Wednesday, October 30, 2013


Mr Edward Snowden will most likely go down in history as one of the most courageous whistle blowers of all time for his revelations about the extent of spying being done against virtually the whole world.  He has provided us with a birds eye view of the mendacity, indeed malignancy of the United States government.

It is now revealed that the NSA was tapping the phones and communications of the entire Vatican establishment, including Pope Benedict and Pope Francis before, during and after the Conclave.  Is such a thing possible?  Here is one of many reports:

While it is true that the Cardinals agreed that no cell phones would be allowed in Conclave during the actual discussions and proceedings there is no iron-clad guarantee that the things that were discussed before the Conclave, and after the Conclave stayed in the Sistine chapel, and that very fact could have serious repercussions.  Apparently not even the Saint Marta Guesthouse escaped the big brotherish ears of the spying agency.  Cardinal Bergoglio's phone calls were eavesdropped on, as were numerous others.  Benedict himself was monitored for a number of years.

In the International Business Times report linked above the reporter states:

"The NSA allegedly eavesdropped on cardinals before the conclave in March 2013 to elect the new Pope, including calls between them and Cardinal Bergoglio, who became Pope Francis, succeeding Benedict."

That being the case, and given what we now know about the NSA's nefarious activities, it is legitimate to ask the $64,000 Question "Was the Conclave compromised?"  The fact that the agency is run by the amoral General Keith Alexander, perjurer, and defended by James Clapper, perjurer,  should give us sufficient cause for concern.  The government is of course denying the story which, given their aptitude for lying not only to the public but to Congress, is not altogether reassuring.

Needless to say the official Vatican spokesman sees nothing.  "In any case, we have no concerns about the matter," a Vatican spokesman told IBTimes UK.  The Vatican spokesman is none other than that Jay Carney of the Vatican, Father Lombardi.  But if Rome is not concerned about this they sure as hell should be.  Already it has been credibly suggested that the NSA is using some of its scooped-up info for a discreet version of blackmail.  The agency has been monitoring the phone calls of Senators and Congressmen and there are those who surmise that some of the juicy bits of information they have picked up are being used to "convince" wavering legislators that they should not try to cut back on the activities of this gigantic, super secret, unaccountable Orwellian department.

It is damaging enough that they were eavesdropping on the Cardinals before and after the papal vote; it would be shocking if somehow they were privy to what was going on during the Conclave.  Despite the safety features that were put in place it is hard to say with certainty that the ears of the NSA were not listening in some way.

Person of Interest?

In another report, from Al-Jazeera we read:  
Bergoglio "had been a person of interest to the American secret services since 2005, according to Wikileaks”, it said.

The bugged conversations were divided into four categories: "leadership intentions", "threats to financial systems", "foreign policy objectives" and "human rights”, it claimed.

Why the American Secret Service considered Cardinal Bergoglio a person of interest for the past eight years is an interesting question although the Secret Service like all other US agencies is widely believed to have been corrupted, so it remains unclear as to how one should assess this piece of information or what it was about the activities of the Cardinal that prompted their extreme interest.  Still it is curious to say the very least.

Other sources are suggesting that this latest example of US spying has broken the Vatican's long-established secrecy when it comes to papal elections.  The Eponymous Flower site has a translation of a German report on the matter.

If that is so the Vatican might wish to emulate the Russians who are now reverting to type-written and hand-delivered important communications.

But if the Conclave was compromised in some way (and even if it wasn't we do know that the NSA has been listening to electronic communications of high Churchmen in Rome and probably everywhere else) then this opens up a whole new avenue of inquiry. Especially in view of the fact that the United States shares the information it illegally obtains with its partner, Israel.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013


The following open letter from Rev. Fr. G.T. Cooper was addressed to fellow priest Fr. P. Mulholland of Hull in the Sprint of 1984, in gratitude and admiration for the latter priest's blunt talk entitled, "Can we believe in Heaven or Hell?"  It seems every bit as appropriate now as it did nearly three decades ago.

Nazareth House
Park Road North
Cleveland TS1 3LP

Dear Father Mulholland:

OF COURSE, we cannot believe in Heaven or Hell anymore.  Whatever good intentions inspired fat jolly Pope John XXIII and his successors, the de facto consequences of the 'aggiornamento' effected by his Second Vatican Council has been the suppression of Our Lord's teaching about Sin, Death, Judgement and Hell.  Everything must be bright, cheerful, optimistic.  Bags and bags of 'Gaudiam et Spes'.  The trouble is that, if you suppress all Our Lord's teaching on Hell, you must, logically, suppress His teaching on Heaven as well.  In fact, there is no future life at all.  After death, there is only, in Nietszche's phrase 'ewige Kalte und Finsternis' - 'eternal cold and darkness'.

So there is no Hell.  We priests are redundant: mere parasites.  The Communists are quite right in putting us into Labour camps to do something useful.

The abolition of Hell has also led to the suppression of Our Lord's teaching on the fewness of the elect, the difficulty of salvation, the narrow gate, the difficult way, the bonds, the outer darkness, the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the everlasting fire, eternal punishment, etc.

There is no Hell.  That is why no lads want to be priests: there is nothing for them to do.  That is why, since 1969, 60,000 priests have gone off with a woman.  Utterly bored with their meaningless priesthood, they have sought satisfaction in sex.  That is why the laity are destroying themselves with contraception.  Why shouldn't they?  After all, the phrase 'mortal sin' is completely meaningless.  Little wonder churches are emptying!

In short, thanks to the abolition of Hell, the Church throughout the First World is dying.

Now we have mere humanism: the Church as an agency for the UN and the FAO.  Or we could say Amnesty International at prayer...if prayer too weren't 'out'.

God have mercy on us.

(Rev.) G.T. Cooper

[Published in issue No. 85, 1984, of Approaches.  With thanks to Anthony Fraser.]


The ever-perceptive commentator Patrick Foy has written another very interesting article.

This one wonders if the next shoe - a very important one - is about to drop.  If it does drop it will make a tremendous change in the Syrian discussion...dare we say a tsunami-like change.  It is a shoe many in Washington (and elsewhere) mightily hope will not drop.

Here is Patrick's article:

Monday, October 28, 2013


The Barilla Pasta story gets more depressing by the minute.  As many know the Juggernaut of the Perverted went into full attack mode when the president of that company made some perfectly natural comments about his products and about families.

At first it seemed that he was going to stand firm, but now, it seems, he may be backing down .

You might want to write to the company here:

It is pitiful to watch these businessmen cower in fear over this tiny minority and make themselves jump through hoops to appease them.  Of course the major media controlled, as we know, by essentially six people will make sure the propaganda tap is turned on strong and will make certain that all media acts in perfect unison with one another.  This is the most sickening aspect of the homo mafia, to bludgeon and bully to death anyone who doesn't bow down before them.

Organized Faggotry has learned well the lesson taught by race hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and that obnoxious crew and have been applying it to any and all.

