The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

by Michael Hoffman

  65 New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit. pp. 340-341.

  66 Frederick M. Jones, C.S.s.R., Alphonsus De Liguori: Saint of Bourbon Naples (1999), p. 274.

  67 Meyrick, op. cit., pp. 37-38.

  68 Salm. de 4. praec. n. 130.

  69 R.P. Blakeney, Saint Alphonsus Liguori: Extracts Translated from the Moral Theology, (1852), p. 183. The Latin language being more familiar to the intelligentsia of the nineteenth century than in our time, Rev. Blakeney proceeded to publish on each page, Liguori’s original Latin text next to Blakeney’s English translation. Had Blakeney tampered with Liguori’s words it would have been apparent to scholarly readers, and the Church of Rome would have had grounds to cry foul. No objection from any quarter was raised regarding the veracity of his translation.

  70 Blakeney, ibid. pp. 184-185.

  71 Liguori distinguishes between “pure” and “non-pure” mental reservation (“restriction”), as follows: “The condemnation passed by the pontiff (Innocent XI) on mental restriction is rightly to be understood of restriction purely and strictly taken, for that alone ought to be called true mental restriction which takes place solely in the mind, and there remains concealed and can by no means be discovered from outward circumstances.” (Blakeney, op. cit., pp. 5 and 6).

  72 Blakeney, p. 13.

  73 Blakeney, p. 15.

  74 Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1865), founded The Dublin Review in 1836. Cf. Dom Paschal Scotti, “English Catholicism and the Dublin Review,” in Out of Due Time: Wilfrid Ward and the Dublin Review (2006). Ward was Wiseman’s biographer (The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman [1897]).

  75 “St. Alphonsus and the Christian Remembrancer” in The Dublin Review, December, 1854, collected in The Dublin Review Volume 37 (London: Thomas Richardson, 1854), pp. 391-392.

  76 Ibid., p. 393.

  77 Ibid., p. 394.

  78 Blakeney, pp. 22-24.

  79 During the time of the faithful Catholic Church, Aquinas ruled that papal infallibility is not a doctrine that can command the dogmatic assent of Catholics. It has only the standing of a pious belief: “Since, as Thomas (Aquinas) says, no damnable error can exist in the Church and since it would be a damnable error for the faithful to honor a saint in hell, therefore no canonized saint can be in hell…Thomas articulated, for the first time, the infallibility of the papacy in the glorification of the saints. For him, though, the definition of dogma is a very strict business. Since nothing without at least its seed in the scriptures can be an article of faith, Thomas would not call infallibility in canonization in itself a dogma. He makes a rather fine distinction.since it cannot be absolutely derived from the scriptures, the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope in canonization is a matter of pious belief only.” Donald S. Prudlo, Certain Sainthood: Canonization and the Origins of Papal Infallibility (2015), pp. 128-129.

  80 At a meeting of the Hell-Fire Club, Robert Vansittart (1728-1789), Regius Professor of Law at Oxford University, presented with great pomp, a baboon, “to which Sir Francis Dashwood was accustomed to administer the eucharist at their meetings.” (Sidney Lee, Dictionary of National Biography [1909], vol. xx, p. 145). The Hell-Fire club enshrined mockery of God as among the most potent of Satanic acts. This cabal was heir to the conspirators who had installed pornographic “art” in the Sistine Chapel where the Mass was offered; and to the legacy of the Franciscan priest Francois Rabelais’s books, Gargantua (1535) and Pantagruel (1532). Rabelais mocked Christ on the Cross when Jesus called out, “I thirst,” by depicting a drunk in Gargantua saying the same thing. (“Thelema,” the utopian “abbey” in Rabelais’s Gargantua, [cf. ch. 55], which allegedly has only one rule, “Do what thou wilt,” is a signature ideological meme of the post-Renaissance western secret societies). In our Revelation of the Method era, ridicule of Jesus is freely performed in public: in movies, television, theater and “art” exhibitions.

  81 Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth (1995), pp. 96-98.

  82 Shapin, op. cit., p. 100.

  83 Cf. ch. 13 herein, as well as Peter Tyrrell, Founded on Fear: The Hidden History of a Childhood with the Christian Brothers, Diarmuid Whelan, ed. (Irish Academic Press, 2006).

