Jorge Just Won’t Go Away

What a tormentor is this Argentine Apostate named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is just seven days away from completing his sixteenth month of his masquerade as the world’s beloved “Pope Francis.” Jorge seems to delight in tormenting believing Catholics with nonstop and seemingly marathon interviews and “homilies,” which wind up surprising us during those periods when he is supposed to be “resting” and has ceased giving his daily “homilies” at the Casa Santa Marta during his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy.

As time is at a premium after a day of running errands for the family, I am going to make this commentary very short. This, I am sure, will please most of the twelve of you who view these articles regularly, presuming that our hacker friend does not prevent you from doing so.

Jorge gave a “homily” yesterday, Saturday, July 5, 2014, the Feast of Saint Anthony Mary Zaccaria within the Octave of Saints Peter and Paul, wherein he repeated the old line from Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick (three months, thirteen days until this wretched Modernist is “beatified) concerning the service of “man” as being the first priority of what is alleged to be the Catholic Church. Here is but a very brief excerpt:

“It is necessary to place the dignity of the human person at the centre of every prospect and every action. Other interests, even if legitimate, are secondary,” he said to applause. “At the centre is the dignity of the human person. Why? Because the human person is in the image of God, he was created in the image of God and we are all in the image of God!” (Serve and live in the freedom of God.)

The human person is at the “centre of every prospect and every action. Other interests, even if legitimate, are secondary.”

No, Jorge, God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church is the center of all. Every one of our actions must be pleasing to God. It is worthless to serve the “dignity of the human person” while suborning those things that are repugnant to the greater honor and glory of God and the sanctification and salvation of the souls redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of Jesus.

Yet it is that the “human dignity” mantra has been repeated endlessly by the conciliar “popes.”

The soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” said the following at the United Masonic Nations Organization on October 4, 1965, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi:

Our message is meant to be, first of all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty institution. This message comes from Our historical experience. It is as an “expert in humanity” that We bring to this Organization the suffrage of Our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and Our own, convinced as We are that this Organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace.

In saying this, We feel We are speaking with the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI’s Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965.)

No room for Social Reign of Christ the King in such an apostate celebration of the “ability” of a Judeo-Masonic organization that sucks billions of dollars into its behemoth bureaucracy to advance an agenda of unbridled moral and social evils all throughout the world. No room for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity or for the sanctification and salvation of souls.

As is well known, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was forever discoursing about the “dignity of the human person.” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI spoke of this very frequently as well.

Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of The Sillon, whose false theology and philosophy provided important building blocks for the edifice of the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism, put the lie to this very simply and directly:

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can.” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Papa Giuseppe Melchior Sarto was a Catholic.

Antipapa Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate.

Pope Saint Pius X worked for the honor and glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio works for “mankind. Excuse, “humankind.”

Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants us to believe the the true role of a pope is to be Bishop of Rome and to then to act “synodally” (collegially) on a universal basis:

–Q: Why, since the beginning, have you wished to stress so much the role of the Bishop of Rome?

–Pope Francis: Francis’ first service is this: to be the Bishop of Rome. He has all the Pope’s titles, universal Shepherd, Vicar of Christ, etc., in fact, because he is Bishop of Rome. It’s the first choice,  the consequence of Peter’s primacy. If tomorrow the Pope wished to be the Bishop of Tivoli, clearly they would throw me out. . . .

Q: Where is Bergoglio’s Church heading?

–Pope Francis: Thank God I have no Church; I follow Christ. I didn’t found anything. From the point of view of style, I haven’t changed from the way I was at Buenos Aires. Yes, perhaps some little thing, because one must, but to change at my age would be ridiculous. In regard to the plan, instead, I follow what the Cardinals have requested during the General Congregations before the Conclave. I go in that direction. The Council of Eight Cardinals, an external body, was born from that. It was requested to help reform the Curia. Something, moreover, that isn’t easy because a step is taken, but then it emerges that this or that must be done, and if before there was one dicastery, it then becomes four. My decisions are the fruit of the pre Conclave meetings. I haven’t done anything on my own.

