibly by the Catholic Church. The only way to ameliorate the problems caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins is to seek to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
Pope Pius XI made this precise point in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, which condemned Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, which condemned Communism:
5. “Original sin” is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the Son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death. Faith in these truths, which in your country are today the butt of the cheap derision of Christ’s enemies, belongs to the inalienable treasury of Christian revelation.
26. The cross of Christ, though it has become to many a stumbling block and foolishness (1 Cor. i. 23) remains for the believer the holy sign of his redemption, the emblem of moral strength and greatness. We live in its shadow and die in its embrace. It will stand on our grave as a pledge of our faith and our hope in the eternal light.
27. Humility in the spirit of the Gospel and prayer for the assistance of grace are perfectly compatible with self-confidence and heroism. The Church of Christ, which throughout the ages and to the present day numbers more confessors and voluntary martyrs than any other moral collectivity, needs lessons from no one in heroism of feeling and action. The odious pride of reformers only covers itself with ridicule when it rails at Christian humility as though it were but a cowardly pose of self-degradation.
28. “Grace,” in a wide sense, may stand for any of the Creator’s gifts to His creature; but in its Christian designation, it means all the supernatural tokens of God’s love; God’s intervention which raises man to that intimate communion of life with Himself, called by the Gospel “adoption of the children of God.” “Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God” (1 John iii. 1). To discard this gratuitous and free elevation in the name of a so-called German type amounts to repudiating openly a fundamental truth of Christianity. It would be an abuse of our religious vocabulary to place on the same level supernatural grace and natural gifts. Pastors and guardians of the people of God will do well to resist this plunder of sacred things and this confusion of ideas.
29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man’s morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart “there is no God” goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ. If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says — Thou must! — also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man’s subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations.
30. Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator’s hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom, that “right is common utility,” a proposition which may be given a correct significance, it means that what is morally indefensible, can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: “Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good” (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man’s nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values, which collectivity alone can provide, also derive from the Creator for the good of man, and for the full development, natural and supernatural, and the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence.
31. The believer has an absolute right to profess his Faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
This is a powerful antidote to the supposedly “salvific” power of any secular political ideology, a theme that has underscored my own academic work and my teaching long before I returned to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. “The Illusion of Secular Salvation” was the title of a presentation I gave at Hofstra University in the Fall of 1984 by way of a response to then New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo’s infamous rationalization of “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but” speech at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday, September 13, 1984, that was sponsored by Hartford’s Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard P. McBrien. It is impossible to retard any social evil by means merely natural, and the plain truth of the matter is that “conservatives” agree with this just as much as does the quasi-Marxist Bergoglio.
Pope Pius XI issued his condemnation of Marxism, Divini Redemptoris, two days after issuing Mit Brennender Sorge, repeating the truth that no secular political ideology can “save” man or create the “better” world and teaching us that the civil state cannot steal from the people what is rightfully theirs under slogan of “justice”:
30. Man cannot be exempted from his divinely-imposed obligations toward civil society, and the representatives of authority have the right to coerce him when he refuses without reason to do his duty. Society, on the other hand, cannot defraud man of his God-granted rights, the most important of which We have indicated above. Nor can society systematically void these rights by making their use impossible. It is therefore according to the dictates of reason that ultimately all material things should be ordained to man as a person, that through his mediation they may find their way to the Creator. In this wise we can apply to man, the human person, the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who writes to the Corinthians on the Christian economy of salvation: “All things are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” While Communism impoverishes human personality by inverting the terms of the relation of man to society, to what lofty heights is man not elevated by reason and Revelation!
31. The directive principles concerning the social-economic order have been expounded in the social Encyclical of Leo XIII on the question of labor. Our own Encyclical on the Reconstruction of the Social Order adapted these principles to present needs. Then, insisting anew on the age-old doctrine of the Church concerning the individual and social character of private property, We explained clearly the right and dignity of labor, the relations of mutual aid and collaboration which should exist between those who possess capital and those who work, the salary due in strict justice to the worker for himself and for his family.
32. In this same Encyclical of Ours We have shown that the means of saving the world of today from the lamentable ruin into which a moral liberalism has plunged us, are neither the class-struggle nor terror, nor yet the autocratic abuse of State power, but rather the infusion of social justice and the sentiment of Christian love into the social-economic order. We have indicated how a sound prosperity is to be restored according to the true principles of a sane corporative system which respects the proper hierarchic structure of society; and how all the occupational groups should be fused into a harmonious unity inspired by the principle of the common good. And the genuine and chief function of public and civil authority consists precisely in the efficacious furthering of this harmony and coordination of all social forces.
