Thomas A

Thomas A. Droleskey Book Review of The Rite of Sodomy

August 27, 2006

Understanding a Cesspool of Corruption
by Thomas A. Droleskey

The descent of the clergy into the abyss of moral perversion is, sadly, n= ot a new phenomenon in the history of the Catholic Church. Our Lord has promis= ed us that the jaws of Hell would never prevail against the Church. This does not mean, however, that the devil is not going to win a few battles in our own lives and in the lives of bishops and priests. Indeed, the devil atta= cks bishops and priests with particular fury, hoping that he can cause many to fall into his snares, thus scandalizing the faithful and causing some of those who are weak in their Faith to leave the true means of salvation, t= he Catholic Church.

Rand= y Engel's massive book, The Rite of Sodomy<= /span>, is an exhaustive examination of the history of the devil's infiltration i= nto the ranks of the Church's hierarchy and clergy. Saint Peter Damian was particularly unstinting in his condemnation of the vile crimes against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments committed by bishops and priests in his own = day. His prescriptions for dealing with the problem were very severe, causing a great deal of controversy. Pope Leo IX more or less confirmed the prescriptions, starting the process of weeding out the offenders and exhorting clerics to strive for the heights of personal sanctity. Clerical corruption remained, of course, for some time thereafter. The remnants of the pestilence were not fully eradicated, at least for a time, until the great saint of Assisi, Giovann= i di Bernadone, otherwise known as Francis, helped to bring about a reform of = the entire Church by his life of austere poverty, Eucharistic piety and deep devotion to the Mother of God, aided in no small measure by his learned contemporary, Father Dominic de Guzman.

We a= re living in a time very much different than that of Saint Peter Damian. How many priests are there in the conciliar structures calling for severe punishments of clergy steeped in the vice of unnatural perversion against= the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? How many bishops in the conciliar structures are doing so. The recent popes? One, Paul VI, as Mrs. Engel documents in = her concluding chapter, was a practicing homosexual who put his fellow perver= ts in positions of authority throughout the conciliar structures Another, Jo= hn Paul II, enabled the perverts and their enablers at every turn, appointing them, promoting them, protecting them. Who is the Archpriest of the Basil= ica of Santa Maria Maggiore? Bernard Cardinal Law, who enabled one sodomite priest after another. Who is the Bishop of Rockville Centre, New York? William F. Murphy, who did Law's bidding as an enabler of the perverts. W= ho is the recently appointed Bishop of Cleveland, Ohio? Richard Lennon, who = participated in the sordid mess of the Boston priest perve= rts.

To w= it, this author, who did the initial reporting for The Wanderer= in 1997 and 1998 in the case of the perversion of Bishop Daniel Ryan, kno= ws first-hand that a well-known priest, the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., went to Rome in early 1997 with a priest who had been molested by Ryan. Father Hardon = and the priest met in the private residence of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Dario Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos. Ryan was kept in power = for yet another two and one-half years. His successor, Bishop George Lucas, as the courageous Stephen G. Brady, the founder and President of Roman Catho= lic Faithful, Inc., has kept the Ryan team in place. One of Ryan's chief enablers, Father Kevin Vann, was appointed recently by Benedict XVI to be= the bishop of Fort Worth, Texas! Whatever disagreements Pope L= eo IX had with the severe prescriptions recommended by Saint Peter Damian, it c= an be said that Pope Leo IX recognized he had a problem in his hands and he = had to find some way to discipline, not to reward, bishops and priests steepe= d in lives of unnatural vice.

As c= an be seen in the case of the episcopal appointment of Father Kevin Vann, Bened= ict XVI has played his own role in all of this, albeit with this typical inconsistency and contradictions. As the Prefect of the Congregation for = the Clergy the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger sometimes warned diocesan bis= hops about the problems of priest perverts. On the other hand, he refused to a= ct against the corrupt founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Marcel Maciel Dellogado, sitting on the case for years, telling ABC-TV news at o= ne point that "it is best not to dishearten the faithful." It was = only recently that a "compromise" in Father Marcel's case, which is handled very thoroughly in Mrs. Engel's book, has permitted him to "retire" without any finding of fact against him.

Neve= rtheless, as has been pointed out on this site in the past seventeen months, Benedi= ct has appointed homosexual-friendly bishops (William Levada and George Niederauer) to key positions. Much unlike the days of Pope Leo IX and Sai= nt Peter Damian, we live in a day when the perverts hold most of the key lev= ers of ecclesiastical power. Is it any wonder that there is such hostility to= the Faith of our fathers emanating from our chancery offices and parish pulpi= ts and schools and universities and colleges and seminaries and convents? Is= it any wonder that the average lay Catholic is so totally bereft of the sens= us Catholicus, being bombarded with the propagandizing efforts in behalf of immorality all throughout the popular culture and hearing endless justifications for such immorality in "Catholic" institutions, which themselves are the prisoners of the anti-Catholic conciliarist para= digm?

With= a very few exceptions prior to the explosion of these scandals in the secul= ar media in early 2002 (after years of reporting by The Wanderer and nearly twenty years after Father Enrique Rueda's groundbreaking The Homosexual Network), bishops and priests who h= ave been caught up in lives of unnatural vice were affirmed and enabled by the Vatican. At least one pope and numerous cardinals and bishops and priests have been subject to blackmail from the enemies of the Catholic Faith as a result. The souls of ordinary Catholics, already lost in the fog of the novelties of conciliarism, have been deformed as a result. =

No o= ne, least of all those who are the ostensible stewards of ecclesiastical powe= r, can ignore the gravity of this situation and claim to be a friend of soul= s, starting with the souls of those who are steeped in lives of gross perversion. Immersion in an unrepentant life of perversion leads one all = too naturally to a more deadly perversion, that of the Faith itself, eerily imitating in perverse matters Martin Luther's own immersion in natural vi= ce that was to a very large extent responsible for his creation of a "Christian theology and ecclesiology" that is from the devil and has been designed from its outset to lead souls to Hell for all eternity.=

A Concern for the Sinner

Mrs.= Engel prefaces her massive book, which is certainly not light "bedtime&quo= t; reading, with a deep and an abiding concern for the welfare of those who = have been caught up in the ravages of unnatural vice:

As f= or the individual homosexual caught up in this vice, I love him more than ever. = For I now have a greater understanding and appreciation of the terrible all-embracing hold that this vice can have on a man and an even greater conviction that one should move heaven and earth to prevent any souls from being sucked into the homosexual vortex. (pp. xxiii-xxiv)

Mrs.= Engel also expressed that her book is not for the faint of heart. Indeed, it is not. This book must be kept out of the reach of children and young adolescents. Anyone of any age who is easily scandalized should not read = it. And some of the book's more graphic chapters dealing with the specifics of the vice of sodomy are not of themselves are not absolutely necessary for= one to read in order to appreciate the enormity of the problem and the clever= ness of what Mrs. Engel terms quite rightly "The Homosexual Collective.&q= uot;

Inde= ed, the ideal audience for The Rite of Sodomy is to be found in the ranks of priests in the conciliar structures. Perhaps one or two priests might com= e to understand the he simply cannot participated any more in the undermining = of the Catholic Faith, submitting himself to the dictates of ecclesiastical tyrants who hate the Faith and who have gone the extra mile to prove themselves to be friends of the devil himself. Perhaps some wealthy individual who reads this article might see to it that a bulk purchase of= The Rite of Sodomy is made and then distributed to every priest in the United States of America. and Canada.

Mrs.= Engel addressed the need for care in reading her book. This is what she wrote in the book's Introduction:

By a= ny standard, this book is not for the faint of heart. The subject of homosexuality is understandably distasteful Its connections to the priest= hood and the Catholic Church make it doubly so.

To t= hese difficulties one can add the presence of explicit sexual language used to describe certain types of homosexual acts and practices. On this point I = can assure the reader that out of a sheer sense of decency I have fought to k= eep these explicit references to a minimum.

Howe= ver, I believe that it is not crude language but the horrendous issues raised in this book that will make it difficult reading for any faithful Roman Catholic.

In h= is Epistle to the Romans, Saint= Paul said that God permits disorders of the flesh, including homosexuality, not only in payment for personal sins but as a recompense for errors within society and within the Church. The invasion, colonization and metastasiza= tion of the priesthood and religious life by the Homosexual Collective must be viewed within the larger context of a Church under enemy siege from all sides. As such, homosexuality within the priesthood is at once a cause and symptom of corruption with the Church today. (p. xxiv)<= /p>
Mrs. Engel's closed her Introduction with an explanation that she hopes that h= er book, which contains over 1,500 chapter notes and an extensive bibliograp= hy, will move the Holy See to "take whatever actions are necessary to restore sanctity and sanity to the priesthood and religious life."

Mrs. Engel's efforts in this regard are offered as a daughter of the Catholic Church that she has served so well in her efforts to oppose sex-instructi= on and to expose those, such as the late Bishop James T. McHugh, responsible= for cooperating with the enemies of the Faith, such as Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex Information Caucus of the United States, to underline = the innocence of young Catholics. Putting aside for a moment the questions th= at have been raised on this site recently concerning the legitimacy of the conciliar officials, there is little evidence, at least humanly speaking, that there will be any reaction from the Vatican concerning Mrs. Engel's = work of love for the Church other than an attempt of silence, which will be followed by condemnation in short order if silence is not successful in burying the facts that she has unearthed.

The Early Church Speaks: The Fathers Condemn Sodomy

After reviewing the practice of unnatural vice and attitudes about it in the pa= gan world of antiquity, Mrs. Engel provides a cogent summary of the Church's consistent condemnation of all unnatural vice. Mrs. Engel quotes from Saint Augustine's commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans (v= erses 26-32) dealing with unnatural vice:

&quo= t;Still thou dost punish these sins which men commit against themselves because, = even when they sin against thee, they are also committing impiety against their own souls. Iniquity gives itself the lie, either by corrupting or by perverting that nature which thou hast made and ordained. And they do thi= s by an immoderate use of lawful things; or by the lustful desire for things forbidden, as 'against nature'; or when they are guilty of sin by raging = with heart and voice against thee, rebelling against thee, 'kicking against the pricks'; or when they cast aside respect for human society and take audac= ious delight in conspiracies and feuds according to their private likes and dislikes."

Mrs.= Engel then examined the commentaries of Saint Basil and Pope Saint Siricius on "homosexuality in the religious life:"

With= an all-male clergy, it is not surprising that the issue of homosexuality and pederasty in the religious life should have been a matter of serious consideration and deliberation by early Church Fathers. Then as now, the = problem of predatory homosexuality in clerical circles was more of a reflection of the general moral corruption of the day rather than the specific failing = of clerics and monks.

Howe= ver, if the instructions of Saint Basil were the norm, we can surmise that whe= re the accused cleric was found guilty of engaging in or attempting to engag= e in same-sex activities, the consequences were swift and painful.<= /span>

Saint Basil of Cesarea, the 4th century Patriarch of Eastern monks and one of t= he four great Doctors of the East held that:

&quo= t;The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committ= ing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown (tons= ure) and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; = and [let him be] bound in chains, condemned to six months in prison...after w= hich let him live in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with gr= eat spiritual experience...let him be subject to prayers, vigils, and manual = work always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship ... with young people."

It s= hould be noted that the exposition of a public flogging which exposed the offen= ding cleric or monk to open ridicule would virtually insure that the offender = would never rise to hold an office in the Church.

On t= he questions of whether or not a layman who had committed acts of pederasty = or sodomy could apply for and receive Holy Orders, we can refer to the directives on the norms for priestly ordination issued by Pope Saint Siri= cius (384-399) on 10 February, 385:

&quo= t;We deem it advisable that, just as not everyone should be allowed to do a penance reserved for clerics, so also a layman should never be allowed to ascend to clerical honor after penance and reconciliation. Because althou= gh they have been purified of the contagion of all sins, those who formerly indulged in a multitude of vices should not receive the instruments to administer the sacraments."

Thus= , any layman having been caught up in the vice of sodomy in any form, even thou= gh he had served out his penance, by implication, would not be permitted to enter the clerical state.

The = text of Pope Siricius's decree on key aspects of church discipline and clerical celibacy is of special importance because it is the oldest completely preserved papal deceretal (edict for the authoritative decision of questi= ons of disciple and canon law). and reflects the pope speaking with the consciousness of his supreme ecclesiastical authority and of his pastoral care over all the churches. (pp. 41-42)

Mrs.= Engel also documented Pope Saint Gregory the Great's admonition that the civil state has a responsibility to punish clerical sodomites:

Pope Gregory I began his 14-year reign as supreme pontiff in 590 (the first mo= nk to become pope), with his Liber pastoralis curae on the role of the bisho= p as the pre-eminent physician of souls entrusted by God to his care and supervision, a doctrine he practiced as well as preached. His sermons, ba= sed largely on Holy Scripture drew immense crowds and set the pattern for the future pattern of many famous preachers of the Middle Ages. His indelible influence in the areas of Church doctrine, organization and discipline ma= ke him one of the most remarkable figures in ecclesiastical history.

Pope Gregory held a distinctive view of Church-State relations. He saw the Imperial government centered at Constantinople together with the Church as forming a united whole. At the same time each= had its own sphere of control--one ecclesiastical and the other secular. Stil= l, the pope did not hesitate to call upon the Crown, as protector of the Chu= rch and keeper of the peace, to not only suppress schism, heresy, or idolatry, but also to enforce discipline among monks and clergy.<= /p>
Pope Gregory's teaching on sodomy did not break new ground, but rather reflect= ed the summing up of the teachings of the earlier Fathers of the East and We= st at the beginning of the Middle Ages on the nature of the crime. Using the= Old Testament text from Genesis 19:1-25 describing the terrible fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the pope declared:

&quo= t;Brimstone calls to mind the foul orders of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the L= ord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type= of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales st= ench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of the flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone, so that through the just chastisement they must realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire."

The = reader will note that Pope Gregory not only condemned the act of sodomy as a "crime," but also denounce the desires of the sodomites as "perverse." Thus, lustful homosexual thoughts and desires, willfully entertained, are not only sinful (even where the act is not car= ried out), but they are unnatural and perverse as well. (pp. 46-47)=

This= is very important to note as Catholics have been bombarded for over twenty y= ears now with propaganda from the "official" institutions of the conciliar church into accepting the lie that it is indeed perfectly "natural" for people of the same gender to "love" each other, that such "attractions" should never prohibit a man from being ordained to the priesthood, that a "gay priest" who is celibate is just as capable as a "straight priest" who is celib= ate of discharging his priestly duties admirably.