  84 Blakeney, op. cit., pp. 184-186.

  85 Frederick Meyrick, Moral Theology of the Church of Rome No. III: S. Alfonso de’ Liguori’s Theory of Theft (London, 1855), p. 11.

  86 Ibid. For a discussion of the correct understanding of Christ’s meaning in the “Parable of the Unjust Steward,” and His teaching concerning the “Mammon of Unrighteousness,” cf. this writer’s Usury in Christendom, pp. 53-58.

  87 Meyrick, Liguori’s Theory of Theft, pp. 38-40.

  88 Praxis Confessarii, Cap. ii. 44, emphasis supplied.

  89 Cicero’s Orations Against Gaius Verres, Actionis Secundae: De Praetura Urbana.

  90 In his Oration, Cicero’s case against Verres for extortion, embezzlement, violation of human rights and impiety, represents an intrepid prosecution of a powerful politician who possessed a network of dangerously influential cronies in the judiciary and senate. As the charge of impiety shows, Cicero was a follower of the traditional religion, yet he was also an enemy of criminal politics. On the strength of the truth of Cicero’s oratory alone, Verres fled Rome in disgrace.

  91 Meyrick, “St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori’s ‘Glories of Mary,” Christian Remembrancer, October, 1855, in The Christian Remembrancer, Vol. 30 (London, 1855), pp. 417-467.

  92 The Glories of Mary Translated from the Italian of St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori by A Father of the Same Congregation (Redemptorist Fathers, 1852), pp. 188-189; 190-191.

  93 Jean-Marie Guenois: http://blog.lefigaro.fr/religioblog/2010/04/le-poids-dune-larme.html?xtor=RSS-59 (April 22, 2010). “Castrillon pressured Bishop Manuel Moreno, who was bishop of Tucson, Arizona from 1982-2003, to allow a priest sex abuser to take a pension and work outside the diocese. Fr Robert Trupia ‘sexually abused dozens of minor boys’ before he was defrocked in 2004, according to documents in a civil case.” Jason Berry, National Catholic Reporter, April 22, 2010.

  94 Acts 18: 4-6; 28. Ronald Knox translation.

  95 The Remnant (“A National Catholic Bi-Weekly based in St. Paul, Minnesota”), May 20, 2014, pp. 1 and 8.

  96 Human Life in Our Day: A Collective Pastoral Letter of the American Hierarchy (Washington D.C: United States Catholic Conference, 1968).

  97 John T. Noonan Jr., Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, p. 320.

  98 Theologia moralis 1: I: tr. II, c. IV, n. 201.

  99 Coitus Interruptus = the sin of Onan (onanism); always proscribed by the Catholic Church prior to theologians such as Liguori.

  100 Mark MacGuigan, Abortion, Conscience and Democracy (1994), p. 30.

  101 Liguori, “Opera Moralia” IV, Book 1, numbers 4 and 5 in Theologia Moralis (Graz, 1954); and Robert Obach, The Catholic Church on Marital Intercourse, (2009), p. 115.

  102 For more on Gezara shava, cf. Judaism Discovered, pp. 170-171.

  Chapter XIII

  Ecclesiastical Sodomy and its Root

  “…the history of the church has shown this vice to be a peculiarly clerical ‘contagion…” 1

  Rome’s reliance on secrecy has been nearly total. Together with clericalism it is the engine of its pandemic plague of child molestation. Secrecy confers on clerics—who are revered as persons possessed of sacred faculties (priesthood) and miraculous powers (transubstantiation)—power over laymen and their children. As Richard Seymour has written, “I don’t accept the explanations of child rape within the Catholic church which attribute it to Catholic practices producing sexual repression—as if were priests allowed to marry, they would not be tempted to abuse boys from the laity… I doubt that it (celibacy) produces predatory child rapists. The rape of children typically takes place in institutions and situations where adults have too much unaccountable power over children.”

  From whence does this immunity, this freedom from accountability ar
ise? The founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius of Loyola, wrote, “Rules for Thinking with the Church.” These appear in his Spiritual Exercises of 1548, which remain in use around the world. Loyola’s “Rule 10” counsels secrecy with regard to sins and crimes perpetrated by clerics:

  “To be eager to commend the decrees, mandates, traditions, rites and customs of the Fathers in the Faith or our superiors. As to their conduct; although there may not always be the uprightness of conduct that there ought to be, yet to attack or revile them in private or in public tends to scandal and disorder. Such attacks set the people against their princes and pastors; we must avoid such reproaches and never attack superiors before inferiors.”