Their Pride will goeth before their Fall but in the meantime we are going to see an explosion of perversion the likes of which we cannot now even begin to imagine.  Spiritually prepare for it.


Sandro Magister makes a very interesting point which upon reading seems obvious but can easily be overlooked.

In discussing the change of climate in the Church today with regard to changes in the Curia, Magister writes:

These brusque removals without promotion, together with the fact that the overwhelming majority of directorship positions have still been confirmed only provisorily - "donec aliter provideatur" - have created in the curia a widespread climate of terror, not softened much by the description of "evangelical" applied to the "revolution" underway.

Obviously in a climate of this kind the worst harm is that of being accused of being an agent or accomplice of any action of counter-revolutionary resistance, whether real or imaginary.

It is conceivable that that is the reason Cardinal Burke left a recent Conference at which Magister was speaking recently.

Saturday, October 26, 2013


A discussion about millstones

That grand and indefatigable lady, Daphne McLeod, presents some facts that the New Evangelisers may wish to meditate upon.  We will let Daphne speak for herself by offering a link to her latest newsletter, but let it be said right away that the latest statistics available show that in England around 96% of children educated in the Catholic schools leave the Faith shortly thereafter.

Here's the link:

I have no idea how the New Evangelism crowd plans to deal with this but I know perfectly well how the Old Evangelism crowd would.  It is perfectly clear that the Faith is not being passed on to future generations and if this situation does not change in the very near future there will be no Catholics left.  The "New Catechism" is very much to be blamed for a great deal of this problem and we would advise any parents of young children trying to teach them the seriousness and the certitudes of Catholicism to avoid it.  There are any number of sound catechisms that are still being published by small publishing firms.  As the computer specialists are wont to say, "garbage in, garbage out" so that should serve as a reliable warning about which catechism best transmits the truths of God's Church.  Daphne Mcleod's latest dire overview of the state of religious instruction is worthy of our attention.

Undoubtedly her report will please some people in the Church, those most interested in obliterating our twenty century heritage..

Her report is (for them) therefore yet another Vatican II success story.  It is a success for them because we always need to remember that adage which states:  "the result obtained was the result intended".

Friday, October 25, 2013


The end of Marat
[From issue #82 (1983) of APPROACHES, edited by Hamish Fraser]

In the June 1983, No.40 issue of de Rome et d'Ailleurs, our good friend H. Le Caron dedicated an article to the Sixteen Carmelite Martyrs of Compiegne who were guillotined for their faith on July 17, 1794 and beatified by Pope St Pius X on May 27, 1906. (1)

These truly Catholic sisters had been driven from their convent by Jacobin fury on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (September 14, 1792).  The Jacobin Terror was then raging and the Carmelite sisters, under the leadership of their prioress, Mother Therese de Saint Augustin, decided to offer themselves as a holocaust in order to appease God's wrath, and for the intention of restoring the peace of Christ to both Church and State.

Their holocaust was found acceptable by God.  For a mere ten days later, on July 27, 1794 (9 Thermidor on the Revolutionary calendar) Robespierre, Saint Just and other monsters associated with them followed them to the scaffold.  In effect this marked the end of the Jacobin Terror.

Ever since then the very word "Thermidor" has not ceased to strike terror in the hearts of revolutionaries such as Trotsky and his disciples.

The "Thermidor" of the Russian Revolution will not come however until the consummation of a further holocaust of sufficient prayer and penance to merit the grace of the collegial consecration of Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart.

1. It may interest readers to know that the 16 Compiegne martyrs were sheltered by Monsieur Le Caron's grandmother, Mme de la Vallee.  The Le Caron family later restored their relics to the Carmel of Compiegne.

Postscript by Editor of The Eye Witness:  Fraser's article was written before the dramatic events in Russia starting in 1989 (Hamish Fraser died in 1986) but his essential point about the Consecration of Russia remains as valid as ever.  Russia has come a long way but much still needs to be done to fully restore the peace of Christ to that land so loved by the Mother of God, primarily the action of the Pope.  Our current Pope may want to reflect on how his call for a day of prayer and penance saved Syria from destruction by US and Israeli forces and ponder what might be the effect of obeying Our Lady of Fatima's specific request.

It is also helpful to know that there is a word out there that will cause our current crop of revolutionaries to squirm and to cower:



The murderer
The victim: Colleen Kritzer
After perusing a few blogs, and a few websites, that have mentioned the murder of Collen Ritzer, one notices immediately the pertinent information that is missing from all of these posts.  Even the Catholic websites are leery of mentioning the proverbial elephant in the living room.  To mention the obvious seems to some like pointing out a mildly embarrassing faux pas that it would be impolite to bring up in mixed company.

But the London Daily Mail is less terrified it seems of being called names by those who are superior to the Great Unwashed:

Those who write from the relatively bucolic climes of the distant desert, or tranquil New England, or the cornfields of America have rarely had to face what those of us in large metropolitan areas like Chicago, or New York, or St Louis, or Milwaukee, or Detroit, or Minneapolis have to face every day which is, to put it quite bluntly, an epidemic of violence committed against innocent white people committed by fatherless, sociopathic, cruel blacks who have no empathy, no remorse, no impulse control, no family life to speak of, no morals, no faith; an epidemic that is unprecedented and is growing worse every day. had to be said. And it gives us no pleasure whatsoever to have said it.  These are people created by God

But do not take our word for it.  Read the words of the brilliant black scholar/pundit Thomas Sowell:

Mr Sowell's words need to be pondered.

Please pray for the soul of this young Catholic girl.

Not related precisely to the story mentioned above but as a reminder that this sort of thing is getting more commonplace:
Interestingly, it took the British papers to find the story.]

No comment:

Tuesday, October 22, 2013


 [Editor’s note:  this article appeared in APPROACHES, No. 86, edited by Hamish Fraser, in 1984.  Our thanks to Anthony Fraser for his gracious permission in allowing us to re-publish on this blog articles from his father’s periodical APPROACHES as well as those from his own sorely-missed APROPOS.]

Writes Hamish Fraser:

In Approaches No. 75 (Christ the King, 1981) Father Lawson reviewed Shepherdess of La Salette by Abbe Gouin.  Now he sends us a translation of an insert in an article in the July-August 1984 issue of the Italian review CHIESA VIVA by its Rev. Editor, Father Luigi Villa.  The insert had been reproduced from the November 1972 issue of Chiesa Viva.  Here it is in full.


In 1846, in a Commune in Isere (La Salette), the Blessed Virgin appeared to two young children, Massimino Giraud and Melanie Calvat-Mathieu.


