Infiltration of the Church – Conspiracy theory?editor
One commentator on YouTube writes: “I have no intention of leaving the Catholic Church, I go to Mass and Adoration weekly. I am staying close to Jesus. I pray for the Church….but, God help these evil people trying to bring her down. I sincerely hope they repent before it is too late.”
One of our readers told me quite some time ago now, that it was Taylor Marshall’s “Infiltration” that really opened her eyes to the crisis-cum-apostasy in the Church today and helped her to better understand our newsletter reports. I’ve not read it. Should I? Have you read it? Your thoughts…
That was a very useful short conversation.
I have no trouble believing there’s been infiltration. Bella Dodd, the former Communist, revealed this years ago and the young men she planted in the Church will now be in high office, those still alive.
The one thing about that that puzzles me is why did Bishop Fulton Sheen, who brought her into the Church, discourage her from revealing it? He is one of my heroes, so I’d be devastated if he was part of the infiltration. I tend to think it’s because he was alive at the time when it was thought more important to hide scandals than to expose them. I hope that’s all it was, not that I think that’s right.
I am in complete accord with your excellent remarks. Ultimately these individuals serve Satan and not Christ in their Luciferian pride they think that they can conform the Church to the world and reject all that pertains to her.
In their blindness and arrogance they fail to truly understand that the Church is Divine in its origin. It ultimately will triumph irrespective of all the evil and filth which is polluting her at the moment.
She is Our Blessed Saviours bride and he will never abandon her neither can the gates of Hell destroy or triumph over her.
Our Lord is King and Sovereign over all Creation including his Church.
I agree, both that it’s a mistake to cover up scandal although I hope that was Sheen’s reasoning in telling Bella Dodd to keep quiet about the infiltration of Communists into the American seminaries, and also, I wholly agree with Michael that Christ will never abandon the Church and we need to keep faith. That is SO important in these turbulent times. The infiltrators will not succeed in their evil mission, that’s for certain.
A friend of mine got it, and it’s been sitting on my bookshelf for a while, in a pile of dozens of books waiting to be read. I’m not a great fan of Taylor Marshall – I’ve seen a couple of his videos. I think I haven’t leapt on it because I’ve read so many similar books before, from classics like “The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber” and “Iota Unum” (which is an absolute must for any Catholic – if you can only get one book, let it be that one) right up to modern day works like “The Great Facade”, and while some of the modern day books are excellent for people who are only just waking up to the problems, if you already have a broad knowledge of the issues, I think that books like this can be superfluous and even dispiriting. While being fully aware of the problems in the Church, I prefer spiritual books (preferably written by canonised saints who haven’t got a commercial interest in pushing an apostolate) that are uplifting and help me to try and become a saint. Such books are always going to be in the best interest of the Church and souls.
You are completely right – the best kind of reading for us, especially at this time of crisis, is proper spiritual reading, preferably writings of the saints. I am never attracted to modern spiritual books, when I go into a religious bookshop – they lack depth, it’s like reading something an Agony Aunt might write in a tabloid newspaper, LOL!
The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber and Iota Unum – spot on! To which I would add Michael Davies, Pope John’s Council (Volume 2) and Pope Paul’s New Mass (Volume 3) – they’re the only volumes I have, and I have them thanks to the generosity of a reader in England who sent them to me some years back. It was because of his kindness that I felt compelled to post a notice in the newsletter asking readers NOT to send me books – I have limited storage – so he took the hint thereafter. They are a really excellent resource though. That reader is now deceased, RIP.
I’ve never felt drawn to “Infiltration”, no doubt due to my own uncertainty, shall we say, about Taylor Marshall.
I completely concur with the texts Michael Davies entire trilogy is marvellous and as for Iota Unum this is a superb analysis of the entire matter. They are all first class.
I wish more Catholics would read such works.
Blessings to everyone on the blog
I am a bit conflicted regarding Bishop Sheen. And as for Taylor Marshall, his marketing fanfare when the book was released was a bit too much for me. He tweeted, as I recall, that there were people after him and that if he died suddenly, we should all know that he was not suicidal. It caused me to pass on reading the book.
Back to Bishop Fulton Sheen. His weekly TV show in the 50s was certainly responsible, at least in part, for the burgeoning numbers of conversions in America during the post-war period right up to Vatican II. The Church grew at an unprecedented rate during that time, and he surely should receive some of the credit for those Sunday night radio broadcasts called “The Catholic Hour” and his subsequent “Life is Worth Living” TV show.
