Inquisitor and the Croat

St. Peter the Aleut was a native of Kodiak Island, who became the third martyr for the Orthodox Faith in America, (was) tortured in order to try to force (him) to accept the Roman Catholic faith, even though he confessed the Holy Orthodox Christian Faith. An eyewitness account stated that a Spanish priest ordered that Peter’s fingers be cut off, one joint at a time, eventually cutting his hands completely off, and then that he be disemboweled. Peter died of his torture, without ever renouncing the Orthodox Faith.

Holy St. Peter the Aleut, pray to God for us. (The Stories of the Saints of North America)

The Catholics will tell us that the above is not true. Well I don’t  know any different so the quote only serves to raise the question; what is Catholic doctrine and policy about such things?

The purported involvement of Pope Pius XII square in the middle of the holocaust in the Balkans is one of the great bloody scandals of WWII. The Catholic Church denies these things as well in one way or another, but I’m going with the book exposing them on this one. The atrocities in the Roman Catholic country of Croatia were perpetrated,

in the name and under the leadership of their own Catholic hierarchy, and with the full knowledge and approval of their “Holy See” … . The Roman Catholic Church in Croatia under the leadership of then Archbishop Stepinac during this period was not only complicit with the Nazis, but … their Catholic version of the Nazis, the “Ustashi”, were even more guilty than the Nazis, because they committed atrocities in God’s name, with the blessing of their priests, their bishops and the “Vicar of Christ” !

The Ustasha (were) the worst perpetrators of depraved killing in the (Croatian) Holocaust. The Independent State of Croatia was in fact a bi-ethnic murder regime sworn to exterminate the millions of Yugoslavians who were neither Catholic nor Muslim through their bi-ethnic killing machine, the Ustasha. Although Muslims were a minority in the NDH, the Bosniak Muslim faction and the Croatian Catholics jointly ruled and jointly murdered. The NDH’s fascist extremist president was staunch Hitler ally and former Jesuit seminarian, Ante Paveli (Pavelitch, Pavelic – installed in power there largely due to his long-standing contacts with Mussolini). His official title was Poglavnik, a Croatian word that approximates der Führer. The vice president was Muslim Džafer-beg Kulenovi, previously president of the Yugoslav Moslem Organization, a Bosniak nationalist organization. (The Catholic Church’s Holocaust in Croatia. There is much more. Click the link.)

Where do Catholics get these ideas? Are these anomalies or is it a philosophy consistent with Catholic doctrine? The philosophy seems to be a distortion that is rooted in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and is probably still flourishing under the surface in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

In the Wikipedia article on Thomism we find that, “In the encyclical Doctoris Angelici[1] Pope Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Thomas’ major theses”

Thomas Aquinas may not have been their source, but was certainly in the same current, and expresses well some of the ideas that led to these things. He taught that heretics should, “after the first and second admonition,” be killed. Also those that fall into heresy a second time should, upon their repentance and acceptance back into the church, be killed.

Summa Theologica Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.

For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says: “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.”

Summa Theologica Article 4. Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?

The Decretal Ad abolendam (De Haereticis, cap. ix) says that “those who are found to have relapsed into the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the secular tribunal.” Therefore they should not be received by the Church. …

In obedience to Our Lord’s institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matthew 5:44: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor’s good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternalsalvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternalsalvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others, both because they would infect others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written (Ecclesiastes 8:11): “For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear.”

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.

The distortion of Thomist ideas by significant elements in the Catholic Church has a greater footprint in history than just the fascist-style holocaust perpetrated by the Ustase government in Croatia under Ante Pavelic during the reign of Pope Pius XII.

Since Catholic Church policies were clearly being executed there with the “knowledge” of Pope Pius XII I would say “perpetrated by” Pope Pius XII, but perhaps he was being misled by his intermediaries: Secretariat of State Giovanni Montini and/or the Vatican nuncio to the Ustase regime, Ramiro Marcone, or there was another close advisor to the pope besides Montini.