Four French bishops made it their business to stifle people’s belief in the apparition.  But… all four of them died a tragic and mysterious death.  Bishop Ginovilhac of Grenoble who had had little Melanie shut up in an English Convent to keep her quiet, died shortly afterwards in a lunatic asylum.  His successor, Bishop Fava, who did everything in his power to stop the spread of news of the apparition, was found dead flat on the floor, naked, his eyes bulging and his fists clenched.  Bishop Gilbert of Amiens (and later of Bordeaux), who had said: ‘The secret of La Salette is nothing but a tissue of anti-religion, lies and exaggerations’, was found a short time later, on August 16, 1889, dead in his room stretched out on the floor; and during his funeral the coffin fell off the catafalque.  Archbishop Darfoy of Paris, who himself interrogated Massimino and did violence to his mind with questions about ideologies so as to get at the secret of the boy:  ‘The words of your beautiful Lady are at times just stupid, as your secret will prove stupid.’  But the boy answered:  ‘It is as certain that I saw the beautiful Lady as I am certain that within three years you will be shot dead.’ It was a long time to the Commune and attempts at revolution, and France, unthinking and comfortable in the Second Empire, did not foresee them; but on May 24, 1871 that prophecy came true: the Archbishop was shot dead by the Paris communards.

Sunday, October 20, 2013


Recently we posted on The Eye Witness the open letter to the Pope by authoress Silvana de Mari.  To say that we were unprepared  for the visceral response is something of an understatement.  The open letter had been known since at least late August and was in the news, though apparently it went largely unnoticed at the time.  We  published it after being told of its existence by a good friend.  Since our posting of her heartfelt, yearning letter, written with great respect towards the person of Pope Francis, the comments received from those who were upset by it startled even this writer, who is used to seeing anger in the comments sections of blogs.  (I wonder how the present Pope would view these comments by people who are obviously strong supporters of his.)

One or two comments had to be deleted due to the obscenities therein.  Miss de Mari's thoughts were not discussed by such people; they were attacked.  Our blog offers the opportunity for anyone to discuss any and all posts here and we always welcome a lively discussion.  Indeed, some who responded with their disagreements did so with courtesy and kindliness, and with careful thought.  But crude attacks offering no sensible counter-arguments but instead four-letter words were coming in faster than we could edit them.

De Salvani's open letter appeared before the two now-famous interviews of the Pope.  All this is merely a prelude to what is becoming more obvious as each day goes by: the more troublesome the Pope's remarks, the more daft become the defenses of them, and the more revealing of the thoughts of those who revel in the ambiguity of his statements.  If the Pope has done nothing else by his recent statements he has smoked out the Modernists who have always been lurking around in the Church, either openly or, as they say, under the radar.  For this we must be grateful to him.

It is unnecessary to say that a canonized Pope, one Pope Saint Pius X, (one who was canonized, by the way, with the old rigor and all the safeguards in place which were, most interestingly, thrown out recently by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI), called Modernism "the synthesis of all heresies."  These are words that the current crop of sycophants and papolaters might wish to ponder carefully.

Some have taken umbrage with those who accuse the Holy Father of being a Modernist.  There is an old, time-honored adage that answers this very simply:  "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Many blogs have been writing in horror of each and every papal statement that deviates from authentic Church teaching.  Many have written well, with extreme patience and respect for the person of the Pope while not flinching from saying what has to be said.  This writer, too, has written a few such items about the man.

While not understanding why our Father in heaven is allowing this to happen I accept the fact that for whatever reason an apparently genuine Modernist is currently at the helm.  I say "apparently" because far more knowledgeable people than myself - particularly those in Europe - believe him to be so.  God knows why; I don't.  Let me amend that: I don't know precisely why God is allowing this but I suspect very strongly that we are being punished with great severity, and when I look back upon my own life I can well understand why this would be so.  Be that as it may  this writer leaves it to better people to catalogue the various papal missteps.

In any case it is extremely trying to attempt to read the words of Francis, since many of his statements are mere sentimental musings that carry very little weight.

Nor do I have the time or the interest to read the writings of the Modernist Lite crowd who labor to defend anything and everything emanating from Rome.  Serious people don't waste precious time reading them when there is so much other thoughtful commentary from solid Catholic minds available.  (I am told by those in the know that these benighted souls are out to "get" anyone who fails to toe their idea of what the current papal line is.  I can think of nothing less interesting to worry about than that.  If some of the reactions I read after I posted Silvana de Mari's letter are anything to go by, which show people using their emotions instead of their heads, their knives are not the only things that aren't very sharp.)

But if and when the Pope shows that he will speak and act like most of his predecessors this writer will be pleased to point this out "from the housetops".  When he does what is noble and good, like the September 7th day of prayer and fasting for Syria, he will find support in these pages.  But at no time will we here sit idle while the Faith is belittled, no matter who does it, high or low  When a Churchman makes a mockery of the Faith, like Cardinals Abbot and Costello for example, we will do our best to expose their treason and stupidity even while honoring the cloth that they wear.

This writer is not one of those who believes that the Holy Ghost comes down upon the Cardinals in Conclave and personally selects the next Pope.  We have too many examples from history showing us the intrigues that have guided several notable papal elections.  But it is clearly obvious that God allows His children to make their own mistakes.  Right now we are living through a period of weak papacies, a period that did not begin in 1958, if I may point out.  There were too many pre-Conciliar Popes who clearly neglected their duties and who all contributed to the mess the Church presently finds itself in.  Pius XI could make some brilliant, Apostolic statements, and then go ahead and commit some truly ill-advised acts which were disastrous for the Church, and the same can be said of numerous Popes throughout history including, I hasten to add, most of the 20th century Popes.  But that is the power of God clearly at play.  He can allow these weaklings to become Popes yet still upholds His Church throughout it all.

Even St Pius X, great as he was, did admittedly make a few important blunders (thankfully, only a very few). And he did try to root out the Modernists but, alas, such a project was probably doomed.  They are still very much with us, emboldened by the papacies which followed his, and have now been taking their knives from their sheaths and beginning anew their murder rampage.  The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are only the most recent victims of their sharpened blades.

As I said, the cut-rate Modernists I am not in the slightest worried about.  They will write their boot-licking blog posts for the delectation of their acolytes and groupies but no one else.  Again, serious Catholics don't worry about those I have called the Modernist Lite faction.  The real, deadly Modernists that we should be worrying about, and exposing, and fighting, and praying for are the ones who occupy positions of power and influence in the Catholic Church.  The crushing damage to the Faith is their work and it is that damage that must be undone.

And it has to be undone soon.  Because, if we are to try to bring people into the only Church that will save them these prospective converts have to see a Church that is healed.  No, I am not saying that we have to wait for the Church to become whole again before we try to bring our families and our friends to the Faith. But let's be honest: our job at convincing them becomes harder every day with each note of awful music they hear in the pew, every architecturally hideous Church building they see, every scandalous word and deed that they read about, every arrogant buffoon in a Roman collar they come into contact with.  Bringing lost souls to the Faith is our job, the job of every Catholic, despite the decided lack of support of the ecumaniacs around us.

So let the Modernists relish their moment of triumph.  Let them enjoy watching their enemies twist in the wind after they have done their knife work on them.  Their pride will sustain them, until such time as that fall which must inevitably come after.

And when that happens the Catholics will pick up the pieces, in God's good time.

