 |
| When the husband of a church staffer objected to the behavior of Ski and Glende, he was hit with four lawsuits - for telling the truth, as Glende had to admit under oath. Glende blamed "a blog in Arkansas." The teachers made him a keynote speaker for his leadership. Hahaha. |
GJ - The following article could have been written with
WELS replacing
Jesuit -
mutatis mutandis.
Right is wrong and wrong is right? - Just check out their secret initiation rite, GA also known as HB (so they can deny GA still exists). No one is ever forgiven for objecting to GA. The same abuses are practiced at the prep and college levels. One effect is to produce conformists who do not think for themselves and have no trouble lying to people when convenient - or just for the fun of it.
Spying on each other?
Opus Dei brought that into the electronics age, but WELS practices that with great seriousness. WELS clergy and teachers consider everyone else's business their business, every parish their parish, every member their member. When I discussed Columbus, pastors would look around to see if anyone was listening. One DP acted friendly to me (typical GA behavior) and pounced on a pastor for being my FB friend. The target was not in his district or even his denomination.
Secret, unwritten rules? WELS pastors will casually say, afterwards, "We have a rule where..." The right people can break those rules, but the purpose is to make sure everyone is obedient, timid, and still on the plantation. For example, only classmates can sit together in chapel. Faculty do not sit with students. Those who annoy the other students are placed in Purgatory at the dining hall. Larry Olson was put in Purgatory - after ordination.
SP Schroeder tells people that anything he says to them must remain a secret. Then he feels free to slander someone, which is against the law when he is not in a supervisory relationship. He is not alone. The secrets make the Gollums feel very special.
In contrast, the SPs make sure they control all communications, especially
Christian News. John Brug was Herman Otten's manager for WELS news. Anything that might show WELS to be less than Paradise-on-Earth was spiked or buried on page 17.
No one is offended by Biblical doctrine in the ELS-LCMS-WELS periodicals. They are nothing more than PR drivel, and their actual readership is in the basement, even with Thrivent propping them up.
If clergy marriage is the answer to priestly shenanigans, why are WELS schools so devoted to promoting the gay lifestyle? Why does cross-dressing begin at the prep schools and continue through seminary and into congregational life? Just as the Jesuits are famous for their lavender leanings, so is WELS known for systematic promotion and reward of the same. If someone objects to an assault, he is not being brotherly. WELS gets even for that, and calls it discipline with no appeal.
 |
| Once I caught onto the Easter Egg hunts in Texas, they tried to hide the ads. I found the ads, too. |
The facts
in the following article are fully substantiated and are not intended to scare
anyone beyond their factual import. — The Editors
Jesuitism
is the offspring of the peculiar Catholicism of Spain, that was shaped by
centuries of Moorish rule and entirely cut off from the beneficial effects of
the Protestant Reformation. Unless one understands this proud, intransigent
Catholicism with its blind belief, fanatic intolerance, and contempt for
Christian morals, he will never understand the Jesuit order to which it gave
birth. As for Spain’s religious intolerance, one has only to think of the
Spanish Inquisition that continued into the last century. As to its moral
corruption, sufficient insight is given by a single fact recorded by the
historian, Gerald Brenan, in his book, The Spanish Labyrinth (P. 49).
“It was an established custom, permitted by the bishops, for
Spanish priests to have concubines. They wore a special dress and had special
rights and were called barraganas. When the Council of Trent forbade
this practice to continue, the Spanish clergy protested. And in fact they never
paid much attention to the prohibition, for they continue to have
‘housekeepers’ and ‘nieces’ to this day. Their parishioners, far from being
shocked, prefer them to live in concubinage, as otherwise they would not always
care to let their womenfolk confess to them.”
Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, was a Spaniard
to the marrow of his soul. Terrorized during an illness with fear of death, he
suddenly felt himself inspired to become the armed defender of the church who
would bludgeon its enemies into submission by fair means or foul. He demanded
the most servile obedience from his followers; they must obey sÃcut cadaver,
‘with the passivity of a corpse.’ Blind submission to the church even to a
point where it becomes irrational and immoral was likewise demanded. “Ignatius
gives it as a rule of orthodoxy to be ready to say that black is white, if the
Church says so.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, XV, 340.)
Speaking of Ignatius Loyola, Dr. John A. Mackay, of
Princeton declares: “His ideal as stated by himself, was to ‘rule in a
cemetery.’ When the world became transformed into a moral graveyard, the
Kingdom of God would have arrived. Towards that sepulchral goal the whole world
policy of the Jesuit Order was directed.”
In even stronger language the great thinker and historian
Carlyle says of Loyola: “There was in this Jesuit Ignatius an apotheosis of
falsity, a kind of subtle quintessence and deadly virus of lying, the like of
which has never been seen before. Measure it if you can. Men had served the
devil, and men had imperfectly served God, but to think that God could be
served more perfectly by taking the devil into partnership, this was the
novelty of St. Ignatius.”
If anyone thinks Carlyle was exaggerating he only needs to
read the present-day writings of the Jesuits, who keep repeating that ‘it is
allowed to do evil to prevent a greater evil.’
On these grounds of safeguarding the interests of their
church they justify, for instance, the Vatican concordats with Mussolini and
Hitler. Their former pupil, Pope Pius XI, openly stated that he “would make, a
deal with the Devil himself” to attain certain goals. The Jesuit practice that
“the end justifies the means” has become the accepted policy of the whole Roman
Catholic church.
The ruthless, militant organization that ex-soldier
Ignatius founded for the purpose of destroying Protestantism and reestablishing
the political Catholicism of the Middle Ages was essentially a dictatorship. It
is not surprising that Hitler openly admired it, especially its daring
intolerance, and based his Nazi system directly on it. The leader of this
so-called Society of Jesus is given the military title of General. The
Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says of him; “He holds in his hands the
whole administration, jurisdiction, and government. He appoints the Provincials
and all other officials. He can give dispensation from the rules just as he
sees fit. His power is absolute. He is to the Order what the Pope is to the
Church, the representative of God.”
In the Jesuit Order the will of the General is supreme.
The members under him must strip themselves of all personal conviction and the
slightest trace of individualism. He appoints the local superior of every house
of the Order and gives him direct orders. This crushing out of individuality
and conscience is and is meant to be a spiritual emasculation. The
Schaff-Herzog quotation, partly given in the preceding paragraph, puts it this
way:
“Indeed the cement which holds the whole fabric of the Jesuit
Order together is implicit obedience.” To the inferior the superior is Christ,
before whose commands he must cancel his own will, his own natural mode of
feeling. Every trace of individuality must be obliterated, unless the superior
chooses to develop and use it, for purposes of the Order."
The same point is made by the Encyclopaedia
Britannica (XV, 341) in demonstrating that the Jesuits are so many
“cultured mediocrities” or robots. It speaks of “the destructive process of
scooping out the will of the Jesuit novice to replace it with that of the
superior, as a watchmaker might fit a new movement in a case, and thereby
tending in most instances to annihilate those subtle qualities of individuality
and originality that are essential to genius. Men of the higher stamp will
either refuse to submit to the process and leave the Society, or run the danger
of coming forth from the mill with their finest qualities pulverized and
useless.”
This immoral annihilation of one’s personality and the
slavish obedience that follows become even more vicious in view of the fact
that this submission has no limits or standards except the will of the
superior. If an individual Jesuit remonstrates with a superior who commands him
to do something sinful, he is reminded that he has vowed blind obedience and
that it is not for him to decide whether a thing is right or wrong when he does
not know the full circumstances or even why the order is given. This perverting
of the subject’s conscience becomes all the easier, since he has sworn
obedience to the will of the superior who acts under secret rules that have
never been disclosed to the average Jesuit.