–Q: A democratic approach?

–Pope Francis: They were decisions of the Cardinals. I don’t know it it’s a democratic approach. I would say it is more Synodal, even if the word is not appropriate for cardinals. (Jorge Babbles On Yet Againw With ‘Il Messagero.”)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants to make everyone believe that he has no agenda of his own.

Guess what?

He has an agenda of his own, and it is one of complete and total revolution against anything and everything that is recognizably Catholic. Jorge has bulldozed, belittled and persecuted many of those “restortationists” who have sought to oppose his schemes that have been denounced by our true popes, whether acting on their own or as they have promulgated decrees of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils, each of which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

Although Jorge likes to emphasize his role as a putative Bishop of Rome, this is yet another mask of his disdain for Papal Primacy. While Senor Bergoglio will mouth lip service platitudes about the primacy of the Chair of Peter, his visible signs of disgust with almost the entirety of papal protocol, including living in the Apostolic Palace as he holds forth in his quarters in the Casa Santa Marta, indicates that he speaks with a forked tongue.

Contrary to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s words and actions have conveyed to the word, a true pope is indeed the Visible Head of the true Church on earth. Pope Pius IX issued Pastor Aeternus at the [First] Vatican Council to define Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility and the true governing powers of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Intent on finding a “new way” for what is called the “Petrine Ministry” can be exercised to the satisfaction of the heretical and schismatic Orthodox and the Protestant sects, the conciliar “pontiffs,” starting most notably with “Saint John Paul II” in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995 (look for a big celebration of that heretical document’s twentieth anniversary next year), have done everything imaginable to extol their “collegial” or “synodal” relationship with the world’s conciliar “bishops.”

Even Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is reported to have said to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, in their infamous meeting at Castel Gandolfo on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, that “My authority stops at that door” as the old German Modernist pointed to the door leading out of the room where the meeting was taking place. In other words, the “bishops” are the true “governors.” “Rome” is merely a “clearinghouse” to provide a bit of direction now and again.

Most of the conciliar “bishops,” of course, are every bit as revolutionary as have been the conciliar “popes,” including the visceral revolutionary named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The Italian “cardinal” who serves as the secretary-general of the conciliar institution called the “Synod of Bishops,” Lorenzo “Cardinal” Badisseri, has denounced as “crazy” the words of a conciliar presbyter in Italy who had dared to state that men and women who cohabit together without the benefit of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are leading sinful lives.

Yes, one must be denounced as “crazy” for simply professing a basic fact of the Catholic moral theology.

Here is the story as provide by a “conservative” blogger, who appears to be “mystified” how this can be the case even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his pals Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and Reinhard “Cardinal” Marx and Oscar Andres Maradiaga “Cardinal” Rodriguez each has stated that a “new” “pastoral approach” along the lines use by the Orthodox in the cases of divorced and civilly “remarried” couples must be “considered” at the upcoming synod:

In exalted ecclesiastical circles in Italy, there seems to be a new orthodoxy emerging with regard to the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. So strict is it that a parish priest gets a guided missile from the heart of the curia for his dissent.

Many readers follow Sandro Magister’s English language blog, Chiesa, for its well-informed and incisive comment on Vatican affairs. Magister also writes an Italian language blog for L’Espresso, called Settimo Cielo which often has additional material of great interest.

A few days ago, in his article Cose da pazzi. Il cardinale Collins e il curato di campagna (“Crazy things. Collins and the country priest”) Magister told of the reaction to Fr Tarcisio Vicario, a parish priest of the diocese of Novara in Italy who recently spoke about the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, saying:

“For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”

The Bishop of Novara made it clear that an appeal to logic or the proper understanding of rehtorical analogy, would fall on deaf ears, characterising the priest’s expression as:

“an unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”

In fact Fr Vicario did not “equate” irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different – one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.