Saturday, October 19, 2013


photo courtesy

Dr Strangelove is in charge in Washington.

This is not a parody: the USA is working on a drone that will act autonomously, making lethal (I said, lethal) decisions "on its own".

Here it is, for all the world to see:

In the wildest fantasies of the "Star Wars" or Trekkie imaginations, in the most unhinged minds of totalitarians of the past, nothing comes close to the reality of the madness that engulfs the ruling class of America.  These people are not only monsters.  They are dangerous monsters.

Does writing to your "representative" in Washington do any good?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Most of Congress is a bought and paid for package, bought by AIPAC and the fabled "military-industrial complex".  But in this case there is really something more at play.  These people - the same who cram abortion and sodomy down our throats - have a definite touch of madness, a madness so profoundly dangerous and so bereft of simple Christian charity (or even a secular sort of sympathy) that for the safety of the public they should be institutionalized.  One supposes that a letter to one's "representative" (what a lovely and meaningless term) may do some little good to put a stop to such insane plans.  But as both Republicans and Democrats are cut from the same moth-eaten cloth I have my doubts that contacting them will do much if any good at all.  Senators and Congressmen are for the most part ignorant parasites who have gotten to where they are by money, lying and general soft-headedness.  Most are pawns for the Usual Suspects who haunt the Capitol and define the rules.  They are the pawns of the "suits", those uber-connected and extremely wealthy characters who make sure that their bought rulers stay bought and don't stray too far away from the big picture.

What a slimy world is that of our ruling class.  And now they want to program machines that will murder their enemies at the pleasure of the machines themselves.  With that, they imagine that their own consciences will remain clean since they didn't have to make the dreaded decision personally.

But when the tap on the shoulder comes to them as it will come to us all one day, then they will see  clearly who is responsible for these deaths.

But when that tap on the shoulder does come, dear rulers, it will be too late.

Thursday, October 17, 2013


The world is in shock over a Catholic funeral Mass for a murderer who himself fought for and advocated mass murder.

The shocking details are here:

In a recent development, Church authorities stated:

Bishop Marcello Semeraro of Albano, secretary of Pope Francis’ Council of Cardinals, told Rome’s Corriere della Sera newspaper Oct. 16 that the church would never prohibit prayers for someone, but canon law does allow a bishop to deny a public funeral to a “manifest sinner” when it would scandalize the faithful.

In this case, he said, “the crime was public and notorious, the lack of conversion was public and notorious, and the scandal it would have raised in the Christian community was public and notorious.”
But...that was another case that was being referred to.  
Mary Jo Kopechne and several million dead babies cannot be worried about at this time.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013


They hanged Nazi war criminals.  One day, when the world recovers its sanity, they will hang the people who are behind this:

Perhaps we should begin to "obsess" over this horrific development.  That there are men and women out there who would not only permit but encourage such monstrosities as this is, I would say, proof positive that there are dire consequences awaiting us down a very short road.

When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein it is doubtful that she could have imagined that men could stoop so low as to commit such crimes.  Worse, she would have been astounded that these are crimes that are now celebrated as achievements, and there are even big business interests ready to get involved in what purports to be a designer baby industry.  In her classic story the world condemned Henry Frankenstein.  In our world he would be treated quite differently.

One wishes there would be a Church out there that would thunder about such unspeakable evils, a Church that would condemn such supreme insults to God our Creator, and worry less about other problems that pale into insignificance when compared to this, a Church that would tell the world plainly that it has gone mad and is bringing down upon it God's terrible judgment.

There was once a Church that would do that.


In the farcical world that is the United States of America hypocrisy looms so large that even those who have only an average interest in what is occurring these days are beginning to take notice.  The Hate Crime Industry is at last beginning to be scrutinized by growing numbers of bewildered people.

In the article below, Mr Jack Cashill takes the reader on a brief but fascinating journey into a hate crime that was then suddenly wasn't.  It is well worth your time to read and reflect upon.

It was once thought that the creation of thought-crime legislation, hypocritically termed "Hate Crime" legislation, would be used against the innocent.  And of course it is so used.  When the crime is clearly a result of seething hatred, on the other hand, the hate crime monopoly looks the other way.  But the more this goes on the more eyes are opened. 

And that is a good thing.

Thursday, October 10, 2013


This article is not new.  It has appeared in past years in French, of course, and finally in English in Anthony Fraser's periodical, APROPOS.  It is also available in pdf form on the Apropos website where one can find a convenient printable option.  An earlier attempt by this writer to dissect the Rome-Synagogue Agreement was abandoned once Madiran's article became available again.

Many are familiar with the famous Rome-Moscow Agreement whereby an accord was reached between the Soviets and the Vatican not to speak out against Communism at Vatican 2.  Father Floridi even wrote a book about it.  But many are not familiar with another secret agreement.  It is that agreement which is discussed by Madiran here.

What makes this article worthy of reissue is the troubling remarks of recent Popes, in particular Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.  Each of them have made comments regarding the Catholic attitude toward the Synagogue which are in great need of clarification, from a dogmatic point of view if nothing else.  The new shift in attitude towards Judaism expressed by these Popes can perhaps be seen in better perspective when we discover the details of a secret accord that was accomplished between certain Jewish leaders and the Vatican in the recent past.  The late Jean Madiran (whose death we are still mourning) wrote this revealing essay on this secret accord which we reproduce here.  It is essential reading for a better understanding of what has been happening in the Church and the world in recent decades and is especially important now that our current Pontiff has actually shown public contempt for the writings of Saint Augustine regarding the Jews.  If the current Pope has any curiosity about the grave import of these matters and if he wishes to reflect upon his public remarks that seem to stray from authentic Church teaching on such a vital question as this he could do no better than to read Madiran.

In light of this Madiran's article becomes more timely than ever. [Note by Editor, The Eye Witness]


(This article, by Jean Madiran, which appeared in the Autumn 1990 - No. III issue of Itinéraires, was translated for Apropos by Peter McEnerney. Itinéraires was published as a monthly from March 1956 until December 1989, 338 issues in all. It then continued for a short time thereafter as a quarterly. This article is posted on the Apropos website, )

A deafening silence

Strasbourg was the location for part of the negotiations conducted between the Holy See and the Jewish leaders, held during the Winter of 1962-1963, for the purpose of preparing the secret accord which governs the present situation. Secret negotiations had taken place at Metz some time previously with the Kremlin: they were held during the year 1962 between Cardinal Tisserant and the KGB agent Nikodim, at the residence of Mgr Paul-Joseph Schmitt, the historic spokesman of the heresy of the twentieth century, called 'the religion of Saint-Avold'.(1) The Communist press at the time, and then, more discreetly, La Croix itself, revealed the existence of these negotiations with Moscow. Their conclusion appeared satisfactory to both parties: Rome would henceforth refrain from all criticism of communism and, in return, Moscow would permit observers from the Russian Orthodox church to attend the Council. All over the world, in public and in private, a deaf ear was turned to the revelation of this Rome-Moscow Accord. Silence was mandatory even among those considered as the best-informed commentators. On more than one occasion, from 1963 to 1989, the review Itinéraires, analyzed the consequences(2) of the reality and content of this accord, encountering only general disbelief from minds lacking in memory, critical spirit and especially courage. Minds at the same time lethargic and stuffed on a diet of make-believe, caused by several hours of daily television viewing, contributed greatly to this.