But there are disturbing things about him, especially in his later years. His 1967 book, “Footsteps in a Darkened Forest,” is clearly based on the Darwinian premise that we are all descended from some simian-like creature. He was, at the time of the publishing of this questionable book, Bishop of Rochester, New York, a position from which he apparently resigned in 1969 to be made Archbishop of the titular see of Newport, Wales. But while bishop of Rochester, he was, by all accounts, responsible for the closing of numerous Catholic schools, ostensibly for funding reasons. Yet when he was confronted — sometimes aggressively — by parents (his flock) he acted in a way that some described as surprised and even horrified that Catholic laity would oppose him on this matter.
On the positive side, he was deeply anti-Communist, calling down the ire of Joseph Stalin on at least one occasion for condemning Soviet Russia on his TV show. He also stood up to Cardinal Spellman (who, it now appears, was sympathetic to the homosexual mob in the Church), apparently over a dispute whereby the Cardinal tried to foist a New York-style “shakedown” for millions of dollars worth of money donated for milk to be distributed throughout the world. And one of my favorite books by prolific British travel author H. V. Morton titled “This is Rome,” which is a travelogue — with beautiful photos — of Bishop Sheen showing his his nephew the center of Christendom.
Fulton Sheen is a mixed bag, as are so many of our fellow Catholics. As is Taylor Marshall, for that matter, in my humble opinion.
That is a very interesting comment from you. I must read it again.
I have to be honest and say that while I can see the good in the TV shows which Bishop Sheen did, I didn’t like his style at all, not the obvious make up and in full religious dress. He did have great stories, very funny and I appreciate all of that, but I always have a twinge of doubt watching him.
I’m intrigued at your parting comment about Taylor Marshall. Can you elaborate a bit on that – I’ve also got reservations about him but can’t put my finger on what it is.
I, too, am intrigued by Marinaio’s comment about Taylor Marshall, not least because, like your good self, I cannot put my finger on what it is that makes me a tad wary of him. He does such a lot of good with his videos, exposing scandals such as the French “disco” priest and the other one saying “Mass” on a floating mattress. Talk about being all at sea. Literally. Gimme a break!
Fulton Sheen’s response to those angry parents is somewhat surprising, given his well-known comment about the laity having to save the Church – I’ve quoted it often:
“Who’s going to save our Church? It’s not our bishops, it’s not our priests and it is not the religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that the priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and the religious act like religious.”
I am inclined to disagree with that famous Sheen statement, because I don’t think that is our mission at all. In fact, it has the flavor of a fake populism, or even a “democracy,” which has no place in a hierarchy. That fake populism, however, has been an underlying current since Vatican II. It ties in with “active participation,” which, as we know, has been hammered into us with a false interpretation and used to prop up the rationale for having a “reformed” Mass.
As far as I understand things, our mission is to sanctify ourselves, end of.
You surprise me a great deal with that statement “our mission is to sanctify ourselves, end of.”
Does that mean we pray, attend Masses, do spiritual reading – is that it?
It doesn’t chime with what I was taught about being a Soldier of Jesus Christ, ready to defend the faith. Not that I’ll argue with you over it – suits me fine; I’m already doing all three of the above, so no argument there! I’m now so confused about everything, these days!
I haven’t read Infiltration, nor do I plan to, since its thesis is old news for anyone who has been digging into Church history since before Vatican II (via books such as Westminsterfly posted above). However, for newbies to the roots and dirty details of the Vatican II revolution (the “French Revolution of the Church” – Cardinal Suenens, one of the infiltrators), it may be useful. I wonder how much new information, if any, is actually contained in TM’s book.
Like Marinaio, I think Bishop Sheen is a mixed bag. His camera presence on “Life is Worth Living” always strikes me as melodramatic and contrived, but his message is solid. As far as I know, he also never resisted the implementation of the Missal of Paul VI.
His statement on Vatican II, which he attended, is very troubling and smacks of a denial of reality (this is from Catholic.com):
“Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s autobiography Treasure in Clay, which was written just before his death in 1979 and published posthumously, devotes an entire chapter to Sheen’s experience at Vatican II. In his memoirs, Sheen deemed the Council’s document Gaudium et Spes to be “brilliant” (p. 247); he fondly recalled his audiences with both pre-Vatican-II popes such as Pius XI and Pius XII and post-Vatican-II popes such as Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI. Within one year of John Paul II’s election, he was already predicting that John Paul II would be one of the greatest popes in the history of the Church (p. 244). [My editorial comment: seriously???]