The wrath descending upon poor Fr Vicario did not end with a rebuke from his Ordinary. Cardinal Baldisseri, the Secretary General of the forthcoming Synod, said that the words of Fr Vicario were “crazy, a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” (“una pazzia, un’opinione strettamente personale di un parroco che non rappresenta nessuno, neanche se stesso.“)

Leaving aside the tortuous hyperbole (as Sir Bernard Wooley might interject, his opinion cannot be personal yet not represent himself) it must be asked why such a mainstream and orthodox opinion, expressed with clarity, should be the object of such vehement condemnation. (Crazy Man, Just Crazy.)

No, there is no reason to be mystified about how “Cardinal” Lorenzo Baldisseri can call a conciliar presbyter, who had been reprimanded by his own conciliar “ordinary,” “crazy” for stating Catholic moral truth plainly.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has provided us with the answer:

Q: Wojtyla learned to say volemose bene, damose da fa’ [Roman dialect phrases meaningLet’s love another, let’s get to work!”]. Have you learned any sayings of you own?

–Pope Francis: For now little. Campa e fa’ campa [live and let live]. [Naturally, he laughs]. (Jorge Babbles On Yet Againw With ‘Il Messagero.”)

Sure, just “live and let live.”

The martyr who gave up his life for Papal Primacy and for the inviolability of a ratified, consummated marriage, Saint Thomas More, on July 6, 1535 (his feast day, which is celebrated along with that of the Bishop of Rochester, Saint John Fisher, who was martyred on June 22, 1534, is July 9 in England and Wales), refused to let King Henry VIII’s heretical and schismatic actions and his personal immorality to just “live and let live”:

For as much as, my Lords, this Indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament, directly repugnant, to the Laws of God and his Holy Church, the Supreme Government of which, or of any part thereof, no Temporal Person may by any Law presume to take upon him, being what right belongs to the See of Rome, which by special Prerogative was granted by the Mouth of our Savior Christ himself to St. Peter, and the Bishops of Rome his Successors only, whilst he lived, and was personally present here on Earth: it is therefore, amongst Catholic Christians, insufficient in Law, to charge any Christian to obey it. And in order to the proof of his Assertion, he declared among other things, that whereas this Kingdom alone being but one Member, and a small part of the Church, was not to make a particular Law disagreeing with the general Law of Christ’s universal Catholic Church, no more than the City of London, being but one Member in respect to the whole Kingdom, might enact a Law against an Act of Parliament, to be binding to the whole Realm: so he shewed farther, That Law was, even contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom yet unrepealed, as might evidently be seen by Magna Charta, wherein are these Words; Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, & habet omnia jura integra, & libertates suas illcesas: And it is contrary also to that sacred Oath which the King’s Majesty himself, and every other Christian Prince, always take with great Solemnity, at their Coronations. So great was Sir Thomas’s Zeal, that he further alleged, that it was worse in the Kingdom of England to resist Obedience to the See of Rome, than for any Child to do to his natural Parent: for, as St. Paul said to the Corinthians, I have regenerated you, my Children, in Christ; so might that worthy Pope of Rome, St. Gregory the Great, say of us Englishmen, Ye are my Children, because I have given you everlasting Salvation: for by St. Augustine and his followers, his immediate Messengers, England first received the Christian faith, which is a far higher and better Inheritance than any carnal Father can leave to his Children; for a. Son is only by generation, we are by Regeneration made the spiritual Children of Christ and the Pope. (The Trial and Execution of Sir Thomas More.)

Live and let live?

The more Jorge babbles, my good and vanishing readers, the more he demonstrates how he, a self-professed child of the “Second” Vatican Council as proclaimed and implemented initially by Giovanni Montini Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick. Bergoglio professes a false religion that has false doctrines on Faith and Morals and false liturgical rites. Those who believe that this apostate is a Catholic in good standing and is thus a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are badly mistaken.

All the more reason to beg Our Lady to send us the graces won for us by the shedding of her Divine Son’s Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the woo of the Holy Cross so that we can save our souls as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to this end we need to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

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.

This entry was posted in The Bergoglio Files, The Conciliarism Files 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.