Pope= Saint Gregory the Great put the lie to these assertions, made repeatedly by so = many bishops in our own day, including the notorious Theodore Cardinal McCarri= ck, the retired Archbishop of Washington. D.C., who came out of the nest of v= ice that was fostered during the twenty-eight year reign (1939-1967) of Franc= is Cardinal Spellman in the Archdiocese of New York. McCarrick, who invoked = the name of the false god "Allah" in the presence of King Abdullah = of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in September of 2005 at The Catholic University of America, said in 2002 that "gay" men should not be barred from the priesthood. McCarrick, who once forbade a mere "indult" Mass in the Crypt Church at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., also was in favor of distributing Holy Communion to pro-abortion politici= ans. There is a direct connection between participation in, support of and/or indifference to sodomy and a denial of the truths of the Holy Faith.=

Saint Peter Damian and Pope Leo IX on the Problem of Unnatural Vice in the Cler= gy

Repr= ising her two-part series that Catholic Family News in June and July of 2003, M= rs. Engel outlines, as noted at the beginning of this review, the approach of Saint Peter Damian (1007-1072) and Pope Leo IX (who reigned between 1049 = and 1054) to the problem of unnatural vice in the clergy. Quite unlike the conciliar popes, Pope Leo IX took the matter very seriously and sought to implement real reforms, not cosmetic tricks designed to appease a "c= onservative" constituency while maintaining the status quo (as occurred last year when William Cardinal Levada issued a document requiring men inclined to perversity to demonstrate an abstinence from perverse acts for three years prior to be ordained to the priesthood; that such men can be admitted to = the priesthood at all is a scandal, compounded by the fact that the actual decisions are still left up to the ordaining bishop and/or to the superio= rs of religious communities, an absolute farce of what the word "discip= line" means).

Mrs.= Engel noted the following:

Acco= rding to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because:

&quo= t;Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the del= uded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollu= tes all things ... This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. Th= is utterly diseased queen of So= dom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious = to God... She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors= him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, = his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, sa= ps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justi= ce, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more?"

No, dearest St. Peter Damian, I think not.

Like= every saint before him, and every saint that will ever come after him, St. Peter Damian exhorts the cleric caught in the vice of sodomy to repent and refo= rm his life and in the words of the Blessed Apostle Paul, "Wake up from your sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will revive (enlighten) you." (Eph 5:14) In a remarkable affirmation of the Gospel message, = he warns against the ultimate sin of despairing of God's mercy and the necessity of fasting and prayer to subdue the passions:

&quo= t;... beware of drowning in the depths of despondency. Your heart should beat w= ith confidence in God's love and not grow hard and impenitent, in the face of your great crime. It is not sinners, but the wicked who should despair; i= t is not the magnitude of one's crime, but contempt of God that dashes one's hopes."

Then= , in one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy= and chastity ever written, Damian reminds the wayward cleric or monk of the special place reserved in Heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ's sake. Their names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love of God, he says.

One = of the very interesting historical sidebars to Damian's treatise is that he made= no preference to the popular practice of distinguishing "notorious" from "non-notorious" cases of clerical immorality--a policy whi= ch can be traced back to the 9th century and the canonical reforms on ecclesiastical and clerical discipline by the great German Benedictine scholar and Archbishop of Mainz, Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (776?-856). Under this policy, the removal of clerics found guilty of criminal acts including sodomy, depended on whether or not his offense was publicly known, or was carried out and confessed in secret.

In c= ases that had become "notorious," the offending cleric was defrocked and/or handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. But if his crime was known only to a few persons such as his confessor or religious superior, the offending cleric was privately reprimanded, served a penance and then was permitted to continue at his post, or transferred to a simil= ar post in a different diocese. Given the aggressive and predatory nature of= the vice of sodomy, it is highly likely that such a policy contributed to, ra= ther than inhibited, sodomical practices among clerics and religious between t= he mid-800s and the early 1000s. In any case, it was unlikely that Damian, w= ho openly expressed his condemnation of too lenient canonical regulations related to the punishment of clerical sodomites and was so judicious in preserving the integrity of the priesthood and religious life, would have approved such a policy.

Sain= ts are realists, which is no doubt why St. Peter Damian anticipated that his "small book" which exposes and denounces homosexual practices in all ranks of the clergy including the hierarchy, would cause a great commotion in the Church. And it did.

In anticipation of harsh criticism, the holy monk puts forth his own defense= as a 'whistle-blower'. He states that his would-be critics will accuse him of "being an informer and a delator of my brother's crimes," but, = he says, he has no fear of either "the hatred of evil men or the tongue= s of detractors."

Hear= , dear reader, the words of St. Peter Damian that come thundering down to us thr= ough the centuries at a time in the Church when many shepherds are silent while clerical wolves, some disguised in miters and brocade robes, devour its l= ambs and commit sacrilege against their own spiritual sons:<= /p>
&quo= t;... I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed= his father of his brothers' foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God's f= ury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:= 4) ... Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another's soul by daring to repress = my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God's judgement? .. How, ind= eed, am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of w= hich I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? ... "So let = no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother's well-being. "Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecu= te him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses' words, 'Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me.' (Ezek 32:26)"

As he draws his case against the vice of clerical sodomy to a close, St. Peter Damian pleads with another future saint, Pope Leo IX, urging the Vicar of Christ to use his office to reform and strengthen the decrees of the sacr= ed canons with regard to the disposition of clerical sodomites including religious superiors and bishops who sexually violate their spiritual sons= .

Dami= an asks the Holy Father to "diligently" investigate the four forms= of the vice of sodomy cited at the beginning of his treatise and then provide him (Damian) with definitive answers to the following questions by which = the "darkness of uncertainty" might be dispelled and an "indec= isive conscience" freed from error:

1) I= s one who is guilty of these crimes to be expelled irrevocably from holy orders= ?

2) W= hether at a prelate's discretion, moreover, one might mercifully be allowed to function in office?

3) T= o what extent, both in respect to the methods mentioned above and to the number = of lapses, is it permissible to retain a man in the dignity of ecclesiastical office?

4) A= lso, if one is guilty, what degree and what frequency of guilt should compel h= im under the circumstances to retire?

Dami= an closes his famous letter by asking Almighty God to use Pope Leo IX's pontificate "to utterly destroy this monstrous vice" that a prostrate Church may everywhere rise to vigorous stature." (pp. 53-5= 5)

A ve= ry thoughtful reader of this site expressed a concern to me that Catholics m= ight come away with the impression that our day, therefore, is little different than previous days, including those in Christendom. Well, human nature is flawed. The devil wants to tempt men into sins, especially those of a perverse nature from which it is impossible to escape without the help of= Our Lady's graces and a desire to embrace personal penances and mortification= s to help to undo the effects of these sins of one's immortal soul, purchased = at the cost of the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood = of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Thus= , yes, there was corruption of this sort in the Middle Ages. This is documented.= It is incontestable. The difference between then and now, however, is demons= trated quite amply by Mrs. Engel, who discusses how Pope Leo IX intervened to correct matters with the full weight of the papacy:

The approximate date that Damian delivered the Bo= ok of Gomorrah to Pope Leo IX is generally held to be the second half of the first year of the pontiff's reign, i.e., mid-1049, although some writers = put the date as late as 1051. We do know, absolutely, that the Pope did respo= nd to Damian's concerns, as that response in the form of a lengthy letter (JL 4311; ItPont 4.94f., no.2) is generally attached to manuscripts of the wo= rk.

Pope= Leo IX opens his letter to "his beloved son in Christ, Peter the hermit," with warm salutations and a recognition of Damian's pure, upright and zealous character. He agrees with Damian that clerics, caught= up in the "execrable vice" of sodomy "Ö verily and most assuredly will have no share in his inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn. Ö Such clerics, indeed profess, if not in words, at least by the evidence of their actions, that they are not what they are thought to be," he declares. <= /span>

Reit= erating the category of the four forms of sodomy that Damian lists, [59] the Holy Father declares that it is proper that by "our apostolic authority&q= uot; we intervene in the matter so that "all anxiety and doubt be removed from the minds of your readers".

&quo= t;So let it be certain and evident to all that we are in agreement with everyt= hing your book contains, opposed as it is like water to the fire of the devil," the Pope continues. "Therefore, lest the wantonness of = this foul impurity be allowed to spread unpunished, it must be repelled by pro= per repressive action of apostolic severity, and yet some moderation must be placed on its harshness," he states.

Next= , Pope Leo IX gives a detailed explanation of the Holy See's authoritative rulin= g on the matter.

In l= ight of divine mercy, the Holy Father commands, without contradiction, that th= ose who, of their own free will, have practiced solitary or mutual masturbati= on or defiled themselves by interfemoral coitus, but who have not done so for any length of time, nor with many others, shall retain their status, after having "curbed their desires" and "atoned for their infamo= us deeds with proper repentance".

Howe= ver, the Holy See removes all hope for retaining their clerical status from th= ose who alone or with others for a long time, or even a short period with man= y, "have defiled themselves by either of the two kinds of filthiness wh= ich you have described, or, which is horrible to hear or speak of, have sunk = to the level of anal intercourse."

He w= arns potential critics, that those who dare to criticize or attack the apostol= ic ruling stand in danger of losing their rank. And so as to make it clear to whom this warning is directed, the Pope immediately adds, "For he who does not attack vice, but deals with it lightly, is rightly judged to be guilty of his death, along with the one who dies in sin."

Pope= Leo IX praises Damian for teaching by example and not mere words, and conclud= es his letter with the beautiful hope that when, with God's help, the monk reaches his heavenly abode, he may reap his rewards and be crowned, "Ö in a sense, with all those who were snatched by you from the snares of the devil."

Clea= rly, on the objective immorality of sodomical acts, both Damian and Pope Leo IX were in perfect accord with one another. However, in terms of Church discipline, the pope appears to have taken exception with Damian's appeal= for the wholesale deposition of all clerics who commit sodomical acts. I say, appears, because I believe that even in the matter of punishing known clerical offenders, both men were more in agreement than not.<= /span>

Cert= ainly, Damian, who was renown for his exemplary spiritual direction of the novitiates and monks entrusted to his care, was not unaware of certain mitigating circumstances that would diminish if not totally remove the culpability of individuals charged with the crime of sodomy. For example,= as with certain clerical sex abuse cases that have come to light today invol= ving the Society of St. John and the Legionaries of Christ, which the Holy See= has yet to investigate, some novices or monks may have been forced or pressur= ed by their superiors to commit such acts. No doubt, it is circumstances suc= h as these that prompted Pope Leo IX to use the term, "who of his own free will" in describing a cleric guilty of sodomy. [66] Also among the f= our varieties of sodomy Damian discusses in his treatise, he states that interfemoral and anal coitus are to be judged more serious than solitary = or mutual masturbation.

All = in all, what this writer found to be most remarkable about the pope's letter= to Damian, was the absolutist position Pope Leo IX took concerning the ultim= ate responsibility of the offending cleric's bishop or religious superior. If= the latter criticized or attacked this apostolic decree, he risked losing his rank! Prelates who fail to "attack vice, but deal lightly with it,&q= uot; share the guilt and sentence of the one who dies in sin, the pope declare= d. (pp. 57-58)

Pope= Leo IX understood that the salvation of his own immortal soul depended upon attacking vice and not dealing lightly with it. How can there be any talk= at all of canonizing the late John Paul II, who refused to attack vice and consistently promoted and rewarded men who were caught up in it themselves and/or who were indifferent, at best, about it in the lives of their brot= her bishops and priests, men who attacked the integrity of the Faith, both in matters of worship and doctrine, with a savage fury? As a former colleague and, it appears, a former friend of mine noted shortly after the death of= the not-so-great pontiff, "I just hope that he was wearing his Brown Scapular when he died. Our Lady did say, 'Whosoever shall be clothed' in = it shall not know eternal hellfire."

Mrs.= Engel demonstrates that the contemporaries of Saint Peter Damian, including thr= ee future popes, one of whom, Stephen X (1057-1058), made him the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, sought him out for his advice and counsel. She discussed the fact that no= ne other than the Archbishop of Canterbury (England was a Catholic country, = as you know, for the better part of a thousand years), Saint Anselm, himself= was among many Catholics who attested to the prevalence of unnatural vice in = the Church and in the world in the Eleventh Century:

Also= , the probability that Damian was, in fact, speaking the full truth concerning = the extent of this plague in the Church can be discerned from a number of subsequent events including the condemnation of clerical immorality inclu= ding sodomy at the Synod of Florence attended by Damian in June, 1055, under t= he pontificate of Pope Victor II (1055-1057). Almost 50 years after Damian's death, the Council of Nabus assembled in 1120 under the direction of Garm= und, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, continued to issue edicts and penalties against the vice and crime of sodomy.

We a= lso knew that Saint Anselm (1033-1109) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Engla= nd, confirmed Damian's thesis of the wide-spread practice of sodomy not only among clergy, but commoner and courtier as well, when he started that &qu= ot; ...this sin (sodomy) has been publicly committed to such an extent that it scarcely makes anyone blush, and that many have fallen into it in ignoran= ce of its gravity." (p. 59)

From Christendom to the Rise of the Secular State

Mrs.= Engel provides a comprehensive historical review of the influence of sodomy in = the Renaissance and the subsequent rise of the modern secular state that encompasses two riveting chapters in The Rite of Sodomy. Much as we would like to assure ourselves that the unchecked spread of this vice has occur= red only in our own day as a result of "activist judges" and a few activist organizations, the truth is that devil took full advantage of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King during the Protestant Re= volt and thereafter to spread all manner of poisons abroad in one nation after another. While some of those poisons would only come to the surface at the end of the Nineteenth Century and become quite in their boldness for all = to see at the end of the Twentieth Century, as the conciliar church was enveloped from the top down in adapting itself to some of these poisons, = the poisons had been lurking underground for about half of a millennium.=

Mrs.= Engel devotes another chapter to the contributions made by sodomite behavior in= the case of the Cambridge Spies in the British intelligence service, men whose lives of perversity were used against them by the = Soviet Union into becoming its own double-agents. She makes a very interesting comparison between men who are willing to sell out the land of their birth and those who are willing to sell out their true Mother, Holy Mother Church, by persisting in vice to the detriment of their souls and those of others (and, ultimately, to the common good of society itself):<= o:p>

Was = the official cover-up by the British Establishment of the horrendous deeds of= the Cambridge spies so very different from the American bishops' cover-up of the crimin= al deeds of its pederast and homosexual clergy and religious? Is not the Catholic clerical Homintern as capable of inflicting as great a harm to t= he Church and the faithful as that inflicted on the people and government of= Britain by the Cambridge spies under the direction o= f the Communist Comintern [Communist International]? (p. 342)

Mrs.= Engel continued a few paragraphs later to note:

Ther= e is a similarity between a secular traitor's hatred of the Social Order and nat= ion that nurtured him, and the homosexual priest's hatred of the Roman Cathol= ic Church with its moral absolutes and restrictions and authority figures. O= nce the homosexual priest or religious is absorbed into the Homintern, his allegiance and subservience to it supersedes all other former loyalties. = His devotion to his family and his faith is atrophied.

As F= ather [Enrique] Rueda [the author of The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, 1982] has charged, this new allegiance is capable of functionally dissolving the normally stronger bonds of religious affiliat= ion. Homosexual priests and religious not only foster dissension within the Ch= urch in matters of sexual morality, they also use the Church and its resources= to spread the teaching and propaganda of the Homintern.

Neit= her the State nor the Church can afford to ignore the presence of vice in its midst. Britain's upper-class winked at the violation of the moral law with regard to homosexuality and paid a heavy price for its folly. Likewise the Church cannot be indifferent to vice within its priestly ranks and expect to esc= ape unscathed from the consequences of its actions.