This subtle means of forcing Jesuit inferiors to do evil
to advance the power of the church was condemned by the famous Bishop of
Angelopolis, Mexico, in his well-known letter to Pope Innocent X:
“But among the Jesuits there are even some of the professed
members, i.e., those who have taken vows, who do not know the statutes,
privileges, and even the rules of the Society, although they are pledged to
observe them. Therefore they are not governed by their Superiors according to
the rules of the Church, but according to certain concealed statutes known by
the Superiors alone…”
The Jesuit system, however, is much too cynical to
trust itself to the mere obedience of its subjects. It functions principally
through an intricate system of ‘informers’ who spy on one another and report
their findings to the superior. In this way fear motivates those who might
otherwise relax at times from the rigid code of corpse-like obedience. All
Jesuits are made aware from the beginning of their novitiate of this system of
mutual spying. Repulsive as it is, it is no more repulsive than slavish
obedience. It is sold to new members as a means of attaining humility and
‘Christian self-annihilation’ for Christ’s sake. The Encyclopaedia
Britannica (XV, 340) refers to this system, when it says: “By a minute and
frequent system of official and private reports the General is informed of the
doings and progress of every member of the Society and everything that concerns
it throughout the world.”
It is not to be expected that within Jesuitism, the
most secret organization in the world, the average member would share its
esoteric doctrines. And the fact is that he doesn’t. After years of probation
the Jesuit takes his three final vows. Years later, of the many who make these
three vows, a small and highly select minority are allowed to take a fourth
vow. This inner circle is initiated into secrets of which the others know
nothing. A still more select circle is made up of ‘Provincials’ appointed by
the General. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (XV, 339) makes mention of the
two types of professed Jesuits:
“The highest class, who constitute the real core of the
Society, whence all its chief officers are taken, are the professed of four
vows. This grade… involves a probation of 31 years in the case of those who
have entered this novitiate at the earliest legal age. The number of these
select members is small in comparison to the whole Society.”
Provincials of the Jesuits make a point of not
appearing in the public eye. Best known of the four-vow Jesuits in the United
States are Fathers Daniel Lord, Robert I. Gannon, Coleman Nevils, F. X. Talbot,
M. J. Ahem, and last but not least the ace political intriguer, Boston-born
Edmund A. Walsh.
Throughout Europe the existence of “lay Jesuits” is a
matter of common knowledge among the better-educated classes. The membership of
such laymen in the Jesuit Order is kept in the deepest secrecy. They are
frequently prominent members of the political, legal, or financial world, but
no one has the slightest suspicion that they belong to the Jesuits or that such
a thing is even possible in this country. They are usually known, however, as
prominent Catholics, and, oftener than not, very articulate ones.
While forced to admit that there were lay Jesuits in the
earlier days, of their Order and that there could be some today, if the Society
so wished, the Jesuits deny that there are any. A so-called lay Jesuit or
Jesuit in voto is not necessarily unmarried, for his one vow is
obedience to the dictates of the Society; out of deference to the Jesuits’ distrust
of women, many lay Jesuits do not marry, however. Nor is the “lay Jesuit”
necessarily a layman. He may be a secular priest, like Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen,
and still be a Jesuit in voto or a “lay Jesuit” because he has sworn
obedience to the Society and obliges himself to confess regularly to a Jesuit
appointed for that purpose. Two essentials of a lay Jesuit are that he occupy a
key position in his profession, whatever it may, and that he adhere strictly to
the reactionary ideology of the Jesuits. Thus, for example, Supreme Court
Justice Frank Murphy, though a devout Catholic and a celibate like Senator
David I. (for Ignatius) Walsh, could not be a lay Jesuit because he is a
liberal who frequently has opposed Jesuit policies.
It can be said with the greatest likelihood that in the
United States the following are lay Jesuits: Father Charles E. Coughlin; Msgr.