33. In view of this organized common effort towards peaceful living, Catholic doctrine vindicates to the State the dignity and authority of a vigilant and provident defender of those divine and human rights on which the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church insist so often. It is not true that all have equal rights in civil society. It is not true that there exists no lawful social hierarchy. Let it suffice to refer to the Encyclicals of Leo XIII already cited, especially to that on State powers, and to the other on the Christian Constitution of States. In these documents the Catholic will find the principles of reason and the Faith clearly explained, and these principles will enable him to defend himself against the errors and perils of a Communistic conception of the State. The enslavement of man despoiled of his rights, the denial of the transcendental origin of the State and its authority, the horrible abuse of public power in the service of a collectivistic terrorism, are the very contrary of all that corresponds with natural ethics and the will of the Creator. Both man and civil society derive their origin from the Creator, Who has mutually ordained them one to the other. Hence neither can be exempted from their correlative obligations, nor deny or diminish each other’s rights. The Creator Himself has regulated this mutual relationship in its fundamental lines, and it is by an unjust usurpation that Communism arrogates to itself the right to enforce, in place of the divine law based on the immutable principles of truth and charity, a partisan political program which derives from the arbitrary human will and is replete with hate.
34. In teaching this enlightening doctrine the Church has no other intention than to realize the glad tidings sung by the Angels above the cave of Bethlehem at the Redeemer’s birth: “Glory to God . . . and . . . peace to men . . .,” true peace and true happiness, even here below as far as is possible, in preparation for the happiness of heaven — but to men of good will. This doctrine is equally removed from all extremes of error and all exaggerations of parties or systems which stem from error. It maintains a constant equilibrium of truth and justice, which it vindicates in theory and applies and promotes in practice, bringing into harmony the rights and duties of all parties. Thus authority is reconciled with liberty, the dignity of the individual with that of the State, the human personality of the subject with the divine delegation of the superior; and in this way a balance is struck between the due dependence and well-ordered love of a man for himself, his family and country, and his love of other families and other peoples, founded on the love of God, the Father of all, their first principle and last end. The Church does not separate a proper regard for temporal welfare from solicitude for the eternal. If she subordinates the former to the latter according to the words of her divine Founder, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you,” she is nevertheless so far from being unconcerned with human affairs, so far from hindering civil progress and material advancement, that she actually fosters and promotes them in the most sensible and efficacious manner. Thus even in the sphere of social-economics, although the Church has never proposed a definite technical system, since this is not her field, she has nevertheless clearly outlined the guiding principles which, while susceptible of varied concrete applications according to the diversified conditions of times and places and peoples, indicate the safe way of securing the happy progress of society. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 17, 1937.)
Steeped in the revolutionary ideologies of Modernity and Modernism, rife with the influences of scores of different ideologues who adhered to one form of naturalism or another and scores more of “theologians,” Catholic and Protestant alike, who were wedded to the anthropocentric, evolutioinist and anti-Incarnational precepts of Modernity, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does exactly what Karl Marx himself did. That is, Bergoglio condemns various perceived social evils, some real and others imagined, while having no understanding whatsoever of their remote and proximate causes. You see, Karl Marx and Jorge Mario Bergoglio are as one in rejecting Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
It is foreign to the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to consider even for one moment the simple fact that his own Modernism is simply the result of the marriage of Protestantism with the multifaceted and interrelated errors of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry. As has been noted on this site, Pope Leo XIII said as much Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, and Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, something that Pope Saint Pius amplified in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.
15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
This describes Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Josef Wojtyla, Joseph Alois Ratziner and Joge Mario Bergoglio perfectly. Perfectly. This is why each, including Luciani/John Paul I, open to seeing the “good” in error and why Ratzinger, during his long tenure as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Faith, actually said during a conference that two Protestant theologians who denied the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ nevertheless still “continued believing in a Christian way” (see With A Shrug of the “Papal” Shoulders). Obviously, this is why Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that there are Marxists who are “good people” because of their supposed concern for “the poor.”
Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio refuses to accept the evils of unbridled capitalism are but the result of Protestantism and that his embrace of Marxism, albeit while protesting that he is not a Marxist, is but the “flip side of the coin,” if you will, of capitalism, a a point made very well a century ago by Dr. George O’Brien:
The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical–they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.
We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.
The science of economics is the science of men’s relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man’s ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual’s spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.
The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O’Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation.)
This is all foreign to the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man whose mind is that of the egalitarianism of the Protestant, American, French and Bolshevik revolutions all rolled into one, who believes that the “better world” can be built without demanding that men quit their sins and by believing that the provision of the temporal needs of “the poor” will make them happy even though many of them will never be happy in this life as desire to have more and more and more of this world’s goods and believe that there is no need to embrace the life of Holy Poverty of the Holy Family, especially. All of the false “pontiff’s” denunciations in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, of the idolatry of money are contradicted by his belief that the poor will be happy by means of government redistribution programs.
Indeed, many of the poor, steeped in envy, will lead miserable lives until they die, principally because what they think is the Catholic Church today is feeding their sense of entitlement and to live in states of constant agitation to “demand” more and more of what they believe is rightfully theirs.