Here is the history. According to B. Ilic, writing The Vatican Role in the Ustasha Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia in 2011,

The nature of the Ustasha NDH regime was well-known by the Vatican and by the US government as early as 1941. It was no secret that the Ustasha government sought to exterminate the entire Serbian, Jewish, and Roma populations of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. There was never any intention to deny or to hide this policy by the NDH government itself. …

The Vatican did not de jure recognize the NDH state but did send Giuseppe Ramiro Marcone as a delegate or emissary of the Holy See to the Zagreb Episcopaly on August 5, 1941. …

The Vatican also had unofficial diplomatic relations with the NDH government through contacts with Croat representatives of the NDH regime Nicola Rusinovic and Erwin Lobkowicz. “These arrangements were semi-secret”. But “by March 1942, despite the abundance of evidence pointing to mass killings, the Holy See was nevertheless drawing the Croatian representatives toward official relations.” With Germany and Italy poised to win the war in 1942, the Vatican was moving closer to establishing official diplomatic relations with the NDH. …

The three heads of the Vatican Secretariat of State, Domenico Tardini, Giovanni Battista Montini, later Pope Paul VI, and Luigi Maglione, knew of the atrocities in the NDH but did nothing to stop them …

So did the pope know? We know at least this:

Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, did absolutely nothing. In fact, “Pacelli was never anything but benevolent to the leaders and representatives of the Pavelic regime.” As late as 1943, he expressed to Lobkowicz “his pleasure at the personal letter he had received from our Poglavnik.” And Ante Pavelic was Pacelli’s Poglavnik or Fuehrer in the NDH. Pacelli was not only Hitler’s Pope. He was also Pavelic’s Pope. (The Vatican Role…)

Could he still, as late as 1943, have been ignorant of the atrocities committed under his Poglavnik? Can we accuse him merely of incompetence? It seems unlikely.

What did Pope Pius know about the Ustasha? In 1939, “Pacelli had warmly endorsed Croat nationalism and confirmed the Ustashe perception of history” according to Cornwell …

Cornwell wrote that the nature of the Ustasha regime was well-known to the Vatican from the beginning:

“From the outset, the public acts and statements concerning ethnic cleansing and the anti-Semitic programs were well-known to the Catholic episcopate and Catholic Action… These racist and anti-Semitic programs were therefore also known by the Holy See, and thus by Pacelli, at the point when he greeted Pavelic at the Vatican. These acts were known, moreover, at the very point when clandestine diplomatic links were being forged between Croatia and the Holy See.”

On May 18, 1941, Pavelic met Pope Pius XII at the Vatican in what Cornwell described as “a ‘devotional’ audience” with the Pope. At this meeting, the Vatican de facto recognized the so-called Independent State of Croatia …

What did the Vatican know and when? The Vatican knew that Ante Pavelic was “a totalitarian dictator”, a fanatical Croat ultra-nationalist zealot and Roman Catholic who was sponsored and installed in power by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. They knew Pavelic was a hardcore fascist who supported and endorsed Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. They knew about the anti-Serbian, anti-Jewish, and anti-Roma laws that the NDH had passed. They knew Pavelic was committed to the policy of forceful conversions of Orthodox Serbs to Roman Catholicism. Moreover, the Vatican knew that the NDH was a Nazi puppet state created by Nazi Germany that was under German military occupation and control. …

Pope Pius XII later exiled Montini from the Vatican for either collaborating with the communists or being a Satanist, or both. But the communists were the sworn enemy of the facists. This doesn’t help or hurt the case for the pope vis a vis the Ustase. As for Montini, if he was collaborating with communists it weakens the argument that he supported the Ustase, but since he was playing at least two sides of the table perhaps he was playing three. These events at least show the level of intrigue that those involved were dealing with. One thing can certainly be said. There was a cell of Catholic clergy in Croatia itself under Archbishop Stepinac that was in full support of the holocaust being perpetrated there; and it had insinuated itself into the Vatican at the highest levels.