In addressing the post-conciliar upheaval in the years since the close of the Second Vatican Council, Sheen had this to say:”
The tensions that developed after the Council are not surprising to those who know the whole history of the Church. It is a historical fact that whenever there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as in a general council of the Church, there is always an extra show of force by the anti-Spirit or the demonic. Even at the beginning, immediately after Pentecost and the descent of the Spirit upon the apostles, there began a persecution and the murder of Stephen. If a general council did not provoke the spirit of turbulence, one might almost doubt the operation of the third Person of the Trinity over the assembly. (pp. 292–293)
That type of reasoning has been used countless times by faux conservatives as an excuse to run up the white flag to the revolution. The planned destruction of the Church is an “outpouring of the Holy Spirit”? Give me a break.
“Melodramatic and contrived” – precisely my concerns about Bishop Fulton Sheen’s shows, although there is so much that is excellent in the content. I think his message would have been more powerful minus the drama.
It’s disappointing to learn that he supported the Council and the new Mass, but I like to think that if he were alive today, he’d have switched sides. On the other hand, I also like to think that he’d have been begging for a regular column in the Catholic Truth newsletter, so don’t pay too much attention to what I like to think 😀
His real masterpiece, though, has to be his Life of Christ, which I treasure.
I’ve always been a bit ambivalent about Bp Fulton Sheen. I found some of his TV shows a bit too theatrical for my liking. Perhaps he was just trying to use modern media techniques of the time to get his message across. I recall reading that his Cause had been put on hold for some reason – although whether the reason was spurious or not, I don’t know. https://fulton-sheen.catholic.edu/cause/index.html
Dear Editor and Margaret Mary, my concerns with Taylor Marshall stem from two incidents in particular. The first I mentioned: his marketing ploy for his book “Infiltration”. While it seemed plausible that he had ruffled feathers of certain people enough that they would want him dead, it appeared over-the-top and even looked like grandstanding. If I have the timing right, the second incident was his reporting on the famous Pachamama dunking in the Tiber River by Austrian Alexander Tschugguel. At first, Taylor never explained how, in the middle of the night, he got the scoop about the Pachamama incident. He was quite coy about it for several days, until it was revealed that Taylor Marshall actually paid for Herr Tschugguel to go to Rome and film himself going into the church of Santa Maria Transpotina, walking out with the offending idols, and throwing them off a bridge into the Tiber. I loved it; but the deceitful reporting of Taylor Marshall, who made it look like he had gotten a big news scoop, was a mendacious act, in my opinion, and it took days for him to come clean on the whole truth. That’s about all I can articulate about my observations of Taylor Marshall. And it’s not as if I dislike everything about him; I just have the impression that there is more about him that I would dislike if I knew more. . .
Thank you for that explanation – I had no idea about the Pachamama incident. That is really a poor show as our beloved cousins south of the border might say. “Deceitful” is the word – I second your concluding observation.
I’m confident that RCA Victor means all of the above PLUS Catholic Action. Else, why is he here?
I await his – er… – confirmation on that 😀
Reminder: sanctification = faith + good works….such as this apostolate. But more on this apostolate in a moment….
Let me explain further why I disagree with +Sheen:
1. The Church does not need to be “saved.” She is the spotless bride of Christ and a mystical organism, not a political/secular institution with, for example, a Board of Directors who can be taken over. The “saved” mentality, in fact, is what brought us Vatican II. That is, “reform” – the VII buzzword – is just a euphemism for “saved.”
2. To say that the laity must “save” the Church is to turn the Church on its head. The Church is governed by her clergy as a monarchical hierarchy, not by the laity. We are the governed, not the government.
3. As I already posted, part of the insidious Vatican II blueprint was to claim a more “active” role for laity in the Church, starting with “active participation” (wrongly defined) at Mass. The Luciferians are diabolically clever, if nothing else, in the psychology department, and they hit upon the perfect scheme to turn Catholics into Protestants.
4. +Sheen’s statement fits in perfectly with the Vatican II “laity empowerment” project, which, along with his shocking blind spot about VII and the new Mass, is very disturbing.
5. +Sheen’s statement serves as a convenient foundation for treacherous groups like Voice of the Faithful and SNAP, who use the clerical sex scandals as a springboard from which to demand radical changes in the structure of the Church, esp. radical changes to the hierarchy. And these subversive groups are the perfect example of what happens when the laity fancy themselves to be empowered to “save” the Church.
Now a word or two about Catholic Truth.