The treacherous exploits of the Cambridge sp= ies resulted in the massive hemorrhaging of intelligence to the Soviets and untold damage to B= ritain's national interests. The treacherous exploits of clerical pederasts and homosexuals in the Church has resulted in the massive hemorrhaging of confidence in the Church and a feeling of betrayal in the hearts of every loyal Catholic layman and priest. (p. 343).

As M= rs. Engel notes in two chapters at the end of her book, the betrayal of the F= aith by the contemporary sodomites is but part and parcel of the larger agenda= of Revolution in the very structures of conciliarism that began with the pontificate of Angelo Roncalli, John XIII. Indeed, as will be seen later, Mrs. Engel relies upon Mary Ball Martinez's The Undermining of the Cathol= ic Church that was cited on this site four months ago in an initial review of the words and the work of a priest who had helped to plan the Revolution's agenda, one Father Joseph Ratzinger.

The Methods of the Homosexual Collective

Sect= ion II of The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church contai= ns three chapters that deal with some pretty graphic material on the nature = of the vice under review. A great deal of scientific data is presented here.= As noted at the beginning of this review, this section might be useful to he= lp a relative or a friend caught up in the grip of unnatural vice to see the objective evidence about its inherent degeneracy and the harm that it doe= s to his own body, no less his immortal soul. Ultimately, though, it is not th= is sort of graphic material that is going to convert anyone out of a life of persistence in vice, whether natural or unnatural. One must come to love = God as He has revealed Himself exclusively through His Catholic Church and resolve never to offend Him again by falling into Mortal Sins of any kind, relying upon the supernatural helps He has left us by means of the sacram= ents to leave a world of vice and perversion and corruption and to scale the heights of personal sanctity.

Admi= ttedly, of course, this is all the more difficult to stress as Benedict XVI wrote= in Principles of Catholic Theology that the sacraments are not to be viewed = in an "individualistic" way, a total denial of the dogmatic teachi= ng of the Council of Trent on the nature of the sacraments, which were instituted precisely to bestow and to increase the life of Sanctifying Gr= ace in the souls of individual men. How can those steeped in sin today be ins= pired to quit their sins for the right reason, that is for love of God and by a fervent cooperation with the graces that flow to us from Our Lady's hands= in the sacraments, when many, although certainly all, bishops and priests in= the conciliar structures believe that it is not truly necessary to reform one= 's life by the rooting out of sin, that we should take comfort in the abject= lie that God loves us "just as we are." He does not. He wants us to= be saints.

The = devil wants us with him in Hell for all eternity. He hates God. He hates each o= ne of us because our souls are made in the image and likeness of God. The de= vil will seek to use all manner of tricks to keep us from going to Heaven, sparing no efforts, along with his other fallen angels, to lead us to the point of despair as we take our dying breaths. The adversary, who prowls about the world like a roaring lion seeking the ruin of souls, has used a= ll different guises to promote evil in all of its various forms, including unnatural vice. The methods, therefore, used by the Homosexual Collective= , as Mrs. Engel terms it, are just part and parcel of the adversary's plan for= the ruin of souls for all eternity and the downfall of men and nations in this passing world.

Mrs.= Engel describes the basic organizational goals of the Homosexual Collective as follows:

The Homosexual Collective's overall political base is constructed on a refine= ment of Hegelian and Marxist-Leninist theories and practices. It is first and foremost through this political prism that all of its pronouncements, actions, and institutions must be viewed if one hopes to gain a true understanding of the movement.

Much= of the Collective's success thus far in advancing its revolutionary agenda h= as been due to its continued ability to:

Conc= eal its ultimate goals from the general public.
Recruit large numbers of new members and fellow travelers.
Establish numerous front organizations
Control the language of public discourse
Infiltrate, colonize and subvert important secular and religious institut= ions.
Organize public demonstrations and crusades designed to move "the masses" in the direction that the Collective desires.
Obtain government (tax monies) and private financial resources necessary = to wage war and secure a significant political power base.
Influence and/or control the mass media whereby public opinion will be directed along the lines prescribed by the Collective.<= /p>
The "vanguard" or shock troops of the Gay Liberation Movement are d= rawn from the hundreds of international, national, state and local organizatio= ns and coalitions that form the Homosexual Collective. Their main task is the total infiltration, colonization, and subversion of all social institutio= ns that are deemed useful in moving the revolution forward.

As t= hese mass organizations are brought under the control or influence of the Collective, they are transformed into "fronts" that can be read= ily manipulated by a relatively few members of the vanguard. In addition to expanding the Collective's sphere of influence, these front organizations provide numerous fellow travelers and useful idiots that are so essential= to advancing the primary objectives of the sexual revolution. They also swell the Collective's political and financial power base, provide an unlimited source of potential recruits, and serve as a transmission belt for "gay" propaganda. (pp. 473-474)

Mrs.= Engel demonstrates that the Homosexual Collective is very much allied with the occult and so-called Eastern"mysticism."

For homosexual men and women who prefer a more serene, meditative mystical/magical approach to spirituality, occult sects that Theosophy and its modern-day progeny, the New Age Movement, offer homosexuals still oth= er alternatives to Christianity.

Sinc= e the late 19th century, theosophy, as proclaimed by its most famous proponent Helen Petrovna "Madame" Blavatsky (1831-1891) has attracted a number of spiritual and moral renegades from Christianity.

Theo= sophists proclaim the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of rac= e, creed, sex (or sexual orientation), caste or color and embrace an ecumeni= cal spirit of indifferentism with regard to specific religions or philosophic= al movements.

The theoretical framework for theosophy incorporates all of the ancient heret= ical occult systems including Pantheism, Gnosticism, Jewish Kabalism and Europ= ean Neoplatonist Hermeticism as well as elements of the Eastern mysticism of Hinduism, Buddhism, Yogaism and Brahmanism, overlaid with a heavy mantle = of good-old-fashioned Spiritualism. (p. 486)

Wher= e I have read about Catholics praising Neoplatonist Hermeticism and citing Catholic Judaizing Kabalists favorably? Hmmm. Oh, never mind. =

Back= to Mrs. Engel:

Mrs.= Engel explained the reason for her providing this background for her readers:

My b= rief reference to theosophy most likely would have ended here were it not for = the appearance on the English Theosophical scene at about the time of another famous convert to theosophy, one Charles Webster Leadbeater, who in a relatively short period of time managed to draw the society into a major pederast scandal. Consider the facts that at least two Catholic religious orders, the Legionaries of Christ and the Society of St. John, have been accused of harboring clerical pederasts whose modus operandi bear an unca= nny resemblance to that of Master Leadbeater, I think it is a story worth telling. (p. 487)

Mrs. Engel's description of Theosophy could pass as well for a description of Judeo-Masonry. Birds of a feather do flock together. Charles Webster Leadbeater, who had been "ordained" to the Anglican "priesthood" in 1879 but joined the Theosophical Society in 188= 3, was initiated into a Masonic lodge in June of 1915, becoming a thirty-thi= rd degree Mason in short order. She went on to describe how the case of Leadbeater, who was a pederast, teaches us lessons today about the infiltration of sodomites of what she so aptly names as Am-Church, a phra= se that I believed was coined first by Paul Likoudis of The Wanderer, which is in reality just arm, as some of us see it, of the counterfeit co= nciliar church that has taken the Faith of our fathers away from us and replaced = it with one that has the temerity to contradict a good deal of the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church, thereby confusing and bewildering many good, believing Catholics in the process.(Please understand, however, that this view is not expressed in Mrs. Engel's book.)

Here= are the parallels that Mrs. Engel draws between the case of Charles Leadbeater and the recently exposed scandals of the pederasts in the conciliar struc= tures:

Firs= t, yesteryear, as today, young male victims of clerical sex abuse rarely rep= ort the crime against them. Second, for the homosexual pederast, the priestho= od is an ideal cover. Third, clerical pederasts, like all perverts, lie about their activities. Fourth, young boys with religious vocations are likely = to believe anything that their religious superiors tell them; Fifth, parents= of clerical sex-abuse victims are wont to recognize, much less admit, the existence of the crime. And, finally, the Homosexual Collective, then as = now, is quite capable of colonizing and exploiting the religious life for its = own ends.

By t= he time Leadbeater and Wedgwood and Company were through with the Liberal Catholic Church [schismatic and heretical sect based in England] it was on the verge of total disintegration. Interestingly, the program of "liturgical renewal" introduced by Leadbeater and his associates into the Church's rites and rituals that included occult doctrine, has remained a permanent feature of many Liberal Catholic Churches up to the present day. (p. 492)

Alth= ough Mrs. Engel does not draw the conclusion at this point in her book, the parallel here is glaringly obvious: the whole thrust of the Liturgical Movement, after it had been co-opted by the Modernists in the early Twent= ieth Century, that is, within the Catholic Church was to eliminate all referen= ce to man's sinfulness and to the possibility of the loss of his immortal so= ul for all eternity. As I demonstrate in G.I.R.M. Warfare, the whole ethos of the liturgical revolutionaries was to reaffirm man in his essential "goodness," one of the chief ideological underpinnings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and thus of the French Revolution (as I quoted from Father Fahey in From His Mother's Knee a few days ago). Consider this telling--and, yes, oft-quoted on this site, passage from Paragraph 15 of = the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

The = same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of te= xts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would= not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language woul= d be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward pena= nce belonging to another age in the history of the Church. =

Mode= rn theology? A particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church? Who believes such things except those who are themselves steeped, objectively speaking, in states of Mortal Sin and who want to create a false religion and a false liturgy to reaffirm themselve= s in their self-justified states of moral degradation? Penance belongs to every age in Church history, whose theology needs no "building stones"= ; to "unify" it with the beliefs of those outside of the ranks of the true Church, a belief that implies that Holy Mother Church does not have everything in her Divine Constitution, including the entirety of the Depo= sit of Faith, to know the truth of the Divine Redeemer and to proclaim it infallibly without "outside" assistance from heretics.

Sain= t John Marie Vianney feared that he had not done enough for souls, that he had n= ot done enough penance for his sins and to save the souls of his beloved parishioners from Ars, from whom he tried to flee on three separate occas= ions in order to live a more penitential life as a hermit. God willed for him, however, to continue his life of penance as a priest. It is precisely the exorcising of penance and penitentially-laden prayers in the Novus Ordo Missae that is both a sign of the moral corruption at its very foundation= and an expression of its desire to eradicate penance in blitzkrieg from the l= ives of ordinary Catholics. This was and remains nothing less than diabolical.=

Oh, = yes, there is, as will be pointed out at the conclusion of this review, it mattered quite a bit that the man who personally approved the work of the Consilium and foisted the liturgical revolution upon Catholics, Paul VI, = was himself a practicing homosexual. The liturgical "renewal" in the conciliar church had everything to do with reaffirming men in their sins.=

Mrs.= Engel also details the work of a very important cog in the Homosexual Collectiv= e, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches ((UFMCC):

The = most prominent and politically active homosexual alternative church is the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) founded by Reverend Troy Perry, an avowed homosexual, in Los Angeles in 1968. The UFMCC curren= tly boasts a membership of 43,000 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in 300 congregations worldwide.

The = UFMCC teaches that homosexuality is "not a sin and not a sickness," a= nd that homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed! It depen= ds heavily upon the questionable research findings of the so-called "so= cial sciences" to validate what it calls its "elastic theology."= ;

Acco= rding to Perry, the UFMCC is committed to confronting "the injustice of poverty, sexism, racism and homophobia through Christian social action. On the other hand, [Father Enrique] Rueda states that the primary function of the UFMCC is to subvert Catholic, Protestant and non-Christian religious institutions and transform them into political and ideological allies.

The = UFMCC has acted as a battering ram against the Roman Catholic Church and more traditional Protestant denominations and evangelical sects. In this ventu= re, the UFMCC's Department of Ecumenical Relations, headed by R. Adam DeBaugh, has proven to be demonstrably effective in establishing "gay" cooperative political networks within these churches. An examination of DeBaugh's extensive memberships in a wide-range of "ecumenical" organizations and enterprises amply demonstrates how the system works.

Prio= r to his joining the UFMCC in Washington, D.C., in 1973, DeBaugh served as the director of the Center for the Study of Power and Peace, and was Administrative Assistant to Congressman Bob Edgar, who later became the head of the National Council of Churches. In = June 1975, DeBaugh co-founded the UFMCC Washington Field Office on Capitol Hill and became a full-time lobbyist for "gay rights." He served on = the Board of Directors of the Gay Rights National Lobby, which had its offices at the UFMCC Field Office. Later the same ye= ar he was named Director of the UFMCC Department of Christian Social Action.= He served on the Board of Direc= tors of The Washington Blade and on the Board of Directors of the UFMCC Emmaus House of Prayer. He was named co-directo= r of the new Department of Ecumenical Relations and in 1981 he wrote the UFMCC= 's original application for membership in the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.= In October, 1983, DeBaugh was elected District Coordinator of the Mid-Atlantic of the UFMCC District, and served on the General Council. He= has served on the Board of Trust= ees of the Fund for Overcoming Racism, and Board of Directors of Among Friends, Inc., a "gay" crisis center. He = is currently the Director of Rho Press, another UFMCC non-profit spin-off.

Acco= rding to Rueda, during his employment at the UFMCC Washington Field Office, DeB= augh worked closely with the little known but powerful Washington Interreligio= us Council on Human Rights and helped found the Interfaith Council on Human Rights. He maintained close contact with the National Council of Churches (NCC), the National Council of Community Churches, the World Council of Churches, the Ecumenism Research Agency, the NCC Commission on Women in Ministry, the NCC Joint Strategy and Action Coalition and the Washington Interreligious Staff Council, reported Rueda.

DeBa= ugh had a particularly close working relationship with New Ways Ministry, formerly headed by Sister Jeannine Grammick of the Catholic School Sister= s of Notre Dame and Rev. Robert Nugent, a Catholic priest of the Society of the Divine Savior. In the spring of 1980, Nugent assist DeBaugh in putting together a series of "Denomination Statements" that the UFMCC u= sed to lobby for a Congressional National Gay Rights Bill.<= /p>
Rueda noted that one of the lesser known activities of DeBaugh's ecumenical off= ice was the infiltration of seminaries and schools of theology across the United States in order to scout out lesbian and gay seminarians, staff and faculty. the UFMCC helped form homosexual caucuses within these facilities and also established an ongoing network of homosexual clergy from all denomination= s, charged Rueda. (pp. 484-485)

[In = light of Mrs. Randy Engel's The Rite of Sodomy and the material she included about the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Churches, I thought it appropriate to post No = to Father Zigrang, Yes to Eric Law (2003) as sidebar material.

[This article was published on The Remnant website in July of 2003, a few weeks after Bishop Joseph Fiorenza had threatened to suspend Father Stephen P. Zigrang for offering the Immemorial Mass of Tradition at Saint Andrew's Church in Channelview Texas= on June 28 and 29, 2003. Bishop Fiorenza, who was later promoted to the r= ank of Archbishop when his diocese of Galveston-Houston was elevated to the r= ank of an archdiocese, had told Father Zigrang that he had to go on a sixty d= ay leave of absence and seek psychological counseling. Fiorenza recommended = that Father Zigrang make a retreat, which he did--at Saint Thomas Aquinas Semi= nary in Winona, Minnesota. As is well-known, Father Zigrang associated with the Society of Saint Pius X and was later suspend= ed by Fiorenza, who has since been succeeded by a protégé of Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Archbishop Daniel DiNardo.