It is not just that the pope may have had blood on his hands, but that if he was culpable, then he espoused and supported a terrible heresy. And it is one that is with us, still. Thirty years later on another continent, we see a Catholic/Ustase alliance erupting again. It is not surprising that this would be Argentina, since following WWII both Nazis and Ustasa fled and were harboured there. Pavelic himself had been shuttled there after the war by the Vatican’s “Ratline”, and served as security advisor to Argentine dictator Juan Peron. Thus began an ongoing Ustase movement there that has persisted. (Ante The website is dead but info can be accessed using the archive service WayBackMachine. For the likely reason the website is dead, see Vatican Behind Terrorism)

So thirty years later, according to a leading investigate journalist in Argentina, Horacio Verbitzky,

Argentina between 1976 and 1983 was wracked by a “dirty war” in which successive military regimes hunted down, tortured and “disappeared” tens of thousands of citizens. (The) “disappeared” numbered in all around 30,000. …

Cardinal Antonio Caggiano and his secretary Bishop Emilio Grasselli worked together (during) the two decades when Argentina’s defining tragedy was (being) prepared.

The Catholic church’s complicity in torture and murder in Argentina should be no surprise; it had, after all, long precedents in extreme doctrines that came to Argentina (and elsewhere in Latin America) from the far right in France. …

Elements of the Catholic church … had long taken an interest in “counter-terrorism”. In 1958, an advance party of La Cité Catholique arrived in Argentina. This was an offshoot of the French Catholic monarchist movement known as L’Action Française, created in 1889 by Charles Maurras, the brilliant French philosopher and later apologist for Fascism. La Cité Catholique brought a doctrine of counter-revolutionary warfare and torture, justified as part of Thomist dogmatism.

Jean Ousset, Maurras’s private secretary, established La Cité Catholique in 1946. (One of its members), Roger Trinquier, theorised on the use of torture in Modern Warfare, a bible for its followers. Another of Ousset’s recruits was the chief French expert in psychological warfare – Colonel Jean Gardes. Between them they developed a new concept, that of subversion. This conceived a protean, quintessential enemy … seen as a force trying to subvert Christian order, natural law, or the Creator’s plan. For this reason, Ousset states that “the revolutionary apparatus is ideological before it is political, and political before it is military”. …

When the torture that French paratroopers used in Algeria during the bloody war of 1954-62 aroused protests … Louis Delarue, wrote … “If, in the general interest, the law allows a murderer to be killed, why should it be seen as monstrous to submit (him) to an interrogation which might be painful, but whose only object is, thanks to the revelations he may make about his accomplices and leaders, to protect the innocent? Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures”.

As success in the Algerian war gradually slipped away from the crusaders, Ousset decided to create branches of La Cité Catholique in other parts of the world. The first of these was in Buenos Aires in 1958 (by) members … of the (French) clandestine Organisation of a Secret Army (OAS) … The OAS (failed in France, and their) chaplain, Georges Grasset, organised the flight of many members of the organisation along a route which led from Paris to Madrid and finally to Buenos Aires. Grasset himself arrived in 1962 to take charge of the Argentine branch. … several of the OAS leaders managed to find refuge abroad, particularly in Argentina … .

Jean Gardes reached Argentina in 1963. … In March 1963, a naval lieutenant commander called Roussillon offered Gardes a deal: he would arrange Argentine government protection …; in exchange, he would deliver a series of lectures in the Navy Mechanics School on the counter-subversive techniques developed in France’s colonial wars. …

Soon after Gardes met Roussillon, the cadets at the Navy Mechanics School were also introduced to the world of counter-revolutionary warfare. In one of their courses they were shown the film The Battle of Algiers, an Italian-Algerian co-production made by the communist director Gillo Pontecorvo with the intention of exposing the methods used in Algeria by the French colonial army.