Fulton J. Sheen; Senator David I. Walsh, head of the U. S. Senate Naval
Committee; William T. Walsh, author; Robert Murphy, ambassador of the U. S. Department
of State in Germany; Francis X. Woodlock, recently deceased financier and
leading investment broker for Jesuit interests in Wall Street. It is more than
probable that Louis F. Budenz, recently resigned editor of the
Daily Worker,
is a lay Jesuit who was “planted” in the Communist party. This is an old Jesuit
stratagem.
Regarding lay Jesuits, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica
(XV, 339) says, “There are clauses in the Jesuits’ constitutions which make the
creation of such a class perfectly feasible, if thought expedient.” In fact the
first General Congregation of the Jesuits readily admitted that laymen “may be
admitted into our Order, although not making their profession in our Society.”
The distinguished scholar, Saint Simon, in his Memoirs
(XII, 164) authoritatively stated:
“The Jesuits always have lay members in all the professions.
This is a positive fact. Doubtless Noyers, King Louis XIII’s secretary,
belonged to them, also many others. These ‘affiliates’ take the same vows as
the Jesuits so far as their position allows, i.e., the vow of absolute
obedience to the General and the superiors of the Order. They are to substitute
for the vows of poverty and chastity the service rendered and protection
afforded the Society, and especially unlimited submission to the superiors and
their Jesuit confessor. Politics thus come within the Jesuits’ scope through
the certain help of these secret allies.”
Chief among the Jesuit secrets are the policies, rules
and other doctrines that are known only to the highest of the initiate. What
the Jesuits have printed as “our constitutions and rules” are naturally only
what they want to be known. No one but top Jesuits have ever had access to the
original documents or the first drafts and editions of their constitutions. Nor
have these ever said, “These are our complete constitutions.” Even to their
members they give only a “Summary of the Constitutions” and “Common Rules”
which adhere together so loosely that copious omissions are more than evident.
It should also be noted that, although the Order has published countless
volumes on its history, it has never published even for its members the
complete minutes of even one of the 25 or more General Congregations that it
has held.
In fact in the Institutes of the Jesuit Order (II,
86) mention is made of the secret statutes of the Order which exist only in
manuscript form. Among the duties of the Socius of the Provincial it is
stated. “He must take care of the separate archives of the Province of the
Order, inasmuch as they contain manuscripts that are especially important for
the direction of the Province… the book which contains the unprinted
regulations by the Generals of the Order binding on the whole Society, and the
book which contains another kind of unprinted circulars of the Generals.”
Roman Catholic Bishop de Palafox, in the letter to Pope
Innocent X quoted above, says:
“What other Order has constitutions which are not allowed to
be seen, privileges which it conceals, and secret rules, and everything else
relating to the arrangement of the Order behind a curtain?”
A copy of the Monita Secreta or Secret
Instructions of the Jesuits was first published in 1612, in all probability
by the Polish ex-Jesuit Zahorowski. Since then, on the suppression of Jesuit
houses in mid-Europe, various copies have been found hidden in the rooms of
Jesuit superiors. The Jesuits naturally deny that the Monita Secreta are
authentic, as is to be expected, and say that the copies found hidden in their
houses prove nothing since they are only copies of Zahorowski’s work. They
build up their case on the grounds that these were not discovered until some
time after that work was published.
But there was one copy of the Monita Secreta found
hidden in a Jesuit superior’s room in Prague that in all probability was there
before Zahorowski gave his copy to the world. The evidence is so convincing
that the German historian Friedrich (Beitrage, p. 8) accepts it
without question. But other authorities in general are naively impressed by the
denial of the Jesuits and refuse to accept the Monita Secreta as genuine
until someone can invincibly prove that a copy existed previous to 1612.
The whole controversy is much ado about nothing. Actually
the Secret Instructions of the Jesuits are not at all startling. They
merely direct the Jesuits to do what everyone knows they have always done: play
up to the rich and powerful to get all they can from them in money or
influence. Everyone knows, for instance, how the Jesuits played up to the widow
of Catholic multi-millionaire Nicholas Brady. She gave them two million dollars
outright for their seminary in Maryland and, in spite of her second marriage,
she willed them her sumptuous Long Island estate. It seems to matter little
whether they do this through natural avariciousness or because they have been
directed by their secret rules.