  “Never attack superiors before inferiors.” There has seldom been a more pithy summation of the occult command system.

  This Jesuit clericalism permitted molesters of children who were priests, bishops or cardinals to be protected from exposure in front of “inferiors” (the laity). The prime mandate is to protect ““princes and pastors” from being “attacked.” Their victims are not even mentioned. This was taught in “the good old traditional Church” in 1548, not 1968.

  Beginning in the 1990s we learned of widespread molestations of children by priests and monks of the Church of Rome, facilitated by bishops, cardinals and popes such as “Saint” John-Paul II, for the main purpose of protecting Rome’s institutional reputation and global financial operations, as well as the “sacred person” of individual priests who are taught in traditional seminaries the Kabbalistic heresy that the souls of priests are of a higher order than that of the laity, contravening the anti-Kabbalist teaching of Jesus Christ (Matthew 20:24-26).

  The laity who believe that they are of a lower order of humanity compared with the ordained priest, embrace clericalism, deferring to priests in the craven manner observed in many Latino and Oriental nations, as well as among the post-modernist churchlings termed (ironically and falsely) “traditional Catholics.” This deference has been a contributing factor in the virulence of criminal child molestation: as “Saint” Ignatius of Loyola stipulated, “Father” must be protected at all costs, including suppression of police and media investigations. Here we observe parallels with rabbinic doctrine concerning informants. In Orthodox Judaism, those who turn a molesterrabbi over to the police are “mosers” (an informer, denunciator; synonyms are “masor, mesirah”). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), “Nothing was more severely punished by the Jews…the sages of the Talmud compared the ‘moser’ to a serpent.”

  The systematic molestation of children by priests occurred at least nine hundred years before the Second Vatican Council. The most stirring protest and exposé of homosexual predators in clerical ranks was registered by a medieval Benedictine monk and saint, Peter Damian (1007-1072), in his Letter XXXI, Liber Gomorrhianus (“Book of Gomorrah”), addressed to Pope Leo IX in 1049,2 wherein he refers to “improper leniency on the part of prelates” toward sodomite Catholic priests. Later it was suppressed: “He wrote a scathing tract against homosexual practices that Pope Alexander II (1061-1073) discretely locked up.” 3

  St. Peter Damian had long served as prior of the hermitage of Fonte Avellana near Gubbio, while Leo had been bishop of Toul for about two decades before his election to the papacy early in 1049. This pope was a sleuth in matters of clerical sexual corruption, outlining in his biography of St. Romuald of Revenna written circa 1042, how homosexual priests and monks intimidated other clerics from exposing them by claiming the accusers were also guilty of the sin, and bringing trumped up charges against them.

  According to St. Peter Damian, St. Romuald “himself used to say that he knew that this kind of thing went on in the hermitage he had just left…” 4 The uncensored edition of St. Peter’s singular Latin text is in print in an accurate English translation by Owen Blum. 5 Pierre S. Payer assesses its rarity as “an indispensable work…the only extended, serious treatment of the subject in the formative period of the Christian West.” 6

  St. Peter Damian did not address this sin against nature as a theoretical exercise. He well understood that celibate males living in close proximity and isolated must be vigilant. It would be wrong to say that by their living circumstances alone they are “prone” to sodomy, as some Protestants assert in intemperate agitation against “monkery” (monastic life), which are in fact indirect aspersions on Christ and the Apostle Paul and other holy persons who took upon themselves the honorable vocation of a single, unmarried life. It cannot be said that the condition among Christian brethren of celibate group life is ipso facto homo-erotic or homosexual. However, complacency is the other extreme failing in assessing this state in life, and where a “Yes, Your Lordship!” hierarchy of inferiors/superiors is in place, together with clerical secrecy, there are always grounds for concern and watchfulness without which, “the wantonness of the foul impurity” will “spread unpunished” unless “repelled by proper repressive action of apostolic severity…” 7

  Writing in the eleventh century, St. Peter Damian, in line with Biblical, Apostolic and Patristic doctrine stated: 1. Definition: Clerical sodomites are members of a “Satanic tyranny.”