Those of us who are old enough (and, no, I still can’t be believe that I will be sixty-three years of age in six months, thirteen days, barring my death before then, of course) to have lived through the era of revolutionary change in the immediate aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council was we “fought from within” to “save” what came to accept later was a false church from suffering the inevitable consequences of its own heresies, apostasies, sacrileges, blasphemies and other abominations know that the drivel that comes out of the mouth of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is nothing new. Indeed, many of us heard it all ad nauseam, ad infinitum from the mouths of conciliar “bishops,” priests and presbyters. Indeed, the then-named National Conference of Catholic Bishops produced a “pastoral letter,” Economic Justice for All,” in 1986 that is remarkably similar to the Marxist beliefs spouted within the past year by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his chief Commissar of Antichrist, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez.
It was while the American “bishops'” pastoral letter on “economic justice” was in its formative stages that I was asked to speak at the first annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities Congress on Saturday, May 7, 1983, ten days before giving a farewell address to my students at Nassau Community College that exhorted them to convert to the true Faith. Actually, I was a last-minute substitution for a colleague of mine who had another commitment, and my colleague got an earful from the irate “peace and justice” types who worked under “Bishop” Joseph Sullivan, now deceased, the notorious supporter of Mario Matthew Cuomo and Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, about the fact that I had “preached” to them. Well, it was true. I had.
Well, after enduring a Marxist presentation from Howard Hubbard, the now-retired destroyer of the Catholic Faith in Albany, New York, who was appointed by the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul VI” in 1977 when he was only thirty-eight years of age, I had to endure another Marxist screed from a religious sister, Sister Amada Miller, who hailed from the birthplace of the Marxist, Homosexualist and Ultra-Progessive Modernist Call to Action, the Archdiocese of Detroit.
Sister Amada Miller said that poor people needed to be given more material goods to make them happy. No, I am not making this up! I was there. I heard this with my own thirty-one and one-half year-old ears. This is, in all of its essential components, what Bergoglio believes and has reiterated constantly as “Pope” Francis in the last nearly fourteen months. (Yes, I do intend to return to my review of his first year as the universal public face of apsotasy at some point in the next few weeks, although it is possible that Jorge’s upcoming trip to Jordan and Israel may push this back a bit more. If only this man would shut up! See Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson To Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part one, and Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part two.)
I began my own address by noting that the singularly most important issue of genuine social justice, to which the “congress” was supposedly dedicated, namely, restoring legal protection to all preborn children without any exception whatsoever, was not on their agenda. “I find this very curious,” I told those in the audience. Two elderly Sisters, dressed in their traditional habits, applauded furiously. Everyone else in the audience sat on their hands, including Joseph Sullivan, whose bald head turned beat red as I noted and denounced the meeting’s naturalistic, liberal agenda.
I was not invited back to speak at the “Second Annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities” Congress in 1984. Was it something that I said?
Modernists such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez refuse to accept the fact that their straw man of the bad “no church” of the “past” has always served the temporal needs of human beings, doing so as Christ the King would do so as she has sought their temporal good in light of their Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity n Heaven.
Those who believe that “human rights” were the result of the American or French or Bolshevik Revolutions or the result of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is blind to the simple fact that the Catholic Church, she who lifts high the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, in the midst of an unbelieving world, has been and continues to be the only means by which the poor have received what is truly theirs temporally as their souls have fed with the fullness of Catholic doctrine, pure and untainted by any error.
Pope Leo XIII made this point in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and so did Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
21. There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is — beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.
22. A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: “When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.
Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.
By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.
Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? (Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants perfection for “man” now in this life. Indeed, as will be noted in part four of this series, which may not appear until Tuesday, May 13, 2014, the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine and the ninety-seventh anniversary of Our Lady’s first apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service has been and continues to be the chosen instrument of perdition by which the “cult of man,” so celebrated by the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick,” is celebrated in an exercise of communitarian self-congratulations.
Those who think that the figurative “Rubicon” will be crossed only if Bergoglio and pals impose their plan to ignore the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage in favor of a “pastoral solution” that makes a mockery of said indissolubility and gives free license to ignore every other of God’s Holy Commandments are living in a dream world. “Saint John XXIII” led to to the river. The “Venerable Paul VI” led them across the river. “Saint John Paul II” and “Benedict XVI” celebrated the “springtime of the church” in the “civilization of love.” “Francis” is merely finishing the job by grafting his own false church onto the One World Ecumenical Church that is but a precursor to the arrival of Antichrist himself.
Keep close, if possible, to Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
Pray as many Rosaries each day as your state-in-life permits (turn off the blasted radio and stop having your soul polluted by naturalist blather; pray Rosaries instead!).
Entrust the present difficulties to Our Lord through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, relying upon the intercessory power also of Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful.
This time will pass. No, maybe not in our own lifetimes. However, it will pass. The Triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest in God’s good time. We must simply suffer what we must, realizing that Our Lord never permits us to suffer anything beyond our capacity to bear by means of the graces He sends us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother.
Every day is Mother’s Day for a believing Catholic. That is, every day is the day for Our Blessed Mother!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!
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.