[New= s came to me a few weeks after Father Zigrang had been placed on an involuntary leave of absence by Bishop Fiorenza, who was part of the Joseph Bernardin axis of power in the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference, that Fiorenza was permitting an Episcopalian "priest" of Eric Law to speak at a conference being promoted by= his diocese that was to take place in Houston, Texas. Eric Law, it turned out, spoke regularly at conferences sponsored by the Homosexual Collective chronicled so well by Mrs. Engel in The Rite of Sodomy. Thus, Bishop Fiorenza was saying no to Father Zigrang and yes to Eric Law, which became the basis for the following art= icle that appeared on The Remnant website and, in truncated form, in the August 31, 2003, issue of The Remnant newspaper.

[Rea= ders can judge the relevance of the article to the facts in Mrs. Engel's <= span style=3D'font-family:Verdana'>The Rite of Sodomy.]=

The = final part of Mrs. Engel's section dealing with the Homosexual Collective deals with how the sodomites have used blasphemies about Our Lord to advance th= eir agenda, citing the case of the now former Jesuit priest, Father John McNe= ill, among others, to illustrate her point:

In t= he Spring of 1981, New York Native, a homosexual bi-weekly (now defunct), carried an interview with Jesuit priest John McNeill, an openly homosexual priest and co-founder of Dignity [which supports Catholics who lead lives= of active homosexual behavior--TAD], and Dr. Lawrence Mass who helped establ= ish the Gay Men's Health Crisis.

In 1= 976, Pedro Arrupe, Father General of the Jesuits, gave McNeill's book, The Chu= rch and the Homosexual, a nihil obstat and permission to publish, even though= the book clearly dissented from Church teaching on homosexuality and even tho= ugh McNeill had made it perfectly clear that he had committed himself to the Homosexual Collective--both publicly and privately.

The following is a portion of the New York Native interview with McNeill:

&quo= t;Interviewer: You are a practicing psychotherapist as well as a Jesuit scholar. Are you= a Jungian?"

&quo= t;McNeill: My psychotherapeutic orientation, at least for now, is in the object relations school--more Sullivanian. But Jung had much to say. Each of the special qualities he attributes to the homo-sexual community is usually considered a striking characteristic of Christ himself, like the extraordinary ability to meet an individual's unique person free of stereotypes, or the refusal to accomplish goals by violence. The point I'm trying to make here is not, of course, that Christ was a homosexual any m= ore than he was a heterosexual. His example clearly transcends our current homosexual-heterosexual dialectic. My point is that Christ was an extraordinarily free and fulfilled human being."
&quo= t;Interviewer: What bout the many scholarly observations (including Bosewell's) that Christ's most deeply intimate human relationship was with Saint John?=

McNe= ill: "I think what I see in Jesus, is the total freedom to love, to relat= e to any human being. Many priests have succeeded in incarnating these positive qualities of Christ. And, as we've said, many priests in many denominatio= ns are homosexually oriented. The gay community, if it were allowed to be itself, to develop its special qualities, has a major role to fulfill to bring about the ideal that Christ represented."

The statement by McNeill that Jesus was neither heterosexual nor homosexual i= s an obvious denial of the Incarnation, that Jesus is True God and True Man, n= ot some kind of sexual hermaphrodite male. Further, instead of an outright denial to the suggestion that Saint John's relationship with Our Lord was a pederast= ic one, McNeill left the door open to the blasphemy.

Iron= ically, it took ten years before McNeill's superiors and the Vatican Congregation= for Religious officially dismissed him from the Jesuits and deprived him of h= is priestly faculties after determining that his public dissent from the Church's moral teachings on homosexuality caused "grave scandal,&quo= t; was "injurious to the teaching authority of the Church," and was "potentially as injurious to the salvation of souls." When they did, it was with the greatest reluctance on their part. Indeed, it was Mc= Neill who made the final choice to remain with Collective and leave the Catholic priesthood. (p. 496)

Ten = years to act against Father McNeill? Ten years? How long did it take Paul VI to= act against Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre when he publicly offered the Immemorial Mass of Tradition thirty years ago this year, that is, in 1976? Instantaneously. And for good reason. A practicing homosexual could not a= bide the return of "that" Mass that reminded him of his own sinfulne= ss and of the possibility of going to Hell for all eternity. "That" Mass had to be suppressed. The corruption of religious communities and the spread of sodomite propaganda throughout the Catholic Church during the pontificate of Paul VI and throughout that of John Paul II continued while warfare against the Church's authentic patrimony was waged relentlessly.<= o:p>

Ther= e is an interesting story to tell about Father McNeill, who was quite the media darling in the 1980s.

Fath= er McNeill appeared on Cable News Network's Larry King Live in 1989, debatin= g my late-friend, Father Vincent Miceli, who had been a Jesuit for many years before being forced to leave the Society of Jesus in the wake of the publication of his book, The Antichrist, in 1981. Father Miceli was a masterful debater. Although he was ordained for the New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus he was a boy of Sicilian ancestry from the South Bro= nx to the day he died at Good Samaritan Hospital= in West Islip, New York, June 2, 1991. After listen= ing to McNeill's blasphemies and distortions of Catholic truth, Father Miceli si= mply said, "Father, Father. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" Father Miceli just shook his head from side to side with a Cheshire-cat smile on his wrinkled face.

Yes, blasphemy is par for the course for the Homosexual Collective. It is also= par for the course for conciliarism and its apologists, which have derived so much inspiration from the heresy of Americanism, critiqued so thoroughly = and irrefutably by Mrs. Engel in her book.

Paving the Way for AmChurch and the Conciliar Church: The Potomac Flows into the= Tiber

Mrs. Engel's section on Americanism must be read by every serious traditional Catholic. There are far too many traditional Catholics, priests and laity alike, who have convinced themselves that the false foundations of the United States of America are not harmful to the life of the Church and thus not injurious to the salvation of souls. Although my own Christ in the Voting Booth has a chapter that reviews briefly the history of opposition to authentic Catholicism on the part of many American bishops, Mrs. Engel's two chapte= rs on the subject are detailed and riveting.

No o= ne can read these chapters and contend thereafter that the framework of the Amer= ican constitutional regime, to which Baltimore Archbishop John Carroll, the fi= rst bishop and archbishop of the United States of America, sought to accommoda= te the Catholic Church. No one can read these chapters and not be convinced = of the fact that, as Pope Leo XIII noted clearly in Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899, that the American ethos of religious indifferentism and cultural pluralism helped to teach Catholics to view the events of the wo= rld and of the Church naturalistically, coming to believe that the Faith had = no relationship at all to the conduct of national life. In other words, Catholics were prepared in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries to acc= ept the Protestant/Judeo-Masonic notion of the separation of Church and State= as natural, normal, and virtuous, indeed, a necessity for the right ordering= of the State and for the protection of the Church. No one can read these chapters and not see how the Americanist paradigm that is so praised by Benedict XVI is responsible in large measure for the latter's oxymoronic support of "healthy secularism."

Inde= ed, the "AmChurch" desired by John Carroll and the Americanists who populated a good portion of the hierarchy was a model for the counterfeit church created by conciliarism. It was the Americanists among the bishops= and clergy in this country in the Nineteenth Century who paved the way for the conciliarist notions of ecumenism and religious liberty. The moral corrup= tion of the clergy that has come into full view in the past few years (but had been reported for a long time in some Catholic publications) was in large measure, although certainly not entirely, the result of the gradual corruption of the Faith in the United States of America as its holy tenets were surrendered little by little to the exigencies of pluralism and religious indifferentism.

Espe= cially important for the Americanist bishops was the desire for Catholics to "fit in" with Protestants and others, convincing Catholics that= it was perfectly acceptable to be immersed in the anti-Catholic culture (an uncritical acceptance Calvinist capitalism its resulting consumerist materialism, the belief that partisan politics, especially by means of a slavish attachment to the Democrat Party, would "save" the coun= try and help Catholics "achieve success," the desire to let others "live and let live" in their false religions) during the week w= hile assisting at Mass on Sundays. While individual converts were won for the Faith in the Nineteenth Century, most of the bishops and priests believed that that there was no need to Catholicize the country. Indeed, the rever= se was true. Catholics had to be "Americanized," and we can see the devastation of souls that has taken place as a result of this Americanization.

Here= are some salient passages from Mrs. Engel's work concerning the early influen= ces of Americanism on Catholics in the United States of America:

The American hierarchy came into being with the creation of the primal See of Baltimore on November 16, 1789 by Pope Pius VI, the first and only Cathol= ic diocese in the infant nation, followed by the consecration of American Je= suit John Carroll as Catholic bishop-elect of Baltimore at Lulworth Castle, Dorset, England on August 15, 1790. Bishop Carroll enjoyed full centraliz= ed powers over all the territories, properties, parishes and priests in the = United States.

Cont= rary to popular opinion, any revolution worth its salt always begins at the to= p.

Sinc= e the Roman Catholic Church is, for better or worse, a hierarchical church, its structure was well suited for John Carroll’s vision of a new Americ= an Church (AmChurch) of which he was to be a prime architect - a Church made= in the likeness of the New Republic – unfettered by Roman chains. His first salvo against the Roman Church was launched at his consecration whe= n he deleted the ritual oath to “extirpate heretics” so as not to offend Protestants. . . .

On M= arch 12, 1788, the priests of the Baltimore area sent a request to the Holy Father asking for permission to elect the= ir own bishop from their number so as to render “as free as possible f= rom suspicion and odium, to their countrymen.”

On M= ay 12, 1788, after implicitly rejecting the concept of a democratically elected bishop, Pope Pius VI gave the Baltimore group a one-time only dispensation to elect their ordinary. Father John L= ewis was their first choice for Bishop of Baltimore, but he was too advanced in years, so the honor fell to Father Carroll. He was selected on May 1789 a= nd his appointment was promptly approved by the Holy See. =

Acco= rding to Catholic historian Hugh J. Nolan, “Politically, he (Carroll) was most acceptable to the Founding Fathers.” He also had the imprimatu= r of Freemason occultist Benjamin Franklin who had connections to all the Maso= nic Lodges in England an= d Europe and with whom Carroll maintained a warm relationship,” confirms [Solange] Hertz [in her Star Spangled Heres= y].

Acco= rding to Hertz, Carroll never concealed his unbridled enthusiasm for the Americ= an principles of “the separation of Church and state, sovereignty of t= he people, freedom of conscience, universal equality…” and for t= he application of those same democratic principles to ecclesiastical administration including the popular election of bishops by diocesan prie= sts rather than by the Holy See.

Arch= bishop Carroll envisioned the = American Church as a “private corporation,” not as an “institution-in-law= 221; which was the European view. “In a sense, the whole history of the Church in the Unit= ed States has been the gracious accepting= of that change, a constant adaptation to that life in a new and secular environment,” wrote Carroll.

R= 20;Adaptation” to the dominant Protestant secular culture meant the end of an unsightly = and unwashed ghetto Catholicism in favor of a more refined gentile homogenized and secularized population despite the fact that non-assimilation was the Catholic immigrant’s strongest guarantee of the continuance of his strong faith.

Carr= oll held great stock in the virtue of religious tolerance. Unfortunately, religious tolerance is not a Catholic virtue. There are the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the cardinal virtues fortitude, j= ustice, prudence, and temperance, but tolerance as a virtue is not to be found am= ong them.

As t= he German church historian, Johann J. Ignaz von Döllinger wrote: <= /o:p>

&quo= t;The Apostles knew no tolerance, no leniency towards heresies. Paul inflicted formal excommunication on Hymenæus and Alexander. And such an expul= sion from the Church was always to be inflicted. The Apostles considered false doctrine destructive as a wicked example. With weighty emphasis Paul decl= ares (Gal., i., 8): ‘But though we or an angel from heaven, preach a gos= pel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.’ Even the gentle John forbids the community to offer hospitality to heretics coming to it, or even to salute them."<= /o:p>

Among Bishop Carroll’s many efforts to accommodate Catholicism to the American “spirit,” something akin to putting a square peg in a round hole, was his petition to the Holy See for certain dispensations fr= om the canonical norm including the use of the vernacular in public worship rather than traditional Latin.

None= other than one of Carroll's Americanist successors, John Cardinal Gibbons, confirmed Mrs. Hertz's analysis of Carroll's deep admiration of the principles of the American founding, including separation of Church and State. A quotation contained in James Cardinal Gibbons, A Retrospective of Fifty Years, which is cited in Christ in the Voting Booth, is very revealing:

The dominant idea in the mind of Bishop Carroll, who was as great a statesman= as he was a churchman, an idea that has remained the inspiration of the Chur= ch, and has dictated all her policy in the last century. . . . was absolute loyalty to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. . . Bishop Carroll did not wish to see the Church vegetate as delicate as= a delicate exotic plant. He wished it to become a sturdy tree, deep rooted = in the soil, to grow with and bloom with the development of the country, inu= red to its climate, braving its storms, invigorated by them, and yielding abundantly the fruits of sanctification. His aim was that the clergy and = the people should be so thoroughly identified with the land in which their lo= t is cast; that they should study its laws and political constitution, and be = in harmony with its spirit. (Gibbons, pp. 248-249)

In h= armony in the spirit of the separation of Church and State. In harmony with the spirit of pluralism. In harmony with the spirit of the belief that it was= not necessary to convert the nation to the true Faith so that it became confessionally Catholic. No, Mrs. Hertz or other anti-Americanists, inclu= ding me, are not engaged in "special pleading" (tailoring the facts = to fit preconceived conclusions). Cardinal Gibbons's own words prove the validity of the claim that the Americanist bishops did indeed want to fos= ter an American Catholic Church, something that Pope Leo XIII himself noted in Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899:

But = if [Americanism] is to be used not only to signify, but even to commend the above doctrines, there can be no doubt but that our Venerable Brethren the bishops of the America would be the first to repudiate and condemn it, as being especially unjust to them and to the entire nation as well. For it [Americanism] raises the suspicion that there are some among you who conc= eive of and desire a church in America different from that which is in the rest of the world. =

Mrs.= Engel provides a very good summary of the battles between the Americanist bisho= ps and the anti-Americanist bishops. The open opposition of the Americanist bishops to papal documents, such as Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, 1832, condemning liberalism in all of its forms, including the separation of the Church and State, was quite blunt. Bishop John England of Charleston, So= uth Carolina, and Bishop John Hughe= s of the Diocese of New York, claimed that Mirari Vos did not apply to the United States. In like manner, Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, 1864, was openly oppos= ed by several American bishops, including Archbishop Martin John Spalding, t= he Archbishop of Baltimore (and a relative of the equally rabid Americanist, Bishop John Lancaster Spalding of Peoria, whose days ended in disgrace), = who, anticipating Joseph Ratzinger's own opposition to the Syllabus a century later, said that it did not apply to the United States.