The revelation of secret negotiations between the Holy See and 'the Jewish leaders' came later, not until 1986-87, that is, three to five years after that event. If I speak rather vaguely of 'the Jewish leaders', the reason is that nothing else has been revealed about them up to the present. We have been told the name of the pope who negotiated, the name of his negotiator and that of one of his secret emissaries, the place of one of the discussions, but not the hierarchical rank or identity of 'the Jewish leaders', or whom they represented.

Let us be clear: I am not speaking about the well-known meeting between Jules Isaac and John XXIII on 13th June 1960. That story was told by Jules Isaac himself and published by the 'Judaeo-Christian Documentation Service'.(3)

I am speaking of something else: the secret negotiations, held in the winter of 1962-1963, and revealed in 1986-1987. The same general inadvertence accorded the Rome-Moscow Accord, an inadvertence arising in some cases from design and willing complicity, but in many others from mental sloth and ignorance, has since then treated the revelation of the secret accord drawn up by Fr Congar in the name of the pope as if it did not exist.

This accord, like the accord with Moscow, has been respected by the council and by all the successors of John XXIII.

The revelation of the secret in 1986-1987

The first precise reference to secret negotiations between the Holy See and the Jewish communities was made by the writer Lazare Landau in number 903 of the Tribune juive (4) dated 17th to 23rd January, 1986. The negotiations had been entrusted by John XXIII to Cardinal Bea:

'He sent secret emissaries to the Jewish communities to find out what they wanted. Thus, the Jews of Strasbourg received the Reverend Father Congar, OP, who came, shrouded in mystery, to the synagogue, where he listened for two hours as the community leaders explained their grievances.'

Such was the origin of the 'new perspective' which would be imposed on Catholic doctrine: 'we must no longer speak of the infidelity of Israel, but of its fidelity.'

Lazare Landau went into much more detail in number 1001 of Tribune juive, dated 25th to 31st December 1987. Let us read his article:

'On a misty, freezing winter's evening in 1962-1963, I went to the Centre communautaire de la Paix (Peace Community Centre) at Strasbourg in response to an extraordinary invitation. The Jewish leaders were holding a secret meeting in the basement with an envoy of the Pope. At the conclusion of the Sabbath, a dozen of us were there to welcome a white-robed Dominican, the Reverend Father Yves Congar, whom Cardinal Bea, in the name of John XXIII had charged with asking us, on the eve of the Council, what we expected from the Catholic Church...

The Jews, kept apart from Christian society for nearly twenty centuries, and often treated as underdogs, enemies and deicides, asked to be completely rehabilitated. As descendants in direct lineage from the monotheistic stock of Abraham, whence Christianity arose, they asked to be considered as brothers, partners equal in dignity, of the Christian Church....

The white messenger, divested of any symbol or adornment, returned to Rome taking with him innumerable petitions in harmony with our own. After difficult debates...the Council granted our wishes.

The Declaration of 'Nostra Aetate'
(5) - Fr Congar and the three authors of the text assured me - represented a real revolution in the Church's doctrine on the Jews...

Homilies and catechisms changed in a few short years. In France, the flower of this renewed doctrine was presented by the Editions du Centurion under the name: 'The Faith of Catholics'. The French episcopate, in the person of L.A. Elchinger, Bishop of Strasbourg, had played a decisive part in the presentation of the contemporary 'Jewish Question' at the Council. The clergy readily adopted the conciliar decisions. This attitude found powerful backing in the "Pastoral Orientations" of the episcopal committee for relations with Judaism, published by the French Episcopal Conference on 16th April 1973.

In the Vatican itself, this current of thought received endorsement from a most eminent quarter. On 4th October 1983, in front of Pope John Paul II and the World Synod of Bishops, Cardinal Etchegaray, the minister of the Holy See, made a ringing declaration which resolved all the Jewish 'problems' into two points:

1. A total and definitive reconciliation with Judaism and the Jews.

2. Repentance and pardon to be sought for the wrongs committed in the past.

Since the secret visit from Fr. Congar in a concealed part of the synagogue, on a cold winter's night, the Church's doctrine had indeed undergone a total change.'

Lazare Landau made these disclosures apparently as a warning. He was afraid that Rome might revert to her former doctrine. He saw a disquieting sign of this in a declaration from Cardinal Ratzinger to the weekly newspaper Il Secolo, and quoted its two menacing points. First, the Cardinal, emphasizing that he was also speaking for the Pope, had said: 'The faith of Abraham finds its completion in Jesus Christ'. Secondly, he had quoted a remark of Edith Stein after her conversion without in the least condemning it: 'Now I know I am totally Jewish'. Such thoughts, in the eyes of modern Judaism, show an anti-semitism which was believed to have been repudiated and which must be morally and juridically prohibited.

Initial observations

To my knowledge, neither Fr Congar nor anyone else on the Catholic or the Jewish side has, up to the present, either denied or added to the revelations of Lazare Landau. We may wonder whether Fr Congar at Strasbourg and, subsequently, the 'three authors' of Nostra Aetate with him, did, in fact, speak to 'the Jewish leaders' of a real revolution in the church's doctrine and whether they really guaranteed that the doctrine of the church had indeed undergone a total change....

If this is not quite what the Holy See's representatives said, it is, at any rate, what they gave their Jewish questioners to understand. However it may be, we have in actual fact lived through such a change, we have seen homilies and catechisms change in a few short years. When Lazare Landau notes this, he is not mistaken.

Nor is he mistaken when he understands that it is the Christian and the Church who are asking pardon of the Jews, and never the reverse: the request for pardon comes from one side, and there is no reciprocity. The historical wrongs of the past two thousand years are entirely on one side. This is the way it has been presented to us, and this is what we have seen and heard, particularly in the solemn declaration of Cardinal Etchegaray.

Worse was to come

Lazare Landau, probably out of discretion, restricted himself to the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate. Nevertheless, things had gone much further when he wrote his article in December 1987. There had been the pontifical discourse of 6th March 1982, and the Holy See's document of May-June 1985, which John Paul praised and adopted as his own in his allocution of 28th October 1985.

To sum up this process which I analyzed some time ago in detail #4, let us recall that the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, in its fourth chapter, recommended 'mutual knowledge and esteem' between Christians and Jews; the latter were not to be 'presented as having been rejected by God and accursed'; and it declared, not for the first time, that 'the Church deplores all manifestations of anti-semitism.' But, on 6th March 1982, John Paul II added two new ideas which, if we wish, we may perhaps presume to follow logically from the conciliar Declaration, or from the intention of its authors, although they are not contained in it explicitly.