History is so filled with the hypocrisies and treacheries
of the Jesuits that there is scarcely need of other proof of the existence of
such secret and immoral rules. The ex-Jesuit Count Paul von Hoensbroech in his
book, Fourteen Years a Jesuit, (II, 8), is willing to admit that
possibly the actual form of these rules is the work of Zarohowski, but he goes
on to say: “Of the genuineness of the contents, that is, that the Monita
Secreta contain regulations in harmony with the spirit of the Order… I am
as positive as of the existence of secret instructions of the Order.”
Of the supreme secrecy of the Jesuit Order in general
there can be no question, Equally certain is the fact that there would be no
need for such secrecy unless there was something that needed to be hid. Just
how secret the inner workings of the Order are cannot be more tellingly
expressed than in the words of the Spanish Jesuit Miranda, a Provincial of the
Order, who was made assistant to the General in Rome. In a letter written to a
friend and later published by Jesuit Father Ibanez in his report on the Jesuit
government in Paraguay, he says:
“Until I came to Rome, where I first obtained accurate
information about everything, I did not comprehend what our Society is. Its
government is a special study which not even the Provincials understand. Only
one who fills the office which I now occupy can even begin to understand it.”
Such is the secrecy of the Jesuit Order. It makes clear
how and why its members can be deceived into doing evil for the welfare of
their church. Just how evil the Order was can be seen in the bull of Pope
Clement XIY, Domimus ac Redemptor Noster, which decreed the abolishment
of the Order on July 21, 1773. It tells of their defiance of their printed
constitution and rules, of their political intrigues, of their stooping to
pagan practices, and of their ruination of souls.
The dire fact is that the suppressed Jesuit Order has
turned the tables on the Catholic church. Pope Clement XIV was apparently
poisoned. The Jesuits refused to dissolve the organization, and within a
generation forced the papacy to officially reestablish it. Since then,
especially since the pontificate of Pope Pius IX, the Jesuits have become
absolute masters of the Vatican and through it of the worldwide Roman Catholic
church, which they have now centralized in Rome to an extent that was never
before dreamed of. (cf. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, XV, 347, eleventh
edition.)
Now that the whole Catholic church has become a tool in
the hands of its Jesuit masters, what do they propose to do? They intend to
continue their struggle for world power with the Catholic religion as a front
for their ambitions. Their purpose as expressed by the Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia (II, 1167) is “the rehabilitation of medieval Catholicism and
the establishment of the reign of the Church over the State.” This means death
to democracy. Pierre van Paassen succinctly analyzes the aim of the Jesuit
Counter-Reformation, when he says in his book, Days of Our Years,
p. 539: “It sees decay and error and pestilence in everything that has
been gained since the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution,
including the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Bills of Rights, equal
suffrage, the nonsectarian school — in fact all democratic institutions.”
This fanatical hatred of the Jesuits for democracy is best
expressed in their own words. In the May 17, 1941, issue of their policy-setting
magazine America, they said:
“How we Catholics have loathed and despised this Lucifer
civilization… This civilization is now called democracy… Today American
Catholics are being asked to shed their blood for that particular kind of
secularist civilization which they have been heroically repudiating for four
centuries.”
It would be difficult to find a more appropriate ending
than the words of one of the founders of this country, the great and scholarly
John Adams, former President of the United States. In the Official Monticello
edition of The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (XV, 64) there is a letter
of Adams to Jefferson in which he said:
“My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it
is supported by unquestionable authorities, is very particular and very
horrible. Their restoration is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, perfidy,
despotism, death. I wish we were out of ‘danger of bigotry and Jesuitism.’”
[This article will be followed next month by another on
“Jesuit Influence on Morals and Education.”]