There are few, if any lay apostolates as assiduous and fearless as CT has been in exposing clerical scandals, corruption, heresy, faithlessness and turpitude. But has CT “saved” the Church in Scotland? Nein, Fraulein, the Church in Scotland has continued to wither on the vine (if I correctly understand the information that has been posted here over the years), and is now in a deep coma, finished off by the current globalist-co-opted pontificate and especially the scamdemic, featuring fear of, and false obedience to germaphobia and the state. (Sidebar: germaphobia is a prominent characteristic of homosexuals. Need I say more?)
All that said, I reject +Sheen’s claim as entirely false – and, in fact, quite alien to the nature of the Church.
That’s good that you say “good works” to be included in our work of sanctifying ourselves. I agree, too, that the Church does not need “saving” except from the Judas priests and bishops we have over us!
Catholic Truth hasn’t made any difference to the state of the Church in Scotland, that is true. Still, I tend to think a presence like CT is important, don’t ask me why.
Not only have we not made any difference to the state of the Church in Scotland – RCA Victor and you are correct – but I was recently accused (by two “traditional” priests) of doing harm, causing scandal.
Isn’t it just as well I didn’t take this job for the pay and prestige? 😀
I have never taken Bishop Fulton Sheen’s “save the Church” comment in the literal sense in which you seem to be taking it. Perhaps because his writings, in my experience, make very clear that he understands the indefectibility of the Church. This is one quote, taken from a radio talk, so who knows what else he said. It’s not that bit of the quote that really matters, in my considered opinion.
Context is everything, as they say, whoever “they” are. What Sheen is saying “is up to the laity” has been “up to the laity” down the centuries; that is, to call the clergy, religious etc to account, to correct their errors, if and when necessary.
As already mentioned, Fulton Sheen’s style is melodramatic, and – as his beautiful book on the Life of Christ reveals – he often speaks with a poetic turn of phrase. That’s how I read that part of his comment “save the Church” – over-egging the pudding, you might say, or, as did Our Lord when emphasising a point, using hyperbole, that is, exaggeration to drive home his meaning. The point which Bishop Sheen was driving home, it seems to me, is that at this time of crisis in the Church, the laity must not fail to call priests and religious to account, if and when necessary: “Your mission is to see that the priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and the religious act like religious.” Goodness, the great lay saint Catherine of Siena didn’t restrict herself to calling out bad priests and religious – she went right to the top and told the Pope that he should resign if he continued to fail in his duty.
That is elementary Catholic Action – alongside providing for the spiritual and temporal needs of others, where we can do so. Don’t let’s credit modern churchmen with “developing” the role of the laity in this way, when St Catherine of Siena (and others) were centuries ahead of Vatican II. Yes, they obviously misinterpreted the whole business of lay involvement in the Mass, and they are now paying for that stupidity with their programmes of amalgamating and selling off churches. Dopes. But there’s nothing else that I can see in Vatican II that changes the role of the laity. I suspect the “laity empowerment” project of which you speak is one of those many projects inspired by what some modernist clergymen think/wishes were stated in the Vatican II document on the laity. It’s certainly years since I read that document, but I don’t remember reading anything that suggests anything new about the role of lay people in the Church. The Liturgy is a whole different ball game, as you rightly indicate.
The Archbishop of Glasgow who preached at my Confirmation – prior to Vatican II – made clear that when we left the church that day we were Soldiers of Christ, charged with defending the Faith and spreading it the best we could manage in our everyday lives. This is not new. Not remotely. It’s just gone un-preached. Even the so-called traditional groups are found wanting in this regard. I’ve only attended one Confirmation in an SSPX church, and the bishop “preached” about the disharmony in the Society at that time, saying only once, in passing, that those being Confirmed were about to become Soldiers of Christ. If only he’d thought to explain what that meant, I wouldn’t be able to say that the last Confirmation service I attended where that truth of the Faith was preached, was my own. Prior to Vatican II.
In times of Church crisis, it has always been the laity who have acted in defence of the Faith and without the current coyness around the clergy. There was none of that “Father (always) knows best” silliness when priests were attacking Marian dogma and the people literally pulled them from their pulpits. No human respect there; no saying, I must get on with my prayers, nothing to see here, or, at least, nothing to do with me! No, thinking, well, it doesn’t matter what I do, it won’t make any difference, that priest will still think heretically or blasphemously, no, I’ll just get back to my prayers. That, in my understanding, is one of the nine ways to share in the sin and guilt of another, to be complicit (in this case) in the spread of false teaching by our silence.