On the one hand, John Paul II affirmed that Christians have the same God as Jews; on the other hand, he invited Christians to collaborate closely with the Jews. Three years later, the Pontifical Commission for relations with Judaism, under its chairman, the notorious Cardinal Willebrands, translated these two new ideas into practice by launching among Catholics the slogan - work together with the Jews to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. Thereupon, Catholic pastoral teaching thus defined manifestly fell into line with a traditional idea of Jewish theology, in its interpretation of the function assigned to the 'religions derived from Judaism': 'their mission is to prepare mankind for the advent of the messianic era announced by the Bible' (declaration of the Grand Rabbinate of France, 16th April 1973.)

Judaism could then hope that it had at last succeeded in making the Church abandon her claim to be the new Israel of the New Covenant, founded by Jesus Christ, true God and true man, the Redeemer, crucified, risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, reigning eternally in this world and in the next. In fact, this claim became increasingly blurred in catechisms, these, too, being in the process of disappearing. And, after the declaration of John Paul II at the time of his visit to the Roman synagogue, the President of the Israelite Consistory of Paris, Emile Touati, felt justified in exclaiming: 'The Church's new doctrine on Judaism and the Jews, inaugurated by John XXIII and the Council, has been forcefully and spectacularly reaffirmed'.(6)

Can one believe in Jesus Christ if one rejects "anti-semitism"?

To speak of awaiting 'the coming' of the Messiah, without stating that it is a question rather of His return, and that He has already come, brings inevitably to mind the idea and diagnosis expressed by the term 'immanent apostasy', already used in other fields, following Maritain, who invented it. For the terms used in the pontifical document of 1985 do state: 'prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah by working together' with the Jews. This pontifical document recommends us explicitly 'to accept our responsibility for preparing the world for the coming of the Messiah, by working together for social justice, respect for the rights of the human person', etc.

How is it possible that men of the Church can thus have, to that extent and in this respect, abandoned faith in Jesus Christ, without the Christian people being aware of it, and without their being aware of it themselves?

The truth is, they were aware of it - at least, some of them - occasionally - and more or less in isolation. Yet, there is no indication of any official warning in the matter, no solemn warning from ecclesiastical authority. The oft-quoted words of Paul VI about 'self-destruction' and the 'smoke of Satan' were whispered confidences, rare digressions, which were not followed by any act of government, any lasting insistence on the sole thing that really matters, the loss of faith and, as Malachi Martin has very rightly said, the 'destruction of Christianity' in the world and in the church.

The fact is that the faith had been emptied of its content from within, through ideological contamination; and also as a result of intimidation. For intimidation was present everywhere - in public opinion, the media, education and, just as much, at the highest level and in negotiations: the threat of being considered 'anti-semitic' and condemned (morally, if not yet juridically) for 'anti-semitism'. If the Church wanted to survive in the new world of modern democracy and human rights, if she wanted to be tolerated and, perhaps, esteemed, she would have to give certain proof that she had purged from her liturgy and doctrine all trace of what Judaism calls her traditional anti-semitism. In obtaining acceptance of an idea of 'anti-semitism' which is unrestricted and can be extended indefinitely, modern Judaism has gradually eliminated from the predominant ideology, from institutions and laws, including ecclesiastical laws, everything that offended it or, at least, what was most offensive, namely, the dogmatic affirmation of a Christian dogma opposed to its own negation of dogma.

A Christian faith which is sieved to reject all anti-semitism can remain attached to the divinity of Jesus Christ, if it is no longer a dogma affirmed dogmatically, that is, if it is no longer a universal truth, but a personal conviction.

Modern Judaism accepts and flatters Christians, provided that they are non-anti-semitic Christians, as it understands the term: for Judaism, anti-semitism begins with the insolent, intolerable affirmation that the divinity of Jesus Christ is an objective, supernaturally certain truth, which must be proclaimed to every creature, and that the Church of Jesus Christ is the new Israel of the New Covenant. And when I say that, for modern Judaism, anti-semitism begins there, I wonder whether I ought not to say rather that it consists especially in this. Indeed, as Lazare Landau quite correctly observed, we saw the new-style Christian faith, sieved to reject anti-semitism, change the content of homilies and catechisms in a few short years . In speaking of Christian dogmas, the catechisms said less and less:

This is.

They said more and more:

Christians believe that this is.

Everyone may believe as he pleases, if it is an individual belief which leaves his neighbours in peace and does not intervene in social life. Catechisms (or whatever replaces them) may proclaim the divinity and the miracles of Christ as being the opinion of Christians, and Christians may believe in them as a 'religious opinion'. The liberty of 'religious opinions' is promised by article 10 of the Declaration of Rights of 1789. This religious opinion may be expressed as a conviction which one has personally formed through reading the Gospel, or as the result of a mystical experience. In the light of this ideology, the Christians of the second half of the twentieth century have been insidiously urged to remain Christians, but in the same way that one may be a Kantian, a naturist, a vegetarian or a socialist. In fact, such is what they are. They still know and say they are Christians but, to the extent that they are so in this way, they are Christians no longer.

The Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ not because, after study and reflection, or by spiritual inclination, or poetic impulse, he ascribes to Him a divine nature. All this may have its place in the preparation for the faith, but is not itself the faith. The Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ Himself declared that He was the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and because we know it by the teaching of His Church. Such is the 'formal object' that is, the motive of supernatural faith. This is an intolerable insult to modern Judaism, the Judaism of rejection: rejection of the divinity of Christ, rejection of the Holy Trinity. It can tolerate that Christians should, on their own responsibility, ascribe a divine nature to the historical personage of Christ: it can be tolerated as a poetic myth, a symbolic hyperbole, a superstition. It can accept even more easily Christians who venerate Jesus and follow His moral teaching without regarding Him as God. It cannot accept that the divinity of Christ should be taught as a dogma, destructive of the dogmatic negation of which it is the standard-bearer and which is its essential foundation, as modern Judaism. It considers the preaching of dogma as anti-semitic aggression. The doctrine according to which the greater part of the Jewish people, by not recognizing the Messiah, has been unfaithful to its vocation, is resented as 'teaching contempt'.

The test of conversion

The Jewish negotiators of the secret accord of Strasbourg had understood that they could expect the Church progressively to give up preaching her Credo as a dogma, and thus practically abandon conversion - at any rate, the conversion of the Jews. In the article quoted, Lazare Landau lucidly examined the existence of the obstacle: 'the burning problem of the Christian mission amidst the Jewish community'. For he is not unaware that 'there is an imperative injunction in the sacred texts of the Church to make converts', and he collates ten references from Matthew, Mark and Luke to this effect. But he believed in a 'radical change of direction' on the part of the Church. Fr Congar had pledged to him that the declarations of the French bishops and that of Cardinal Etchegaray were 'inspired by the Holy Spirit'.