Mrs. Engel's narrative on this matter shows the parallel between the spirit of Americanism in the Nineteenth Century and conciliarism in our own day:

Shor= tly after the publication of the Syllabus, that was 12 years in the making, Archbishop Spalding issued a Pastoral Letter in which he claimed that Pius IX’s Syllabus did not apply to the United States under its free Constitution, but to a form of European “false liberalism” of “radicals” and hence there were no incompatibilities between = the Syllabus and the American way.

Spal= ding said he believed that the Founding Fathers, America’s own aristoc= racy, acted correctly when they adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution separating Church and State and that such a policy was not contrary to Catholic principles. He asserted that the American Revolution had been inaugurated in the name of God, and went on to explain that “we can, indeed, form an idea of a government more or less free when society is virtuous, moral, and religious” without insisting that it necessari= ly embrace the true religion, in other words, a nation can be indifferent to Christ the King and still reap the benefits of a graceless morality. Spal= ding sent a copy of his pastoral to Rome and requested a clarification, but reportedly received neither a clarific= ation nor a rebuke for his widely disseminated statement.

Spal= ding was joined in his opinion that the Syllabus didn’t mean what it pla= inly stated by Bishop James Roosevelt Bayley of Newark, an Episcopalian convert and n= ephew of (Mother) Elizabeth Bayley Seton founder of the Sisters of Charity. Consistent with the new “party line” of the bishops with Americanist tendencies, Bishop Bayley suggested that to take the papal bu= ll literally was to “misinterpret” it!

Unfo= rtunately, wishful thinking never changes reality, and the unpalatable reality for t= he opponents of the Syllabus was that the papal bull was a universally promulgated document binding on all Catholics throughout the world, bisho= ps included, and that the separation of Church from State and State from Chu= rch was explicitly condemned without exception by Pius IX in proposition 55 of the Syllabus. Indeed the Syllabus was exactly what the Church’s ene= mies said it was - a blanket condemnation and anathematization of religious liberty, civil supremacy, and modern culture.

Sepa= ration of Church and State not contrary to Catholic principles? Pope Leo XIII ma= de sure that the Americanist bishops understood that the American Constituti= on's separation of Church and State was indeed opposed to Catholic teaching, s= omething he made abundantly clear in a passage from Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 18= 94, that is curiously admitted by reflexive Catholic defenders of the American way:

For = the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by= the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneo= us to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the mo= st desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divor= ced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.

Pope= Saint Pius X reiterated this in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, commenting on the chi= ef goals of the Modernists in the secular realm:

But = it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Bes= ides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outsid= e. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, t= hat, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, t= hen, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity = of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was th= en regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated from= the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact = that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common g= ood in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority = of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orde= rs -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, = is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to prot= est with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI= , in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.

How = can any traditional Catholic, including men ordained to the priesthood for the Society of Saint Pius X, fail to recognize that the sainted pontiff whose feast day is this coming Sunday condemned the very foundation of the Amer= ican constitutional regime? Why be opposed to conciliarism at all if one embra= ces its very Americanist roots? Mrs. Engel, therefore, does Catholics a great service by providing the factual evidence concerning Americanism's anticipation of the errors that have infected so many Catholics, includin= g so many traditional Catholics, as a result of the ethos of conciliarism in t= he past forty years.

Prai= sing the Work of Revolutionaries and Consorting with the Enemies of Our Lord a= nd His Holy Church

Mrs.= Engel pointed out that one of the chief Americanists, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul, Minnesota, a man who once praised public schooling in an addr= ess to the National Education Association, provided an unabashed panegyric to= the joys of the American way that have so devastate Catholics in this country--and which were foisted upon Catholics in Cuba and Puerto Rico and The Philippines following the Spanish-American War in 1898. Lost on the defenders of Americanism in our own day is this reality: the full might of the United States = of America was used to conquer Catholic l= ands and to send into those lands Protestant "missionaries" and Maso= ns, both of whom proceeded to take souls out of the Catholic Church. Ah, yes,= the American way.

Here= is the context Mrs. Engel gave for Ireland's elegy to the Amer= ican way, delivered at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884:

With= 14 archbishops and 61 bishops in attendance at the Third Plenary Council, Archbishop Ireland= delivered a stunning opening address on the virtues of Americanism: =

&quo= t;Republic of America, receive from me the tribute of my love and of my loyalty. I am proud to do thee homage, and I pray from my heart that thy glory never be dimmed. Esto perpetua!

&quo= t;Thou bearest in thy hands the brightest hopes of the human race. God’s mission to thee is to show to nations that man is capable of the highest liberty. Oh! Be ever free and prosperous that liberty triumph over the ea= rth from the rising to the setting sun. Esto perpetua!

&quo= t;Believe me, no hearts love thee more ardently than Catholic hearts …no tong= ues speak more honestly thy praises than Catholic tongues; no hands will be lifted up stronger and more willing to defend, in war and peace, thy laws= and institutions than Catholic hands. Esto perpetua!"<= /p>
Chri= st the King had been publicly dethroned by Archbishop Ireland with the blessing of Archbishop Gibbons in front of the entire American hierarchy. =

Well= , if anything, the dethroning of Christ the King was merely ratified by the American bishops. Our Lord's Social Kingship was first overthrown by Mart= in Luther, followed in rapid order by potentates eager to take advantage of = his heresies in order to aggrandize themselves. The Constitution of the United States of America, as I have demonstrated consistently in my writing on this subject in the = past decade, makes no room for Christ the King and for Mary our Immaculate Que= en.

Mrs.= Engel also documents that Cardinal Gibbons was not averse to giving scandal to = the faithful by consorting publicly with theosophists and Protestants and Jew= s, saying not a word about the necessity of their converting to the true Fai= th to save their immortal souls:

In A= pril 20, 1884 Pope Leo XIII issued Humanum Genus, the last in a long line of p= apal encyclicals condemning Freemasonry and secret societies that began with Clement XII in 1738 and continued under Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII, = Pius VIII, Gregory XVI and Pius IX.

Desp= ite this clear teaching of the Church for almost 150 years, Gibbons promoted = the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor, a highly secretive and ritualized fraternal lodge that attracted a wide-assortment of Marxists, anarchists, and free thinkers and all around revolutionary and anti-cleri= cal workers. The Knights of Labor was the precursor of the American Federatio= n of Labor that attracted many Catholic workers and became a hotbed of Communi= sm during the 1930s and 40s.

As a= young man, Gibbons had become totally absorbed in the preaching and teachings of Father Isaac Hecker, the founder of the Paulist Order in the United States and a precursor of Catholic “Pentecostalism.” Father Hecker preached in an “ecumenical” and “nonjudgmental” contemporary idiom, and his sermons on Catholicism were notorious for the= ir novelty and defense of Americanism.

Afte= r his ordination, Gibbons also committed himself to ecumenicalism. As Archbisho= p of Baltimore he repeatedly scandalized the Catholic faithful by preaching fr= om Protestant pulpits, using a Protestant Bible, and intoning Protestant prayers.

On September 11,1893, Cardinal Gibbons gave the opening and closing prayers = at the World Parliament of Religions, a pre-Assisi happening held at the Chi= cago World’s Fair. Gibbons shared the “sacred space” with Theosophist Annie Besant, Swami Vivekananda, and representatives of Judai= sm Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and a gaggle of pagan witches.

One = can see that William Cardinal Keeler, the current Archbishop of Baltimore, is simply carrying on the Americanist/Modernist legacy of John Carroll and Martin Spalding and James Gibbons. The groundwork had been established for aping the power of the Federal government itself within the Church: the creation of a national episcopal body that would come to be dominated by Modernist theologians of a decidedly leftist, if not Communist, political bent. This national organization of bishops, first called the National Catholic War Council and then the National Catholic Welfare Council befor= e it was reorganized in 1966 as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/Un= ited States Catholic Conference (now called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), became the principal voice of perverts within the Chur= ch in the United Stat= es of America.

The Bishops' Bureaucracy and Its Agenda of Modernism

Alth= ough, as Mrs. Engel points out in The R= ite of Sodomy, the creation of the National Catholic War Council, established to demonstrate the "patriotism" of Catholics in sup= port Woodrow Wilson's unjust involvement of the United States of America in Wo= rld War I, provided a vehicle whereby unseen, faceless bureaucrats would come= to dominate the life of the Catholic Church in this nation, a mirror of what happened in the Federal government of the United States, especially durin= g and after the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (March 4, 1933-April 12, 1945).

Yes,= the National Catholic Welfare Council did oppose birth control and took effor= ts to support family life and to oppose indecency in the motion pictures. Ne= vertheless, the general thrust of the bishops' bureaucracy, which was unprecedented in the history of the Church, was to support leftist policies of the Federal government. After all, various Americanist bishops of the Nineteenth Cent= ury said that Mirari Vos and The Syllabus of Errors did not apply in our "enlightened" land of religious liberty and cultural pluralism = and religious indifferentism. Why should the American bishops consider themse= lves bound by Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, which stressed the princ= iple of subsidiarity (as opposed to massive government intervention in peoples' lives) and his Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, which opposed Communism and forbade the provision of all assistance of whatever kind to governmen= ts run by Communists? Isn't the "American Church" an exception to all of this?

Mrs.= Engel traced the immediate pre-Vatican II history of the National Catholic Welf= are Council:

From= the late 1950s until 1965 when the NCWC closed its door to make room for the newly-structured and expanded National Conference of Catholic Bishops/Uni= ted States Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC), the NCWC refocused its attention = on domestic issues including the growing dangers of secularism to the family= and society and the issue of birth control as a private practice and populati= on control as a tax-subsidized program of government.

Cons= picuously absent from the majority of these statements were references directly rel= ated to the practice of the Catholic faith, specifically the Mass, the Sacrame= nts, Scripture, vocations, the priesthood, converts, dangers of secret societi= es including Freemasonry, the missions, Mary, the Mother of God, the Saints,= and traditional Catholic devotions such as Forty Hours Devotion and the Rosar= y.

That= the heresy of Americanism was alive and flourishing within the American Church during this “Golden Age of Catholicism,” was evident in the statement “Religion: Our Most Vital Asset” released by the NC= WC Board in the name of all the bishops of the = United States on November 16, 1952.

It is instructive that the drafters of the statement chose President Abraham Lincoln as the prototype of a religious man that personified our nation’s historic attachment to religion, especially since Lincoln was a d= eist, subscribed to no creed, and believed in no personal God.

The statement reaffirmed the American hierarchy’s belief in the “necessity” of the separation of Church and State in a pluralistic society – a principle that was the cornerstone of all N= CWC policies and programs. However, the document also noted that the Constitu= tion prohibited the federal government from “interfering in any way with= any religious institution or with the freedom of the individual in the practi= ce of the religion of his conscientious choice.”

The problem, of course, was that the Leviathan Secular State did not keep its part of the bargain. It was intent on seeking a monopoly= in the field of education. It advanced a secular morality apart from religio= n.

Stat= e-sanctioned divorce had increased family disintegration.

And = the federal government, beginning with the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administrati= on, had declared itself to be the final arbitrator of sexual morality by using tax-funds to promote and finance domestic and foreign birth control progr= ams and condom distribution in the military.

On November 16, 1958, in a “Statement on the Teaching Mission of the Catholic Church,” the American bishops restated their concerns in t= hese areas of American life.

One = year later, they followed up with “Explosion or Backfire,” that outlined the American bishops’ opposition to contraception, abortion and sterilization as methods of family limitation and as means of domestic and foreign population control programs.

In t= he strongly worded statement the hierarchy said that they were in favor of positive programs of social and economic development, immigration, and increased food production to alleviate demographic imbalances. However, t= hey denounced the movement to “stampede or terrorize the United States into a national or international policy inimical to human dignity. …= ;For the adoption of the morally objectionable means advocated to forestall the so-called ‘population explosion’ may backfire on the human race.”

The = bottom line of their 1959 statement, the last of its kind, was that United States Catholics would not support “any public assistance, either at home = or abroad, to promote artificial birth prevention, abortion, or sterilization whether through direct aid or by means of international organizations.= 221;

Up u= ntil the late 1950s, the NCWC held the line on birth control and population control. However, by the mid-1960s this opposition had been severely erod= ed as is evidenced by the official attendance of Murder, Inc., (i.e., Planned Parenthood-World Population) at NCWC Family Life functions, and the start= of unofficial negotiations on population control issues between the NCWC sta= ff and the anti-people Council on Foreign Relations. Msgr. John Knott, Direc= tor of the Family Life Bureau also went on record as endorsing an expanded federally funded program of research in the field of “reproductive physiology.”

This tragic breakdown within the NCWC on family life issues and sexual morality mirrored the breakdown in opposition to birth control and population cont= rol among key American prelates including Cardinals Spellman of New York, Cus= hing of Boston, Meyer of Chicago, Dearden of Detroit and Krol of Philadelphia, each of who made their own private “arrangements” to accommodate State-sponsored birth control programs.

Spel= lman and Cushing and many other American prelates were greatly influenced on t= he matter of birth prevention as public policy by John Courtney Murray, SJ, = who had become the principle architect of Church-State affairs for the NCWC a= nd who later attended the Second Vatican Council as Cardinal Spellman’s personal peritus where he (Murray) championed the cause of “religio= us freedom.”

Fath= er Murray publicly attacked the Comstock Law which prohibited the distributi= on of contraceptives, (thereby preventing Planned Parenthood and Company from opening up birth control centers), saying such laws made “a public crime out of a private sin,” confused “morality with legality,” and were “unenforceable without a police invasion = of the bedroom.” Murray’s reaso= ning eventually paved the way for the “constitutional right to privacy” and the Supreme Court decisions of Griswold v. Conn. (1965) o= n birth control and the later Roe v. Wade (1973) on abortion.
Anot= her factor in the weakening of the NCWC on the matter of birth control and population control was the pressure from major Catholic institutions of higher learning such as the University of Notre Dame, Catholic University= of America and Georgetown University that had received massive infusions of money from the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations and were seduced into promoting Malthusian policies and programs at home and abroad. =

It w= as the ill-fated “Beasley Affair” of 1965 that finally brought the i= ssue of government birth control programs to a head at the NCWC.

Dr. = Joseph Beasley of Tulane University in New Orlea= ns, a birth control zealot with international ambitions wanted to start a bir= th control program for black welfare recipients in the northern counties of = Louisiana. He = was stymied, however, by State laws prohibiting the distribution of contracep= tive information. He also had to contend with the powerful Catholic Church in = Louisiana and = the explosive charge of “black genocide” by black leaders. <= /o:p>

Howe= ver, much to Beasley’s relief, within weeks, he was able to negotiate a = deal with Church officials and New Orleans Family Life officials that would pe= rmit him to begin tax-financed birth control services to low-income residents = of the state – programs that were almost totally dependent on the abortifacient IUD and the “Pill.”

The = negotiations took place at the swank Petroleum Club in Shrevepor= t where Beasley hammered out conditions under which he would conduct his bi= rth control program with Msgr. Marvin Bordelon, who had been authorized by Cardinal John Cody of Ch= icago to cut the deal for the bishops of the Catholic dioceses of Louisiana. Beasley was not seeking t= he Church’s blessings for his birth prevention program – just the promise of “non-interference.”