Sometimes, we find that we are at cross purposes, our Victor, you and I, and that is usually because I read too quickly or misunderstand your meaning, and I suspect this may be one of those occasions. If so, I apologise in advance – like Maria in the Sound of Music who took to kissing the ground (monastic custom) when she saw her Novice Mistress coming, just to save time 😀
(Sorry for the delay, I was busy playing the bad guy in a parish play…) Well said, I did indeed take +Sheen’s choice of words literally. However, I find it strange that someone who was so typically articulate and even eloquent (though to a grandstanding degree) should express his concerns in that way. Makes me suspicious as to whether he had just completely sold out to Vatican II.
Anyway, as far as I understand things, the role of the laity in defending the Faith includes the following:
-Calling out the error/corruption and the clergy who is the source of it.
-Correcting the error with Magisterial and/or Scriptural truth.
-Reporting the corruption to the proper church authority.
-If private exposes and corrections are not acknowledged, go public.
-Pray and do penance for the offending party.
-If necessary, withdraw financial support from the offending party.
As for the role of the laity being distorted by Vatican II, I am reminded of some typical lay reactions to the Novus Ordo Mass reforms of Pope Benedict, way back in the “good old days” (??). Those reactions always centered on one theme: Benedict is eliminating the role of the laity in Mass! Benedict bad! Vatican II good!
One more thing about Bishop Sheen\: his strange statement makes me wonder about two things: one, what was the context, and two, if he was aware that the aftermath of Vatican II was wreaking havoc in the Church, what did he intend to do about it? Throw up his hands and tell the laity to fix it?
Finally, I hope you didn’t get the impression that I felt that this blog had failed in its mission. If that were the case I would not have continued to participate. But I never felt this apostolate’s mission was to “save” the Church, since that is not our remit.
Is it not a strange old world. German Heathen, so called Catholic Cardinals, Bishops ,and probably their Boyfriends going to Rome to lobby Bergoglio to accept Homosexuality in all of its filthy forms. Whilst the German Catholic Laity call them out as Scandalous . Conspiracy Never ,its now as we all on here know factual. The Reprobates are at the Gates .
With the editor’s permission, is this customary in Scotland too?
I don’t know this bishop but he is embarrassing
Bishop Arnold is more than simply embarrassing – he is scandalous in the extreme. Without repentance for that shocking endorsement of grave sin, he is a lost soul, one of the (too) many afflicting the Church at this time.
To answer your question about Scotland – well, it’s difficult to tell; we once managed to gain online access to Quest, a well-known LGBTQ+ group here and were able to follow their activities, one of which was a “gay” Mass in a Glasgow church (St Simon’s).
It was some time ago, granted, 2007, but our then Miss McMoneypenny (Betty) and I attended one such Mass in St Simon’s, Glasgow, when the Edinburgh “gay” activist priest, Fr Gordon Brown preached about the importance of going out and spreading – not the Gospel, but… Quest – the LGBTQ+ organisation responsible for arranging these Masses.
There can be little doubt that this is still happening, in one way or another, at one location or another, but following our reports, the LGBTQ+ organisation (Quest) closed down access to certain of their online reports, to keep the information from reaching us. They have been enjoying the sweet smell of success ever since.
Over the years, too, we have quoted the claim of Fr Gordon Brown (retired, Edinburgh), when he “outed” himself on the front page of one of the tabloids saying: There is a whole network of gay priests operating under the noses of the Scottish Bishops” (Scottish Sunday Mail, 23 January 2000).
The only priest in Scotland who has suffered any kind of discipline at all in relation to this fact, is Father Matthew Despard, Diocese of Motherwell, who was suspended for writing a book exposing the extent of this problem within the Catholic Church in Scotland at this time. Pray for him.
Thank you very much. Everything you tell me is very sad, rest assured that I will pray a lot for Father Despard and for the Church that is going through this terrible crisis. The lgtb lobby is also a very serious danger in my country.
Sorry for beating a dead horse, but here’s another related issue that bothers me about +Sheen. Through his extensive conversations with Bella Dodd, he surely knew all the details she knew about the Communist infiltration of the Church, and their imminent plans (“In a few years you will not recognize the Catholic Church,” quoth she in the early 1950s)
Aside from the issue of telling her not to go public with those details, how could he know all that and yet fail to see the nature of their attack – a psychological operation – at Vatican II?
I don’t get it.
Neither do I – get it. It’s a puzzle.