The essentially doctrinal, theological and religious nature of the demands of Judaism in respect of Christianity is under-estimated or goes unnoticed because, more often than not, Jewish pressure on the Church is expressed most conspicuously by historico-political recriminations over persecution. In substance: Christians, mainly Catholics, have always persecuted the Jews, to the point of provoking their attempted total extermination by Nazism, the final fruit of Christian Europe.(7)

Such is the perspective in which we are to understand, for example, the declaration by the new Grand Rabbi of France, Joseph Sitruk, on the eve of his assumption of office:

'Judaeo-Christian relations are more important for the goyim', [that is, non-Jews] 'because it is they who bear guilt towards us, and not the reverse.'(8)

In order that Christianity may no longer lie under the accusation of being responsible for all the anti-semitic persecutions and, particularly, for the Nazi-genocide, it must renounce its theology, that is, its dogmas. Otherwise, its teaching is a danger for humanity, with its absurd affirmations on the redemption, the resurrection of Jesus, etc. As Armand Abecassis explained in the Tribune juive of 13th to 19th October, 1989:

'It is not possible, without grave danger both for humanity and for Jews, to teach that God deliberately sent his son to die for men on the pretext that death was, metaphysically, the sole means of salvation for them …

The Carmel at Auschwitz is the final stage in a theology of the Church developed for the sole purpose of proving to the world that the true Israel is the Christian people (the new Israel!); that the 'New Covenant' professed in the 'New Testament' is the historical and spiritual flowering of the 'Old Covenant'; that the story of the Jewish people ended with Jesus, the Jew put to death on the Cross, because the Jesus resurrected three days later was the first Christian around whom the 'new people' of God thenceforward gather. For two thousand years, the vitality of the Jewish people, deaf to these absurd affirmations, and suffering from the theological anti-semitism of the established Church, seems an excellent illustration of the futility and inanity of the attempt by the Christians to bring back [the Jews] and deform the biblical message.'

In the 11th-17th September 1987 number of Tribune juive, the editor, Rabbi Jacquot Grunewald, gave a more qualified, moderate (in his eyes) and resolutely fearless expression to Jewish demands. In the past centuries, 'whether they were cruel, merciful or courageous, the conduct and thinking of the popes did not cease to be inspired by theological anti-Judaism'. No doubt they 'sometimes condemned anti-semitism', and Pius XI had 'courageous words in 1938, when Nazi anti-semitism was triumphant.' But it was only 'after Jules Isaac had shown, better than others, both the Christian responsibility in the Jewish persecutions and the absurdity of the charge of deicide made against the Jews, that the Church, gradually but fundamentally, modified her theological approach towards the Jewish peoples.' And hurrah for the French bishops who 'were advanced in their attitude by comparison with the Vatican's tardiness.' After the Second World War, when the Jews had brought to light 'the responsibility of the Church' in the Shoah, it was no longer 'acceptable for the Church to maintain the theological judgement which she had pronounced since the Middle Ages against the Jews and Judaism.' The fact that the Church then changed her theology is not enough, however, for Rabbi Grunewald. He does not accept that 'the Vatican should refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish State.' This refusal 'can be explained only by theological considerations: by the old considerations on the true Israel'. He concludes: 'Therein precisely lies the proof that the anti-Judaism of the Church has not ceased. As the last bastion of a rear-guard action, the non possumus with regard to Israel will remain the stigma which dishonours the Church.'

If you have quite followed the thoughts of Rabbi Grunewald, and if, moreover, you are aware to what extent what he calls 'the old considerations on the true Israel' are inseparable from faith in Jesus Christ, you will grasp that what 'dishonours the Church', in the eyes of modern Judaism, is believing in the divinity of Jesus.

This is hardly a discovery. Yet no one in the governing circles seems now to remember it.

Furthermore - did you not know? - Jesus Christ was not at all the founder of Christianity. A sound, historical revisionism has put paid to that legend, and believes that so-called 'Christianity' is really only 'Paulinism':

'To say that Jesus was the founder of Christianity would have surprised Jesus himself, this Jewish doctor who preached Jewish doctrine. Christianity was founded by Saul of Tarsus, who took the name of St. Paul'. (Paul Giniewski in Tribune juive of 14th-20th November, 1986).

The Church in expectation

I am very much afraid that, in the search for means of living at peace among one another, everyone, in the second half of the twentieth century, has taken the wrong road. Instead of attempting an impossible religious accord between representatives of the Christian religion and representatives of the Talmudic religion, we ought to have turned our attention (as we ought to do now) towards what is possible and necessary: the practical conditions for the coexistence of Jews and Christians, without persecutions or injustices, in the same temporal city. These conditions are not so widely accepted as people suppose, and they are probably not yet attained, since so many apprehensions and anxieties are being expressed in the Jewish press, so many angry voices are reverberating, and it has been thought necessary to go to the extent of the draconian restrictions which the law of 13th July 1990 brings to freedom of expression, which, in other matters, continues to be extolled as a sacred value. The situation is stable and calm only in appearance, and, once again, this appearance comes solely from that terrifying, general lack of attention to reality, which, like a curse, grips the socially-dominant classes and ideologies.

But since the course of these things is beyond our control, let us not try to imagine how we might deal with them.

I propose in this respect a much more discreet thought and action.

The great vulnerability of the Catholic Church at present, which her adversaries use and abuse, has manifold aspects. The one about which we can do something directly is not the least important: the Church is no longer in possession, but in expectation, of a universal catechism. For twenty years the Church has lived in a state of vacatio catechismi. She 'will have' one soon. One day. The episcopate and the Holy See are working on it. The previous catechism is no longer in force. It is despised, abolished and untraceable. It had to be republished in 1967 and 1969 by the review Itinéraires; and, since then, this modest, privately republished edition is the only one that can be found in stock. Or rather, it cannot be found even there, as the majority of booksellers have been induced not to let it be found there.(9)

The usefulness of bringing the literary presentation of catechisms up to date, in accordance with the evolution of modern languages, is not in dispute. But it could have been recalled that the Roman catechism exists and that it remained. in force, still obligatory as a norm, until the time when the new one, with modernized wording, appeared. The vacatio would have been avoided. This was manifestly not desired. All the pre-existent Catholic catechisms were withdrawn from circulation, and even prohibited morally, then by administrative edict. Such a repudiation cannot have been honest.

The Church must be in expectation, to be sure: in expectation of the return of Jesus Christ.

But not in expectation of the deposit of faith, which she must at all times preach to all nations: she already possesses it, she is its repository and she must at every moment deliver it to the human race.

Such is the case; and that is what happens. Whenever two or three baptized persons are gathered together in the name of Jesus, they are those on whom He depends to ask in His name for the Catholic catechism, and to accept the grace of faithfully keeping and faithfully transmitting it, come what may. ■


 1 M. Madiran makes reference here to his book L'Hérésie du XX Siècle one chapter of which describes the 'religion of St Avold' as expounded by the Bishop of Metz - Mgr Schmitt. M. Madiran explains that he is not maligning a canonized saint, as St "Avold" never existed. "Avold" was a name that arose from an error and is thus an appropriate name for this 'religion'. L'Hérésie du XX Siècle was published in 1968 by Nouvelles Editions Latines Paris.