In J= une 1967, Bordelon left the Loui= siana Archdiocese to head the USCC’s new Department of International Affa= irs where he used his influence to convince the American hierarchy and the U.= S. Congress that the concept of national sovereignty was an antiquated idea = and a hindrance to world peace. In 1972, Bordelon left the priesthood.

As f= or Beasley, in less than ten years, he had pyramided his Family Health Foundation (FHF) into a $62 million empire with over 100 federally funded birth control clinics statewide. The FHF received accolades from every imaginable quarter as “the No.1 success story” of the birth control movement, including the praise of National Catholic Family Life Director, Father James T. McHugh.

In 1= 973, however, a General Accounting Office audit and a lengthy government investigation of the FHF confirmed Beasley’s alarming record of political corruption. In the spring of the following year, federal marsha= ls surrounded the FHF headquarters in New Orleans and the foundation was placed in federal receivership.

Fede= ral charges against Beasley included multiple counts of conspiracy to commit fraud, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, mail fraud, together wi= th misappropriation of many thousands of dollars of federal “family planning” funds that included illegal payments for liquor bills, private plane junkets, and political campaign contributions. Eugene Walla= ce, an FHF official who turned states evidence, testified that Beasley had threatened to kill him with a shotgun if he (Wallace) took the stand agai= nst him! And while the Anti-Life Establishment deserted Beasley like rats fle= eing a sinking ship, volunteer lawyers from “Catholic” Loyola̵= 7;s New Orleans School of Law handled his appeal.

Than= ks to Cardinal Cody, all of the American bishops were dragged into the Beasley quagmire.

All = were treated to a double whammy when Beasley joined John D. Rockefeller III, Chairman of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, = at a press conference in 1972 where Beasley called for universal, tax-subsidiz= ed abortion.

Beas= ley later acknowledged that his “deal” with Church officials was = part of his threefold strategy of getting so-called “family planningR= 21; in first, and then following it up with sterilization and abortion.<= /o:p>

By t= he end of the 19th century the American bishops had already lost their first gre= at moral battle in the United States against civil divorce and remarriage.

By t= he time the Second Vatican Council opened in 1962, the American bishops̵= 7; collective resistance to contraception, abortion, sterilization and government-funded population control had significantly weakened. But it w= as not until the post-Vatican II era with the establishment of canonically-sanctioned episcopal conferences that Catholics witnessed the total capitulation of the American bishops as defenders of Catholic faith= and morals to the anti-God, anti-life and anti-family forces of the emerging totalitarian State – the ultimate fruit of Americanism.<= /span>

The acceleration of the NCCB/USCC, the successor of the NCWC, into a power-ba= se for ecclesiastical revolutionaries is chronicled in Chapter 11 of The Rite of Sodomy. Just a brief review of Mrs. Engel's material will help to illustrate the extent of the problems that existed in its massive bureaucratic corridors in the afterm= ath of the Second Vatican Council:

The = two key positions within the newly established NCCB/USCC went to Archbishop J= ohn Dearden (later Cardinal) of = Detroit, the leader of the powerful liberal wing of the nascent AmChurch, who was elected the NCCB’s first President, and to the newly consecrated Bi= shop Joseph Bernardin who was selected by Dearden to be the first General Secretary of the USCC.

The = young Bernardin was the bright, ambitious protégé of Archbishop P= aul Hallinan of Atlanta. He was also, to quote Bernardin’s future nemesis, Dominican Father Charles Fiore, “a flaming homosexual.”

Of t= he two positions, the latter was the most critical since the General Secretary oversaw the day to day operations of the USCC and coordinated the affairs between the NCCB and USCC.

The NCCB/USCC became an ideal haven for many ambitious clerics, including homosexuals like Bernardin, who preferred a career as an administrator/bureaucrat to that of the vocation of parish priest. <= /o:p>

Of t= he ten presidents of the NCCB who served between 1966 and 1998, only three, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, Archbishop John May of St. Louis and William Cardinal Keeler= ever served as pastors, and even these served only for a very brief time. Among the Presidents of the NCCB, three were seminary rectors - John Cardinal Dearden, Archbishop John R. Quinn and Archbishop John R. Roach.

For = many career-orientated priests the NCCB/USCC became the stepping stone to powe= r in AmChurch. Among the key NCCB/USCC staffers who were raised to the episcop= acy were Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, William Cardinal Baum, Bernard Cardinal L= aw, Archbishop Francis Hurley, Bishop Raymond Lucker, Bishop William McManus = and Bishop James T. McHugh.

Also= , the NCCB Standing Committee on the Selection of Bishops prepared an annual li= st of suitable candidates for the American bishopric that the Holy See could select from.

The Politics of the New Progessivism

Spur= red on by its inherited Americanist tendencies and invigorated by the new Progressivism of Vatican II, the NCCB/USCC quickly became the seat of pow= er and the administrative hub for the emerging AmChurch
In t= he realm of politics, it represented a quantum shift to radical liberalism a= nd a new world-view of the Church and of Society. It rejected the Thomistic so= cial teachings of the past and embraced a new political-theology that held salvation and sin to be a collective rather than a personal reality.=

Dear= den and Bernardin personally selected their top aides with this new post-Vati= can II vision of the Church in mind – priests and laymen who abhorred t= he theological “rigidity” of Trent and who sought to take an activist role in “updating” the Chu= rch along the lines of Gaudium et Spes The Church in the Modern World. <= /o:p>

As political historian Michael = Warner wrote in Changing Witness - Catholic Bishops and Public Policy, 1917-1994, the leadership of the NCCB/USCC formed an elite corps of liberal bureaucr= ats inspired by “radical rhetoric” and “pragmatic” secular policies. Their primary goal was directed at the leveling of soci= al equalities rather than the establishment of a “just order,” s= aid Warner.”

The = policies and programs of the NCCB/USCC represented a major paradigm shift from tho= se of the old NCWC in all areas of national and international affairs. =

Warn= er noted for example, that in the area of national defense, the NCCB/USCC er= oded the just war theory and adopted a consistently pacifist orientation. The NCCB/USCC also lobbied for unilateral arms control with no detectable con= cern about the Soviet Union’s anti-tr= eaty actions. This paradigm shift was also evident in the USCC’s policy agenda that centered almost exclusively on liberal-Democratic political issues such as “women’s rights,” environmental issues, welfare reform, and universal health coverage. Critics dubbed the USCC, “the Democratic Party at Prayer.”

Mrs.= Engel uses the rest of her compelling chapter to demonstrate, in remarkably understated tones, the fact that the NCCB/USCC/USCCB has been part and pa= rcel of the problem of promoting perversion with the life of Catholics in the conciliar era. The history she provides is nothing new to those of us who have followed these issues and have reported on them over the years. Howe= ver, most Catholics have not followed these matters closely and/or need to be reminded how thoroughly corrupt the official structures of the conciliar church in this country have been for so long. The story of how the Archbi= shop of Washington in 1987, the late James Cardinal Hickey, rewarded a homosex= ual priest, Father Michael Peter= son, who died of AIDS, with a public celebration of his life at the Cathedral = of Saint Matthew, attended by none other than the Papal Nuncio to the United States, then Archbishop Pio Laghi, shows the extent to which the American bishops, as part and parcel of the ethos of conciliarism, have minimized = the horror of personal sins, including those involving unnatural vice.

William Cardinal O'Connell and Francis Cardinal Spellman and Their Legacies

Perh= aps the most riveting chapter in The = Rite of Sodomy is Chapter 12, "The Cardinal O'Connell and Cardinal Spellman Legacy," covering fully one hundred pages of text before another twenty-three pages of 410 chapter notes. The chapter must = be read in its entirety to understand the cesspool of clerical corruption th= at has exploded in full public view in recent years.

Only= a few vignettes from Chapter 12 will be provided here in order to demonstrate t= hat the rot of the recent past has foundations in the corruption of the Faith= in the soil of a pluralist nation, a corruption that enveloped the anti-Americanist William Cardinal O'Connell of Boston and a man he despised, the Americanist Francis Cardinal Spellman, who rose from being a priest of the Archdiocese of Bo<= /st1:PersonName>ston to becoming the powerful Archbishop of New York from 1938 to 1967. <= /o:p>

An "open secret" is a secret hidden in plain sight. The homosexual lives of Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York and William Cardinal O'Connell of Boston were just su= ch a secret, and remained so even after their deaths. There are at least two reasons for this. One, because they lived in an era when most Americans h= ad no reference point by which they could recognize, discern and label homosexual behavior in the life of any individual, much less in the life = of two Catholic prelates of so great a stature. Secondly, because, with few exceptions, Spellman and O'Connell were surrounded by individuals who had= no wish to know. The media and the police, for their part, kept their silenc= e. The only group that openly discussed Spellman’s or O'Connell's sexu= al exploits with young men, in and out of the clergy, were their homosexual contemporaries and they never "outed" either cardinal while the prelates were alive.

But = why should this "open secret" trouble us now for Cardinals Spellman= and O'Connell dead for many decades. And if indeed these prelates were active homosexuals in private life, of what importance is it in relation to their public lives? Further, as per the title of this chapter, how could a prelate's perverse sexual appetites engender any kind of "legacy&quo= t; at all, since it is supposed that homosexuals leave no heirs?<= /span>

Let = me begin by answering the last question first.

Ther= e are those who have claimed that since celibate clergy do not have natural hei= rs, power within the Church must be seized if one is to possess it. In the ca= se of Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal O'Connell and other homosexual prelates named in this chapter, power was, in fact, handed down from above to other homosexual members of the Catholic clergy, not just for one but for multi= ple generations, with consequences beyond imaging.

The = late Reverend John J. Geoghan, the notorious Bostonian pederast who was strangled in his prison cell in 2003 while serving a nine-to-ten years prison sentence for sexual molestation, and his equally notorious cohort, Father Paul Shanley, who is currently out on $300,000 b= ail awaiting criminal trial on ten counts of child rape, are but two of the "consequences" of intergenerational homosexuality in the Americ= an hierarchy. (p. 615)

Mrs.= Engel documents how Cardinal O'Connell, who was hated by the Americanist bishop= s, became unable to act against his own nephew, Father James O'Connell, who = had married a woman in a civil ceremony in New York but had continued to serv= e as a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston, because of his own "double life" as an esteemed Catholic prelate and an active homosexual:

And = why did Cardinal O'Connell do nothing? Why didn't he simply remove James from off= ice and quietly obtain a write of laicization from Rome for his nephew?

The ostensible reason given by Cardinal O'Connell was that he wanted to prote= ct James' parents and the entire O'Connell clan from scandal. And there no d= oubt was some truth to this claim for O'Connell took a very paternalistic view toward his family and was always attentive to their needs, especially the= ir financial needs.

The = real reason for O'Connell's silence and inaction with regard to his wayward clerical sprites, however, was perhaps more complex and carried with it d= ark overtones of illicit sex as well as the theft and embezzlement of church funds.

Agai= n, according to Fathers Doody and Mullen, the exiled Toomey [another priest mentioned in the chapter] told that that James O'Connell had "proofs= of the cardinal's sexual affection for men."

At t= he turn of the century, references to homosexuality were very rare in polite society. They were so rare, in fact, that court stenographers often misspelled the word, homosexual, and juries involved in sodomy cases had = to be instructed as to what the terms "homosexual" and "sodomy" meant. It is unlikely that the charges of same-sex behavior made against O'Connell were fabricated out of thin air. In early 20th century Ameri= ca, if a charge of sodomy was made against any cleric much less a cardinal, it was almost certainly true.

This= is not to say that O'Connell thought of himself as a homosexual. He plainly = did not. Homosexuals were effeminate and soft. They were "pansies" = like "Franny" Spellman. O'Connell saw himself as the prototype of a man's man.

By t= he spring of 1920, the Holy See had completed its investigation of Father Ja= mes O'Connell. the nervous but ever-resourceful Cardinal O'Connell was summon= ed to Rome.

Ther= e is no evidence that O'Connell's penchant for "unnatural vice" came= up for official discussion although Pope Benedict XV would have, in all likelihood, been discreetly advised about the charge of moral turpitude against the cardinal.

On M= ay 4, 1920, Cardinal O'Connell met with the Holy Father and made the unfortunate error of lying to the pope by telling him the charges against his nephew = were untrue. When the pope presented him with a copy of his nephew's marriage license and other documents, O'Connell was humiliated and shamed.

Pape= rs verifying James' excommunication were given to the cardinal and he was instructed to remove his nephew immediately as Chancellor of the Archdioc= ese of Boston. In fact, James di= d not leave the Archdiocese until late November of 1920.

The = only question that remained was what Cardinal O'Connell's fate be?<= /span>

The Americanist members of the hierarchy of wanted him removed from office. T= he pope contemplated "kicking him upstairs," that is, giving O'Con= nell a job at the Vatic= an that would enable him to save face, but the Curia, objected to the propos= al.

Stil= l, O'Connell was not without his supporters at home, and in Rome. Cardinal Merry del Val urged hi= m to buck up, take courage, and go on the offensive. writing from Rome, Father Cha= rles M. Driscoll informed Cardinal O'Connell that del Val had defended his old fr= iend against "vile, dirty, unmanly stuff" that O'Connell's enemies h= ad sent to the Curia as evidence against him.

Pope Benedict XVI died on January 22, 1922, before he could rule on O'Connell's fate, and it soon became clear that his successor, Pope Pius XI, was not = of a mind to depose the cardinal.

Then, after the dust had settled, Cardinal O'Connell held on to Boston, but his authority and influence, especially among his peers, had been severely damaged. He never fully recovered from the effects of the dreadf= ul scandals, but until his death on April 22, 1944, he managed to put on a g= ood show. (pp. 631-633)

Mrs.= Engel noted that one of the young priests who served as his Secretary in later years was a Father John Wright, who "later become a key player in th= e Boston-Springfield-Worcester homosexual netw= ork that was closely linked to the New York homosexual network created by Fra= ncis Cardinal Spellman to whom we now turn our attention" (p. 633).<= /o:p>

The section on Cardinal Spellman is extensive. Apart from the evidence she has amassed about his immorality and how this influences the life of the conciliar church to this very day, the image that emerges about Cardinal Spellman is that he was singularly uninterested in the interior life of t= he soul. He cared nothing about matters of theology. He was an administrator= and a businessman and a banker and a wheeler-dealer with the scions of Hollywood and t= he Democrat Party, especially President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although = he was the Military Vicar of the United Stat= es, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York an= d thus entrusted with "the spiritual care of millions of Roman Catholic servicemen and women serving at home and abroad," he said nothing wh= en Roosevelt ordered that condoms be stocked and distributed in the military:

Yet = during the Second World War, when President Roosevelt issued an order that requi= red post exchanges to stock condoms and required quarter-masters (including Catholic officers) to distribute prophylactics, Spellman was again silent. further the Roosevelt Administration consistently failed to prosecute violations of the Comstock Law that prohibited the interstate traffic and foreign importation of articles of "immoral use" to prevent conception.

