I am now beginning to read this book about the liberal Americanist agent in Rome Denis J. O' Connell. The Author is Fogarty. Ciao

When the book is finished(and hopefully Cletus is reading  it also) a review will be forthcomming.

No Fogarty plans here for the time being. I checked the book out at a site and saw things that triggered my flight-or-fight instinct: "SJ", "Yale University" etc...

It's a recent book.

I would prefer to dig out the relevant books and learned journals I possess which go back to the time of the Americanist crisis.

I don't trust recent authors when it comes to these matters. Recent authors can go on all they want about how Archbishop Ireland was a poor misunderstood thing and a victim of the overzealous narrow-minded heresy hunters of HIS day. It all amounts to nothing because they never tell us the one thing that puts everything: that Ireland was given to throwing out for publication such words to the wise as: "An upright [American] citizen and an honest [American] ballot is worth all the midnight flagellations and Compostellan pilgrimages."

You get the real scoop only if you go for broke and buy all the old books and magazines and journals you can. (Finding things free on-line is not something that happens every day.)

I've read dozens of more recent accounts of Ireland's involvement with the Hecker biography affair. In not a single one did the author ever quote that striking and memorable (and irreverent) wisecrack and say, "Well, let's be fair here. Talk like that would have been very shocking to pious Catholics in the late 1800s."

By a similar token, Fogarty could leave out Rampolla's involvement just because he had a reason to leave it out.

It's not scientific to go just by Fogarty.

I purchased the book at your instigation--it was in the bibliography of one of the books on Ireland that you pointed out. You were the one that insisted  Rampolla could still be a liberal in spite of the fact that there is no proof he was a mason(except a piece of paper cooked up by some morons tryong to frame the Cardinal). Your posts indicated there might be evidence of Rampolla's alleged perfidious nature in other publications so I took your word for it.

And so far the author shows no inclination to be an apologist for Ireland, O'Connell or  Gibbons. In fact he clearly recognises the danger in their Americanist philosophy.

Aren't you jumping the gun a bit to reject this book w/ out reading it--after all it was your suggestion. How can one have the proper perspective on something one knows nothing about?

It is indeed not scientific to go just by Fogarty but since you have been following this whole affair, you are undoubtably aware that numerous other sources on Rampolla have been sighted by my self in these posts.

And this book is packed w/ detailed sources of all types. So far no mention of Rampolla but I will report as he comes up.

I think that there is some sort of misunderstanding here. The records available to me on this board tell a different story as to what I did and didn't "instigate" as regards Fogarty's book.

Sometimes when we ourselves are all hopped up on a given topic we tend to project to others our own red hot degree of interest.

I believe that I recommended one text by one Moynihan. It was available on line.

I am not "the one who is insisting" that Rampolla could be a liberal despite his not having been a Mason.

I am the one who is insisting that Rampolla supported the nefarious Archbishop Ireland and was part of his perfidious little clique.

I think that I have already provided evidence that this was so.

Yes, the Yale connection was not with Fogarty's book on the Americanist crisis but with Fogarty himself.

Fogarty is a Jesuit who was ordained in 1970. I find it shocking that a post-Vatican II Jesuit should take a dim view of the Americanists, thus proving himself better inspired than pre-Vatican II orthodox American priests who out of a misguided sense of loyalty claimed that Americanism was a "phantom heresy." (Of course, there was no question of a heresy at all, strictly speaking: no doctrinal point of Divine and Catholic Faith was pertinaciously denied. Being a sneaky apostate doesn't make one a heretic.)

I didn't see the point of expressing doubts that Fogarty's book WIL show a connection between Rampolla and the American Liberal faction before you read it when it has already BEEN shown that there was a connection between Rampolla and Ireland, and that according to Ireland Rampolla instructed him as to how best to neutralize Leo XIII's anti-Americanist encyclical.

I am personally interested in the history of the Americanist crisis. But my interest in this forum is to get the truth about Rampolla. And that only because I'm taking it for granted that everyone here has read about Rampolla the Wicked Satanic Mason a hundred times in Traditional Catholic publications or even heard about that mythological creature two or three times in a sermon in a Traditional chapel. I think that that charge is false, but I would hate to see people  thinking that they had egg on their face for having swallowed that fable.

Whatever the motivations of the original Masonbuster accuser against Rampolla were, I think that nowadays the Mason charge is a kind of "coded message" about Rampolla's REAL offenses, which constitute a kind of taboo among Catholics. Why a taboo? Because pious Catholics do not relish being forced to observe that to say the least the Antimodernist spirit and program of the glorious Pope St Pius X were not well served by one or more of his successors. And getting to the truth about Cardinal Rampolla leads to getting to the truth about the whole catastrophe of resurgent Modernism in the period between the death of the thrice blessed Pope St Pius and the start of Vatican II.

Cletus may find it 'shocking' that a v2 Jesuit could take a dim view of the 'Americanists' but a dim view is  what Fr. Fogarty does impart.

And you were indeed the one who kept insisting that Rampolla could be a liberal--this is why I have continued this project--to settle the question once and for all. Ciao

Could you provide a few lines from Fr Fogarty which indicate disapproval of Ireland or the American liberals? The stupefying marvel of a post-Vatican II Jesuit with a Catholic Sense in at least one area should be magnified.

My point was that St Pius X would NOT have been chummy with the likes of Ireland in a billion years and that that's part of what made him a saint.

It's not a matter of Rampolla being in contact with this one and that one. It's a matter of what the nature of his contact was.

In at least one instance his contact with Ireland seems to have been along the lines of treacherous buffoonery.

I would be happy to read the Fogarty book if it isn't a brief for the Americanists and an attack on the conservatives, such as  :boxer: Archbishop Corrigan or Bishop MacQuaid. But I shall wait to see your promised review.