 2 Summary in Itinéraires,, No.280, of February 1984 pp.1-14: 'The Rome-Moscow Agreement', followed by 'Technical notes'. ‘The Rome-Moscow Agreement’ was translated and appeared in Approaches No. 84, Ash Wednesday, 1984. This too has been posted on the Apropos website.

3 Account partially reproduced in Documentation catholique of 17th Nov 1968, col 2015 et seq. Cf Itinéraires, No.306, Sept/Oct 1986, pp 71-74. According to Lazare Landau in Tribune juive of 17th -23rd Jan.,1986, Jules Isaac had previously been received by Pius XII in 1949, the audience being obtained 'with the help of B'nai Brith, Vincent Auriol and Cletta Mayer.'
4 Weekly French-language newspaper published in Strasbourg and Paris and edited by Rabbi Jacquot Grunewald.

 5 See 'The Jewish Question in the Church', Itinéraires, No.301, March 1986, especially pp. 60-66. This too was translated and appeared in Approaches No 93-94, Our Lady Of Mount Carmel, 1986. It has also been posted on the Apropos website.

 6 Information juive, No.56, June 1986. On the particular question of a 'new doctrine of the Church;, see Jean Madiran. 'Une nouvelle dynastie', Itinéraires, No.304, June 1986.

7 Cf. for example: 'The Jews were massacred with a gratuitous hatred in a Europe, fed lavishly for thousands of years, by those whom we know, on a teaching of contempt.' (Henri Smolarski, Tribune juive, 1-7 Sept 1989).
8 Actualite juive, No.173 13th Sept. 1989.

9 The republication of the Catechism of the Council of Trent by Itinéraires as well as its edition adapted for children, the Catechism of St. Pius X, also by Itinéraires, are at present being reprinted by D.M.M. which is also the (re) publisher of the Short Catechism of St. Pius X. (Editions Dominique Martin Morin, 53290 Bouere; Tel. [This question of the catechism presupposes that errors regarding this question do not find their way into any new catechism - note by Editor, Apropos]


There are times when we can wonder at the thought processes of some of our fellow citizens.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013


In taking an account of the various web sites, news sources and blogs we find little to no coverage of a story the implications of which are so devastating, and so astounding, that unless some courage and backbone is shown will bring down upon us the anger of God such as we have never seen before.  That is not hyperbole; that is a warning. The story is this: a Catholic hospital in Ireland - yes, Ireland - will comply with a new law enacted by a despotic government and will murder unborn in children.

We need to let that sink in for a few minutes.

Thus far, no word has come from hierarchy or laity indicating open and brave defiance of such a law.  Some months ago this writer concluded with regret that the issue of abortion is becoming boring to Catholics and worse, acceptable.  The Irish, once the valiant fighters for the Faith who suffered unbelievable persecutions, are apparently going to sit silently by on this, at least as of this writing.  That is no doubt one of the vaunted "fruits of Vatican 2" we have been experiencing for a generation or two, which takes the form of the emasculation of the laity.  Are we merely sniping at that tragic Council again?  Or are we pointing out that that Council, which was preceded by a general weakening of the Faith in the decades after World War I, opened the floodgates to this onslaught against sanity and morality?  Yes we are saying that, while admitting that the Council was merely the opening of a wound that the Church had suffered several generations earlier.  We sometimes forget that all of the prime movers and shakers at the Council were appointed by the pre-Conciliar Popes; they didn't just suddenly spring forth from the loins of Zeus in 1962.

Our Catholic friends in Ireland need to be awakened now, both laity and hierarchy.  They need to be reminded that the silence from the pulpits on such matters is what brought them to this sorry state of affairs.  Once Ireland had great Bishops who warned, as recently as the 1970s, that allowing abortion into Ireland would bring a curse upon their country.  And they did indeed use that word, "curse".  They are now cursed beyond anything that could have been imagined forty years ago and that curse will continue to grow until days come when the devastations of Oliver Cromwell will seem as nothing in comparison.

A government of sheer, unmistakable evil has done this to the Irish who, so far, are not fighting like they once would have.  The world will watch their reaction and will act accordingly.  Cringing Cardinals here in America will watch, too, and if they see their brethren rolling over and playing dead in the face of a government every bit as foul as the totalitarian regimes of the last century they will shrug their shoulders and go along.  We have heard some of our Cardinals cry out against Obamacare, while at the same time making merry with the man who brought this upon us (he and, of course, the clowns in Congress of both political parties).  They talk of "fortnights of freedom" instead of the moral question involved.  Their running away from teaching Catholic faith and morals for many, many decades has now come back to haunt them with a vengeance.

In addition to praying for the land of Saints and Scholars let us get in contact with any friends or relatives we might have there and talk to them about the situation, offering them encouragement and any help that is possible.

What has come to pass in Dublin is a nightmare come true.  A Catholic hospital is now an active participant in the crime of the century.

Monday, October 7, 2013


Here is a rather remarkable statement.  Who said this?

"We are pursuing policies that put families and same-sex relationships in the same category, faith in God and that of Satan"

Vladimir Putin said that. 

Amazing, really.

He said some other notable things in the interview, an interview filled with purpose, with clarity and a definite sense of hope.

Link is here

Sunday, October 6, 2013


...So says Father Lombardi, Papal spokesman, in discussing the Pope's latest interview.

“This isn’t Denzinger,” he said, referring to the famous German collection of official church teaching, “and it’s not canon law.”

That's putting it mildly.

Friday, October 4, 2013


Just another day in hyperventilating Washington, DC.

Do these trigger happy groups of Keystone Cops ever use thought processes before shooting indiscriminately?

Is their MO now to shoot first and ask questions later?

Are they so hopped-up on government propaganda that they go into extreme panic mode when some poor woman accidentally hits a fence near the sacred White House?

Did these clowns imagine that the car was going to leap 6500 feet into the air and aim itself at the White House?

Are they hiring rhesus monkeys now and putting them in police togas and giving them loaded weapons?

In another comic moment, Congress, white house staff and the Supreme Oracles all dashed into hiding when the ruckus started.  But when the poor, frightened Congresscritters were all returned to their seats to continue devising new methods of plunder the head police chief came in and announced that they had killed the woman... which point (yes, this really happened) these great statesmen stood up and gave him a standing ovation.

What a stupid, idiotic, deadly farce.

[UPDATE 22 October 2013:   A good article worth reading.]


His Beatitude Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai has said it openly, and for this we must remain grateful to him.  His comments cuts through all the propaganda and political nonsense like a hot knife through butter.  Though he chooses his words with prudence and with care he is nevertheless forceful in his denunciations.

And he has backed up those words with actions.  While some high-ranking Churchmen sway and dance in Rio de Janiero Cardinal Rai has visited these war-shattered areas to offer solace and encouragement to the stricken Christians and others.

Please God the next conclave will look to the East.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...