With= the exception of one or two well-publicized attacks on Planned Parenthood cli= nics in New York City= , Spellman tended to ignore the increased encroachment of government sponso= red Malthusian programs at home and abroad. He viewed the issue of population control through a political rather than a moral lens. This was in sharp contrast to his predecessor Cardinal Hayes who had fought the Anti-Life Establishment tooth and nail and won.

That= Cardinal Spellman was more than willing and able to compromise Catholic moral teac= hing when it suited him politically was amply demonstrated by the Puerto Rican birth control debacle of 1960.

In t= he mid-1930s, Cardinal Hayes effectively squashed all attempts by the Roosev= elt Administration to impose a Malthusian program of population limitation on= Puerto Rico. Hayes, a master of "punishment politics," told FDR either to withdraw the birth control initiative = his administration had started on the island or face the loss of Catholic vot= e in the upcoming election. Roosevelt took Hayes' warning to heart and ordered that the Comstock Law be enforced in the [Territory] of Puerto Rico [which became a Commonwealth after World War II]. On September 15, 1936, the "Grand Experiment" was put on hold.

After Hayes' death in 1938, the American hierarchy, including the Powerhouse in= New York, bega= n to take a more lenient position toward federal and private population control initiatives on the island, especially under the Eisenhower Administration from 1953 to 1961.

With= the repeal of the Comstock Law, and the massive influx of millions of U.S. dollars from the American-based Gamble, Rockefeller, McCormick and Ford Foundations, together with the dollar-hungry pharmaceutical industry, the Church in Puerto Rico braced itself fo= r a major anti-life assault. The Puerto Rican bishops also had to contend with the loss of the traditional legal and political support they had come to expect form the American hierarchy.

In 1= 960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to m= ake one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. = The Catholic resistance was lead by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national politic= al party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was comp= osed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to exis= ting permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.

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

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

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

Bo<= /st1:PersonName>ston= 's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellm= an in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never be= en a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cus= hing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might over= flow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for t= he White House.

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

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

When= the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo t= his same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (pp. 647-649)

Does anyone dare to doubt the influence of Americanism in the life of the Cath= olic Church worldwide as a harbinger of conciliarism?

All the Way to the Top

Mrs.= Engel then spends considerable time discussing the allegations concerning Franc= is Cardinal Spellman's private life of perversion, which will not be repeated here. Indeed, that part of Chapter 12 of The Rite of Sodomy is but a prelude to the remaining 550 pages of text in the book, material that documents the extensive network of sodomi= tes in the hierarchy and the priesthood of the conciliar structures.

Havi= ng covered a few of the stories for = The Wanderer between 1992 and 2000--= and having followed the others very closely over the years, I can say that Mr= s. Engel has done quite a massive job of research to piece together the evid= ence of the spread of Homosexual Collective in one diocese after another, which entails six chapters in the book. She also does a thorough job chronicling the infestation of sodomy in the major religious communities of men, spen= ding an entire chapter on the work of Sister Jeannine Gramick's and Father Rob= ert Nugent's New Ways Ministry. Another entire chapter is dedicated to "= The Special Case of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin." This is evidence to put = into the hands of relatives who believe all is well with the conciliar church.= How can any parent permit his children to have any access at all to the conci= liar structures, which are so full of theological, liturgical and moral rot? <= o:p>

A gr= eat deal of time has been spent in this review on the historical material provided by Mrs. Engel so that readers of this site will understand that = her material in the second part of the book on the specific charges against various bishops and priests and religious communities has been placed in = its proper context. The Rite of Sodom= y is, therefore, a valuable resource for reference and historical data.

Mrs.= Engel rounds "third base," so to speak, when writing of the "Twentieth Century Harbingers" in Chapter 18. She pulls no punc= hes as she assesses quite accurately the revolutionary nature of some of the changes that began to take hold--and the key players in the Revolution who were put in power--during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and quickened during the reign of Angelo Roncalli and Giovanni Montini:

Both advocates and critics of the Revolu= tion of he Second Vatican Council agree that the role of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Cardinal Pacelli, who ascended the Chair of Peter on March 12, 1939, as P= ope Pius XII, was instrumental in securing the revolutionaries a foothold on = the papacy. As [Mary Ball] Marti= nez solidly documents, and as inveterate collaborators of NewChurch like Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, C.M., reaffirm, Pius XII opened the Church to "Progressivism" both politically and theologically.<= /span>

Unde= r his 19-year pontificate, the foundation and stepping-stones for the futuristic NewChurch were laid. (pp. 1094-1095)

Mrs.= Engel then documents the destruction of the liturgy that took place under the direction of the then Father Bugnini and his Franciscan partner in liturg= ical crime, Ferdinando Antonelli, during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, also citing the creation of "secular institutes" such as Opus Dei and the "internationalization of the Curia" among other moves that broke with Tradition (pp. 1096-1097).

The Revolution was in full swing under Angelo Roncalli, reigning as John XIII. After discussing Archbishop Angelo Roncalli's Modernist leanings, Mrs. En= gel noted the following about the time Roncalli spend as the Papal Nuncio to = France:

Afte= r his posting to Paris= , members of the Presidential Garde Republicaine reported that Roncalli regularly attended the Thursday evening meetings of the Grand Orient Maso= nic Lodge.

Years after the death of Pope John XIII, favorable obituaries were issued by hi= gh level Freemasons who applauded Roncalli as a brother who imparted "his benediction, his understanding, and his protection" to the Craft. (p. 1132)

Echo= ing descriptions contained by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki's Tumultu= ous Times and Mary Ball Martinez's The Undermining of the Catholic Church, Mr= s. Engel provides a very good outline of how Roncalli and the real power beh= ind the throne, the Archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Montini, the future Paul VI, worked sub rosa to compose schemas for the forthcoming Second Vatican Cou= ncil that would be used in the place of those that John XXIII had told the Cur= ia to compose for submission once the Council convened:

Whil= e Pope John XXIII had the Curia and the Preparatory Commission for the Council feverishly preoccupied with the drafting of orthodox schemas that were ostensibly intended to serve as the basis for deliberation by the Council Fathers, Montini and Company were busy drawn up parallel schemas that wou= ld that would be substituted when the order came down to discard the Curia-approved drafts and begin again.

As f= or the members of the Loyal Opposition, they were largely unorganized and weak a= nd they made the fatal error of grossly underestimating the abilities of the enemy. Midway through the Council, they fell into a state of utter collap= se. This was not surprising as both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, who ultimately held the keys to power in the Church, were against them.<= /o:p>

The = Plot Against the Church by Maurice the Church, by Maurice Pinay, printed origi= nally in Italian, was distributed in the fall of 1962 during the opening days of the Council. The book was one indication that not everyone was clueless concerning the political and theological intrigue generated by the framer= s of the Council.

Howe= ver, the early warning signs that grave mischief was afoot, were easily dismis= sed by the majority of the Church Fathers in the euphoric atmosphere and hyper media glitz that greeted the opening of the Second Vatican Council. Nevertheless, the fact that the enemies of the Church, including the Libe= ral Establishment, Communists, Freemasons and Zionists universally hailed the event as a monumental step forward for humanity, should have given the Ch= urch Fathers cause for concern.

Toda= y, it is freely acknowledged by both opponents and advocates of the Revolution = that swept through the Catholic Church, that Cardinal Montini controlled the direction and agenda of the early days of the Council from behind the sce= nes in Milan. After the Council opened, Montini moved the center of his operation to his suite of rooms at the Vatican, rooms traditionally reserved for resident cardinals.

On J= anuary 26, 1959, only one day after Pope John XXIII had publicly announced the convening of a General Council for the Univers= al Church, Archbishop Montini add= ressed a Messagio to the faithful of Milan. His musings on the upcoming Council suggests he either had a crystal ball= or he was in on the ground floor of the elite shakers and movers of the Coun= cil.

Acco= rding to Amerio [the author of Iota Unum], on the eve of the Council, L'Osserva= tore Romano carried portions of the text of a book written by Cardinal Montini= on the future Council that was published by the University of Milan. Montini stated that the Council's mission was to rearrange the Faith so as to minimize its supernatural elements, in order to render it more acceptable= to the modern world and modern man.

In a similar vein, Martinez reports that four days before Pope John's "fl= ash of lightning" experience that allegedly inspired the Council, [Hans] Kung told an astonished lecture hall audience in the Hofkirche (Abbey Cou= rt Church) in Luzern, Switzerland, not only there would be a General Council, but he also outlined its direction and agenda.

With= the publication of The Council, Reform and Reunion one year before the opening of the Council, Kung demonstrated that he knew more about the upcoming Council than did Pope John. (pp. 1134-1135)<= /o:p>

Mrs.= Engel notes that Montini, who was sympathetic to Marxism-Leninism, if not one himself, participated in a betrayal of Catholic truth prior to the beginn= ing of the Second Vatican Council:

In preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polle= d by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics t= o be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.
Howe= ver, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Coun= cil on the subject of Communism/Marxism.

With= the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement a= nd the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (pp. 1135-1136)

Giov= anni Montini's bent in the direction of Marxism/Leninism politically and Moder= nism theologically and liturgically was no accident. He was, to use Mrs. Engel= 's term, "habituated" to the vice of homosexual behavior, which certainly clouded his intellect and, this writer contends, could certainly have been the instrument that turned him against the authentic truths of = the Catholic Faith as he helped to create the counterfeit religion that is conciliarism, which is not of the Holy Ghost.

Page= s 1151 to 1557 in The Rite of Sodomy deal with the subject of Paul VI's homosexuality. Mrs. Engel discusses fi= rst of all the claims made openly in 1976 by a French novelist by the name of Roger Peyrefitte, an "avowed homosexual:"

Peyr= efitte said in January 1976, the pope gave a public speech in which he condemned homosexuality, masturbation and premarital sex. Peyrefitte said he was incensed by the pope's hypocrisy since it was known in certain circles th= at while Montini was Archbishop of Milan he had a homosexual affair with a y= oung movie actor, whose name Peyrefitte knew. The French writer said that he d= id not get this information from "communists or doormen" but from members of the Italian nobility with whom he was well acquainted. His Milanese sources indicated that it was a political secret in certain circ= les that Montini went to a "discreet house" to meet boys and that he had a particular favorite whose first name was Paul. . .

In O= Vatican! A Slightly Wicked View of the Holy See, former N.Y. Times Rome Bureau correspondent Paul Hoffmann repeats the Peyrefitte charges against Montin= i. He names the well-known Italian actor, Paolo Carlini, whom Montini was alleged to have met in Milan when he was Archbishop and who later became a frequent visitor to Pope Paul VI's private quarters at the Vatican. (p. 1= 154)

Mrs.= Engel discusses how the Abbe Georges de Nantes, "the founder of the League= of the Catholic Counter-Reformation," wrote an article in the June-July issue of The Catholic Counter Reformation in the XXth Century to try to s= top the canonization process of Paul VI: The Abbe de Nantes personally addres= sed John Paul II in the article:

&quo= t;So, after the scandal of the election of an avowed homosexual to the Throne of Saint Peter having poisoned the Church, You, Most Holy Father, would have= him relive and gain strength by having this same wretch of a Paul VI raised to the altars, and his bones offered as relics to the faithful for their pio= us kisses, and his tormented face presented to their fervent gaze in Bernini= 's Gloria? Ah, no, that is impossible. It will not be!" (p. 1155 in The Rite of Sodomy)<= /span>

Mrs.= Engel then draws from Atila Sinke Guimarães' book, Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia<= /em>:

Guim= arães quotes Franco Bellegrandi, a former member of the Vatican Noble Guard, pa= rt of the papal military corps, who witnessed the unfortunate changes that occurred at the Va= tican after Pope Paul VI took office.

Bell= egrandi repeats the charge that while Archbishop of Milan, Montini, dressed in civilian clothes, was picked up by the local police on one of the archbishop's nocturnal visits to the male brothels of the city.

The = former Vatican guard describes the homosexual colonization process that he says began under Pope John XXIII, but which accelerated under Montini's rule--a process with [which] the reader should by now be thoroughly familiar. Bellegrandi says that old employees were turned out of their jobs at the = Vatican to make room for Montini's favored brethren afflicted with the same vice. Th= ey in turn brought along their favorite catamites--"effeminate young men wearing elegant uniforms and make-up on their faces to dissimulate their beards," says Bellegrandi.

Bell= egrandi says that he was told by an official of the Vatican security service that Montini's actor friend was permitted free access to the pontifical apartm= ents and was seen taking the elevator late at night.

One = of the statements made by Bellegrandi that attracted my attention was that Monti= ni no sooner took office than he was subject to blackmail by Italian Freemas= ons. In exchange for their silence regarding Archbishop Montini's furtive sojo= urns to Switzerland to rendezvous with his actor-lover, who appears to have been quite open a= bout his relationship with the prelate, the Masons demanded that the pope eliminate the Church's traditional ban on cremation after death. The pope complied. (p. 1156)

Mrs.= Engel provides another bit of information on how Montini had been blackmailed, = this time by the Soviet KGB and GRU:

An e= lderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an of= ficial interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini = into revealing the names of priests whom the V= atican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. = The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.

The = extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Chur= ch will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists= and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the o= ther hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI.

Ther= e can be no question that Pope Paul VI's homosexuality was instrumental in the paradigm shift that saw the rise of the Homosexual Collective in the Cath= olic Church in the United States, at the Vatican and around the world in the mid-20th century.

Pope= Paul VI played a decisive role in the selection and advancement of many homose= xual members of the American hierarchy, including Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Terence Cardinal Cooke, John Cardinal Wright and Archbishop Rembert Weakl= and and Bishops George H. Guilfoyle, Francis Mugavero, Joseph Hart, Joseph Ferrario, James Rausch and their heirs.

The knowledge that a homosexual sat in the Chair of Peter--knowledge that spr= ead like wild-fire on the "gay" gossip circuit--would certainly have served as an inducement for homosexual men to aspire to the priesthood and even prompt them to contemplate the unthinkable--a religious order or community composed exclusively of sodomites.

Most important, the long-guarded quasi-secret of Paul VI's homosexual life has, for decades, contributed to the silence and cover-up by the American hierarchy on the issue of homosexuality in general and the criminal activities of pederast priests in particular.

But = it is a secret no longer.

The = final piece of the puzzle has been put in place.

&quo= t;Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us." (pp. 1156-1157)

Yes, indeed, a homosexual pope had every reason to invent a counterfeit religi= on and to approve a liturgy that helped to reaffirm men in their "goodness," eliminating from the calendar numerous saints whose lives of sanctity were just too much for "modern man" to believe were possible for today, saints who were merely "legends," you understand," thereby saying that the Church had been wrong for centu= ries to honor men and women renowned universally for their prodigies during th= eir lives on earth and from eternity. A homosexual pope had every reason to be violently angry with that gentle pastor of souls, Archbishop Marcel Lefeb= vre, as he sought to defend the Faith as best as he knew how in truly extraordinary circumstances following the close of the Second Vatican Council.