The film was subsequently used in counter-insurgency classes in Argentina and the United States to teach those same methods. The naval chaplain introduced the film and added a commentary from the religious point of view. Thirty-five years later, two of the cadets described the experience to Marie-Monique Robin:

Did the chaplain justify the methods used in The Battle of Algiers?
Anibal Acosta: Absolutely.
Including torture?
Julio César Urien: Yes. Torture was seen not as a moral problem but as a weapon.
Anibal Acosta: Part of the Catholic hierarchy supported this kind of practice. They showed us that film to prepare us for a kind of war very different from the regular war we had entered the Navy School for. They were preparing us for police missions against the civilian population, who became our new enemy. … (there’s more)

It should be noted that it was in June of the year 1963 that former WWII Vatican Secretariat of State, Giovanni Montini, was voted Pope. And eight days later, according to Malachi Martin, in his book Windswept House, a ceremony enthroning the “Fallen Archangel Lucifer was effected within the Roman  Catholic Citadel”
(Read more).

Taking the name Pope Paul VI, Montini became the first pope to serve the post-Vatican II Church. Apparently a coalition representing either the group that in the 1940s and 50s had been growing as an insurgent fascist cancer, or a communist infiltration into the Catholic Church, or both, alongside a Luciferian cult had by this time become strong enough to take over the Catholic Church at large. Montini, who as Secretariat of State would have been a Vatican liaison with the Ustase in Croatia, and who was later exiled from the Vatican as a communist collaborator and/or possibly a Satanist by Pope Pius XII, was in 1963 elected as Pope!

The United States has not been immune to the Ustase movement.

One of the founders of the CIA was “Wild” Bill Donovan, an Irish Roman Catholic (known as the “Father of American Intelligence”). … And if you get Anthony K. Brown’s The Last Hero, it’s on Wild Bill Donovan. He is in the Vatican at the end of his life, in a picture, walking in the Vatican to receive one of the highest medals from the Pope, for a “lifetime” of intelligence service to the Vatican. … Well, the Jesuits had brought in all of their top Nazi SS soldiers into the CIA … (The Black Pope)

Cut to the present. As I read along learning about all this, the image of the U.S. military and its shadowy black ops type contractors “making the world safe for democracy” in the middle east begins to emerge. I see that their policies on the “war on terror” are also associated with this distorted Thomism. Then  suddenly I see that the theology is alive and well today in a bigger way. Police, quasi-police, military, and contracted third-parties within the United States are being prepared to wage this kind of war on United States citizens, and a coup is about to take place.

And they must save us from what?

The first edition of Le Marxisme-leninisme to be published outside France appeared in Buenos Aires (1961) … with a prologue written by Cardinal Caggiano … .

Marxism, continues Caggiano, is born of the negation of Christ and his Church, “put into practice by the Revolution”. He affirms that Ousset’s book is a training tool for the “fight to the death” to which “all the peoples of the western world, America and those in Asia who are still resisting, are in grave, imminent danger of falling victim”.

Will the U.S. president become the Pope’s Poglavnik? Well he won’t unless he and Bergoglio (Pope Francis) are double agents themselves, because both of them seem more the communist than the ustasa. Bergoglio, while serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires in the 1990s said that, “the Argentine Catholic Church needed ‘to put on garments of public penance for the sins committed during the years of the dictatorship’ in the 1970s, the years known as the Dirty War.” (Pope Francis)

Of course communism is not the enemy anymore, and those that desire dictatorship don’t seem to care who the enemy is as long as there is one. Now we must suffer police state powers in order to fight a “war on terror”. Bergoglio being from Argentina gives one pause, since it was for so long a center for Catholic experimentation with Ustase principles. Whether the experiment comes down on the side of Ustase or Communist or both, does his election Pope mean this ring of power is about to go world-wide? Will this pope fulfill the Malachy prophecy of the black pope as the final pope? (Also see Patron Saint becomes Pope?) Is this the fruit of the illuminists, producing their false priest to endorse their antichrist?

Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s