  2. Prevalence: “the cancer of sodomy is, in fact, spreading through the clergy like a savage beast…raging with shameless abandon through the flock of Christ.” St. Peter understood that it was so virulent in the eleventh century that:

  “Unless immediate effort be exerted by the Apostolic See, there is little doubt that, even if one wished to curb this unbridled evil, he could not check the momentum of its progress.” 8

  St. Peter was writing in a conservative age when there was no “gay” rights movement, no pornography industry and no doctrinal dilution of the ancient Biblical law concerning the sin of Sodom, and yet sodomy among the clergy was “raging with shameless abandon through the flock.” Since this was an epidemic in the Middle Ages, an age that was exponentially light years ahead of our time in terms of recognizing and enforcing right-and-wrong, it is not far off the mark to perceive that where special powers and immunities are granted to clerics within a milieu of secrecy, sodomy among single, unmarried men living in close quarters is a constant threat. St. Peter writes of a priest who “known to have committed this sin with eight or ten equally foul companions is still permitted to continue in his rank.” 9

  One section of St. Peter Damian’s Letter 31 is devoted to “Bishops who practice impure acts with their spiritual sons.” He writes, “Who can expect the flock to prosper when its shepherd has sunk so deep into the bowels of the devil? What man will continue to be under his authority…?”

  In the 21st century we have many such bishops in the Church of Rome. Because of clerical secrecy we do not know who among them are active practitioners of sodomy, but we know who among the hierarchy are recruiters for the seducers. A few examples:

  • Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich who, when Bishop of Spokane, Washington permitted homosexual dances held by the “gay” students’ club in Cataldo Hall on the campus of Jesuit Gonzaga University. (Cupich was elevated to the rank of cardinal by Pope Francis in November, 2016).

  • Cardinal Godfried Danneels who, in 2013 referred to the “marriage” of sodomites as a “positive development.” Cardinal Danneels was recorded urging a 13-year-old male victim of sexual abuse at the hands of his friend and colleague Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, not to go to the police.

  • Cardinal Timothy Michael Dolan, the archbishop of New York, who led the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day parade as grand marshal after praising as a “wise one” the parade organizers’ decision to allow right-to-sodomy groups to march in the event.

  • Archbishop Bruno Forte, of the diocese of Chieti-Vasto, Italy, who drafted the homosexuality section of the midterm report of the 2014 Synod on the Family that spoke of “accepting and valuing [‘gay’] sexual orientation.” When questioned about his declaration, Archbishop Forte stated that sexually active homosexuals have “rights that should be protected,” calling unions of sodomites an “issue
of respect,” and stating: “…connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.” (Relatio post disceptationem, Oct. 13, 2014).

  • Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the dean of the Vatican’s College of Cardinals, attempted to halt investigations into sex crimes committed by Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the wealthy founder of the Legionaries of Christ.

  • Cardinal Raymundo Damasceno Assis, the archbishop of Aparecida, Brazil, and president of Brazil’s National Conference of Bishops, who praised the “softer and tolerant rhetoric of Francis, especially regarding homosexuality.”

  • Pope Francis, the “Vicar of Christ,” on earth stated, concerning homosexuality, “Who am I to judge?” (“Pope Says He Will Not Judge Gay Priests,” NY Times [online], July 29, 2013). Yet, on January 20, 2017 in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais, he was asked, “Trump is just now being sworn in as president of the United States…What do you make of it?” Francis answered, “We will see what he does and will judge accordingly.” 10

  • Cardinal Desmond Connell (1926-2017) was educated by the Jesuits at Belvedere College in Dublin and attended Clonliffe College, Dublin’s diocesan seminary. He was ordained in 1951 and earned a doctorate in philosophy at University College, Dublin.

  Connell became a professor of general metaphysics and dean of the philosophy faculty there. Pope “Saint” John-Paul II appointed the “conservative Catholic scholar” Archbishop of Dublin in 1988.

  Connell was a facilitator of child molestation in his archdiocese. The crimes first began to emerge after the Rev. Brendan Smyth, a Northern Irish priest, was convicted of child sex abuse in 1994. The next year Archbishop Connell denied that the archdiocese had paid compensation to victims of abuse by its priests. But in 1998, it emerged that he had quietly lent archdiocesan money to an abusive priest, the Rev. Ivan Payne, who then paid an abuse survivor, Andrew Madden. Three years later Pope “Saint” John Paul II elevated Connell to the rank of Cardinal.