Mrs.= Engel notes in her epilogue that

On J= anuary 27, 2006, the online edition of the Italian newspaper Il Giornale affirmed that Pope Paul VI had, in fact, been the victim of blackmail threats rela= ted to his early homosexual entanglements and had sought help in handling the crisis from Prime Minister Aldo Moro, a leader of the Christian Democratic Party. The short article was taken from January 6, 2006, edition of the Italian periodical L'Espresso and was based on the confidential notes of General Giorgio Manes, Vice-Commander of the Carabinieri, the Italian Military Police. (p. 1171)

The = report Mrs. Engel referred to also noted that Paul VI did not deny the story abo= ut his private life to Aldo Moro, who was later kidnapped and murdered by the Red Brigades terrorist group, from whom he asked merely that an effort be made to quash the stories.

Mrs.= Engel closes her epilogue with a comment on the Vatican<= /st1:place> instruction "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regar= ding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminari= es and Holy Orders." After discussing how the document will do nothing = to change the status quo in the conciliar church, Mrs. Engel wrote:

The cardinal [William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of= the Faith] went out of his way to state that the norms expressed in the docum= ent do not apply to already ordained homosexual priests, which is a backhand = way of acknowledging that Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, Pope John = Paul II, has no plans to clean house and mount a serious attack on the Homosex= ual Collective within the Roman Catholic priesthood and religious life. (p. 1= 172)

&quo= t;NewChurch" and AmChurch and their inter-related novelties that have devastated the l= ives of ordinary Catholics will end one day. Our Lady will have her victory, a= nd it will be glorious!

Yes,= indeed, Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. =

Getting Out of the Cesspool

Each= of us is a sinner in need of getting ourselves to the Confessional on a regular basis, if not weekly. We must recognize that it is an easy thing to fall = from a State of Grace into a state of Mortal Sin. It is not all that difficult for a person to = stay in that state, especially if he commits the Sin of Presumption to believe that he will be saved no matter what he does or, worse yet, that God will give Him the grace to get to Confession before he dies. We must make an earnest effort to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Ho= ly Cross to love God as He has revealed Himself exclusively through His Cath= olic Church and to live penitentially so as to repair the damage we have done = to our souls by means of our sins.

We m= ust not only be concerned about living holy lives ourselves and making repara= tion for our own sins. We must be conscious of the responsibility of performing the Spiritual Works of Mercy, including admonishing the sinner. Our Lady = told Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos to make sacrifices to convert sinners, to save them from going to Hell. The Fatima Prayer we say after = each decade of the Rosary says precisely this: "O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need." (Yes, once again, this is the real, honest-to-goodness actual English text of the prayer. This is, I realize,= a losing battle. Nevertheless, if you look at any book that contains a transcription of the words of the Fatima seers, you will see that words "of thy mercy" are nowhere to be found.) We must pray and make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners, starting with our own souls but extending also to those of others, first = in our families and then extending to the souls of all others, especially th= ose who have no one to pray for them.

This= is precisely what Saint Monica did for her wayward son, Saint Augustine, whose feast day is t= oday, August 28. Saint Monica prayed constantly and wept copious tears to help effect the conversion of her son from his dissolute life, in which he had persisted for a long time. Saint Monica was persistent in prayer. She nev= er relented her spiritual efforts in behalf of her son (or for her husband).= Saint Augustine= , who was received into the Church by Saint Ambrose, the Archbishop of Milan, h= ad great authority, therefore, when discoursing on the subject of how to deal with hardened sinners. He knew that sinners must not be enabled in their lives of sin. They must be exhorted to reform their lives, to do penance = for their sins and to seek to love God with a pure and unadulterated heart.

What stands out so much in Mrs. Engel's The Rite of Sodomy is how the clerical code of silence enabled so many prelates, including William Cardinal O'Connell and Francis Cardinal Spellman in the early part of the Twentieth Century, by refusing to confr= ont these men with their problems or serving actually as their enablers in si= n. This clerical omerta (code of silence) helped to bring about to make it possible for aggressive, out-of-the closet perverts to take control of the ecclesiastical structures in this country and around the world.

Afte= r all, does the Oath of Silence taken by the Swiss Guards and other curial offic= ials excuse them from not seeking to correct the grave situation where the ostensibly reigning pontiff is known to be persisting in a life of unnatu= ral vice, to his own detriment and to that of nearly a billion Catholics worldwide? When do men have an obligation to speak, to act, to defend the good of souls by seeking to confront sinners who are steeped in the midst= of sins against nature? While each of us is a sinner in need of conversion o= n a daily basis, we still have an obligation to seek to correct our fellow sinners who are living lives of moral destruction. Those who have access = to and the confidence of ecclesiastical officials have a special obligation = in this regard.

None= of the history provided by Mrs. Engel would have had to have been unearthed = had not someone in the Archdiocese of New York, say, during the long episcopal reign of Francis Cardinal Spellman told him that he had to stop his behav= ior. Yes, Cardinal Spellman had the protection and the confidence of Pope Pius XII, However, Pope Pius XII could assess evidence dispassionately, doing = so in a case involving Spellman and his insane jealousy of then Bishop Fulto= n J. Sheen, whom Spellman had accused of misappropriating funds from the Socie= ty of the Propagation for the Faith. It was President Dwight David Eisenhower himself who provided the evidence exonerating Sheen and ensnaring Spellma= n in his lies, which Pius XII confronted Spellman with in person in his office= s in the Apostolic Palace. All it would have taken, therefore, for the rot of Spellman's vice to have been stopped in its tra= cks was for some up and coming monisgnor to have dared to have broken the clerical code of omerta.

None= of the courageous work done by Mr. Stephen G. Brady, the founder and Preside= nt of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., would have been necessary if bishops we= re willing to break ranks with the clerical code of omerta and with the conciliarist novelty of Episcopal Collegiality that silences to this very= day the bishops in the conciliar structures about the pervasiveness of sodomy= in the structures of the conciliar church in this country and around the wor= ld. And while, as Mrs. Engel points out, this problem has indeed reared its pernicious head in the history of the Church at other times, there were p= opes and holy priests and bishops who recognized the problem and who took it u= pon themselves to try to rectify if, recommending stern measures for the individuals involved and careful steps to assure that their fellow-travel= ers would not have access to Holy Orders, whether in the secular or the relig= ious priesthood.

The situation we face at present is one where the prevalence of sodomy in the episcopate and the priesthood of the conciliar structures is coupled with= a manifest rejection of the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church on almost every matter pertaining to Faith and morals. William Cardinal O'Connell, for instance, was a man caught up in the grip of vice. He did, though, understand and defended admirably the teaching of the Church agai= nst Modernism, which is why the Modernists took particular glee in the scanda= ls that darkened his reputation during his life. The current crop of bishops= and priests in the conciliar structures is, with very few exceptions, so bere= ft of the sensus Catholicus as to make the theologically and spiritually bankrupt Francis Cardinal Spellman seem like a veritable Father John Marie Vianney by comparison.

What= we are witnessing at present is, therefore, truly unprecedented in the histo= ry of the Church: a wholesale effort to justify vice of all sorts, including unnatural vice against the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments, as part of o= ur "call to love one another as brothers and sisters in the Lord." Even the corrupt clerics of the Eleventh Century did not assert this contention. They just led their dissolute lives with abandon. Today, howe= ver, the entire super-structure of the conciliar church, both liturgically and doctrinally, is built on the denial of the gravity of personal sin and the necessity of living a life of penance to undo the harm of sin on one's own soul and thus in the life of the Church Militant on earth and in the world-at-large. While there are many wonderful priests who have yet to extricate themselves from the conciliar structures for a variety of reaso= ns, the plain fact-of-the-matter is that warfare made against the Immemorial = Mass of Tradition was launched in large measure so as to make it easier for Catholics who desired to accommodate themselves to various vices of the w= orld could be affirmed in their "essential goodness" in a "new order" that would inevitably produce an environment of "art and architecture" redolent of the putrid odor of personal sin.

Saint Catherine of Siena could smell the stench of Mortal Sin on the souls of curial cardinals in = her day. Saint John Bosco could = read souls. So could Saint John Marie Vianney. Padre Pio was unstinting in the confessional with people whom he knew to be making bad, incomplete confessions. Imagine the sermons that they would be delivering today! Ima= gine what Saint Vincent Ferrer or Saint Leonard of Port Maurice would be sayin= g in our own day! Where is their like in the conciliar structures? Indeed, many prominent conciliar priests blamed the media for reporting the self-made scandals that exploded in full view in early-2002 rather than focusing on= the culture of deceit and silence, the clerical code of omerta, that fostered their own rise to national prominence.

The material in Mrs. Engel's book will be used by the enemies of the Church in the secular world--and in the circles of Protestant fundamentalism--to de= ter people from converting to the true Church and to invite Catholics who are weak in their Faith to leave the true means of salvation. This is not Mrs. Engel's fault. Truth is what it is. A truly Catholic pope or diocesan bis= hop would look at the evidence presented in Mrs. Engel's book and say the following to weak or fallen away Catholics and to non-believers:

The Catholic Church, founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, is the one and only true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The devil knows this, which is why he seeks = to scandalize you with the inexcusably corrupt behavior of my brother bishops and priests.

I as= k you to consider the fact that no merely human organization could survive for nearly two millennia despite the bad examples of so many of her members. = The Catholic Church has survived heresies and scandals from within and direct, brutal and violent assaults from all manner of tyrants from without. She = will last until the end of time. The jaws of Hell will never prevail against h= er.

The = Church has recovered from periods of moral corruption before. She has done so as ordinary men and women have shown forth their extraordinary love for God = by living lives of prayer, especially before the Blessed Sacrament and to the Mother of God, and by the constant acts of penance and mortification and almsgiving. This is what Saint Francis of Assisi did in his own day. This is wh= at must be done in our own day in order restore the authentic Catholic Faith from the hands of the robber-barons who have infiltrated the ecclesiastic= al structures and done violence to the souls of so many people within and without the Catholic Church.

This= is where you come in, my friends. The Catholic Church needs you to join her. Yes, strictly speaking, you need her more than she needs her. You are lost forever without her. You are lost in this life without her.

Neve= rtheless, the Catholic Church needs people striving to be saints in the Church Mili= tant in order to undo the damage done by Catholics who have been content to wa= llow in their sins and to make excuses for them, to say nothing of the wolves = who have attired themselves in shepherds' attire as they have attacked and deformed the Deposit of Faith. In a time when even Catholics are contracepting themselves out of existence, the true Church must stress an= ew the urgent appeal for souls that her Divine Founder and Bridegroom, her Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, made before He Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory.

Your= life of prayer and penance and mortification and almsgiving can help to restore the glory of the true Church on earth and give you the joy for which you = have been searching in all of the wrong places. Do not let the sordid details = of the scandals deter you from being baptized, from having your Mortal Sins committed after Baptism absolved in the Sacrament of Penance, from being nourished by the Body, Blood= , Soul and Divinity of the Divine Redeemer in Holy Communion, from receiving the Sacrament of Extreme Unction before you die.

Sear= ch your own life for moral probity--or the lack of consistency thereof--to s= ee if you are without stain of sin. Understand how the devil wants you in He= ll for all eternity and how he takes particular glee in discouraging you from continuing the practice of the Catholic Faith, if you are Catholic, or discouraging you from converting to the maternal bosom of the Catholic Ch= urch if you are outside of her at present. Rise above the sordid details. See = the lived witness of the lives of the saints who did not give into the devil,= who rose from their falls and mortal concerns, who strove every day to be ever more united with the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary as they stood with t= hose Hearts of inexpressible love by the foot of the Holy Cross in the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary that is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. <= /o:p>

Yes,= rise above the scandals. Look at the Cross, which was a terrible scandal to the Jews and a stumbling block for the Greeks and other pagans. See in the Cr= oss the hope of your own lives and the lives of every person in this world. S= ee in the Cross the means by which we are expected to save our own souls. Se= e in the Cross the Royal Road of Redemption that requires each and every single one of us to realize how much our own sins contributed to Our Lord's suffering in His Passion and Death and to how much they wound His Holy Br= ide, the Catholic Church, today.

The Catholic Church was born from the Blood and Water that gushed forth from = the Wounded Side of Christ the King on the Throne that was and remains His Ho= ly Cross. Vivified by the Holy Ghost at Pentecost and sustained by Him in all that she teaches in His Holy Name, the Catholic Church will survive all of the scourgings and crownings with thorns that she must undergo, both as result of the sins of her own children and the assaults of her open enemi= es from outside of her ranks. Please understand that Our Lady, who is your Mother, beckons you to undo the effects of sin on your own souls and on t= he souls of all other people in the Church Militant and the souls in the Chu= rch Suffering in Purgatory by forsaking yourselves and helping to plant the s= eeds for the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. For this Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will usher in a certain period of peace, a period wherein the Church's glorious Tradition will be restored and where Christ will reign once more as the King of all men and all nations, a period when Mary Immaculate will be honored by all men and their nations as their lov= ing Queen Mother.

The antidote to sin and scandal is to be found in the Holy Sacrifice of the M= ass and Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Will you apply them to your own lives? <= o:p>

Heav= en is calling you to rise above the muck and mire of the world? Heaven is calli= ng you to be a saint? Heaven is calling you to be a Catholic. What is your response?

This= is how a truly Catholic pope or bishop should respond to the material in Mrs. Engel's book. This is not going to happen until Our Lady's Fatima Message= is fulfilled. The conciliarists have shown themselves to be quite able to ri= se above facts to continue their nefarious business-as-usual.

Enfo= lding ourselves entirely as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, however, we do not look for results in this mortal vale= of tears. Oh, no. We should simply be content that Our Lady will plead for us constantly, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae, so that we will hear these wo= rds from her Divine Son at the moment of our Particular Judgments:=

Well= done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few thi= ngs, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. =

Vivat Christus Rex!

Imma= culate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us= .

Sain= ts Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Sain= t John the Baptist, pray for us.

Sain= t Michael the Archangel= , pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us= .

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Sain= t John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Anne, pray for us.

Saint Joachim, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Sain= t Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden<= /st1:country-region>, pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Swede= n, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross= , pray for us.

Sain= t John Bosco, pray for us.

Sain= t Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Bles= sed Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Bles= sed Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Bles= sed Francisco, pray for us.

Bles= sed Jacinta, pray for us.

Sist= er Lucia, pray for us.

The = Longer Version of the Saint Michael= the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888=

O gl= orious Archangel Saint Michael, Pri= nce of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry = on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created immor= tal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud ange= ls, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpe= nt, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast in= to the abyss with his angels. Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men h= as taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with = all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out = the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. That wicked dra= gon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depr= aved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These m= ost crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Ch= urch, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the S= ee of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquito= us design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered. A= rise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spi= rits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as th= eir protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against = the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He m= ay put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able = to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight= of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lor= d; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Sa= tan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce= the nations. Amen.

Vers= e: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers. =

Resp= onse: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Vers= e: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Resp= onse: As we have hoped in Thee.

Vers= e: O Lord hear my prayer.

Resp= onse: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Vers= e: Let us pray. O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercessio= n of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archang= el Saint Michael, Thou wouldst = deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about = the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls.

Resp= onse: Amen.

----= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -

© Copyright 2006, Thomas A. Droleskey. All ri= ghts reserved.