Hmmm.  He strongly resembles Michael Voris here.

He’s definitely not a Saint and more likely a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

This disgusting unfounded rumor originated in a sodomist magazine (in a lame attempt to normalize their perversion) and was picked up and spread far and wide by the TIA cult.

This is an excellent book, by Father Paul Kimball ...

Cardinal Newman:  Trojan Horse in the Church

Here's a better one, pre-empting that one:

Nonsense.  Newman was one of the precursors of Modernism making it's way into the Church, thus Father Kimball's title calling him out as a Trojan Horse.  Newman has often been called, quiet correctly, the Father of Vatican II.

Seven Teachers in the Tradition

John T. Noonan Jr.

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3224&context=vlr

The third of my teachers at this time was a theologian Edmund Darvil
Benard, a priest of the diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts and a gradu-
ate of Le Grande S´eminarie in Montreal. Benard was deeply conscious of
his American identity. He enjoyed singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In preparing this paper, I discovered that in high school Benard was a
runner-up in a national contest of students speaking on the Constitution
of the United States. Despite this American identity, he had a Gallic qual-
ity, a finesse of feature and of mind, a quickness of intellect, and a re-
sourcefulness in argument that made every argument with him
exhilarating.

He taught a course at Catholic University that was, I believe, entitled
“Apologetics,” and apologetics is what I undertook to study with him. The
name, not very common today, suggests apology, but in its Latin root apolo-
gia it means “a rational defense” as in Newman’s autobiography, Apologia
pro Vita Sua. Benard was adept in a rational defense of the doctrines of the
Church.

Once more I cast myself as the questioner, the aggressive questioner,
more so with him than with the other two because he enjoyed it more. I
invited him out at times to dinner. He introduced me to his friend Eu-
gene Burke, a Paulist, and sometimes I went golfing with them. Our
friendship continued over the next several years as I settled into the philo-
sophical graduate program at Catholic University.

What stands out in particular memory is a trip I took back to Washing-
ton from North Carolina, where I had been visiting John Kennedy (not
the president). Benard and Burke had been on vacation, playing golf at
Pinehurst. I met them by prearrangement and rode back with them. All
the way, or so it seemed to my clerical companions, I argued with them
about John Courtney Murray’s new argument for religious liberty. How
was religious liberty for all reconcilable with the teachings of Leo XIII, of
Pius IX, of Gregory XVI, not to mention the teachings and actions of me-
dieval popes? Benard never shut off my challenges, although I think that
he tired a bit on this trip of six or seven hours. “You ought to talk to
Murray yourself,” he said, and I eventually did at Woodstock in Maryland.
At this time, and for some time to come, I had a narrow sense of the
development of doctrine.

Benard, I should add, was an authority on Newman and wrote a book
about Newman. Newman’s name was scarcely unknown to me, but I
should credit Benard with leading me to a greater appreciation of New-
man’s range and depth as the best of all theologians writing in English.

Smith, Arbez, Benard. I turn from the special pleasure of touching
on memories of my twenties to teachers I learned from later.

My fourth teacher in the tradition I met only once, but the occasion
and the lesson were memorable, and I was taught in addition by his books.
About 1950, I was still in graduate studies at the School of Philosophy at
the Catholic University when I heard that Jacques Maritain was teaching a
graduate seminar in philosophy at Princeton. Maritain was widely re-
garded as the preeminent Catholic philosopher in the world. I deter-
mined to attend at least one session of the seminar at Princeton and did
so.

The subject of the session was “evil”, most specifically “moral evil.”
How did it occur? How could it occur in a universe created and ruled by a
good God? Maritain presented a view that was faithfully Thomistic: Evil
was an absence of good, a failure of the will, a kind of nothingness. But
why did an all-good and all-powerful God permit this kind of failure to
occur? Why had God created such fallible creatures? Why did God not
foresee the failures and eliminate the occasions on which the evil would
arise? To questions such as these Maritain had no answer. Evil was a mys-
tery incapable of rational explanation, a blankness of unintelligibility.
The book of Maritain’s that I most valued was entitled The Person and
the Common Good. In it he distinguished between “the person”, that is, each
human being with an end transcending this life, and what he termed “the
individual”, that is, each human being considered as part of humanity with
no end higher than the preservation of its life in this world. In this frame-
work each of us was both a person and an individual. As an individual, we
were properly subjected to the constraints necessary for society to func-
tion. As a person, each of us had a drive and a destiny exceeding our
temporal condition and requiring respect from those shaping social con-
trols. Recognition of the personhood of each human being did not by
itself create a charter of human rights, but rather offered a perspective
and possibilities for the development of such rights. It was no accident
that Maritain was a key draftsman of the United Nations Charter of
Human Rights and a principal mentor of Pope Paul VI.

I valued what I learned from Maritain as well as what I learned from
´Etienne Gilson, who came to teach for a while at Berkeley and whom I
came to know and to entertain. He told me one story of how he and
Maritain were given an audience by Pope Pius XII. The audience went on
for over an hour. A papal attendant then approached the pope with two
large medals to be awarded the philosophers. “No, no,” the pope said.
“The usual ones.”

Good Night, Sweet Princeton!

https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-july-1952/

Maritainism is a system of thought which allows Catholics to be both Catholic and acceptable in the drawing rooms of Protestant and Jєωιѕн philosophers. Maritainism is not a seeking and a finding of the Word made flesh. It is a perpetual seeking for un-fleshed truth in an abstract scheme called Christianity. Maritainism is the scrapping of the Incarnation in favor of a God Whose overtures to us never get more personal or loving than the five rational proofs for His existence. This plot to encourage only pre-Bethlehem interest in God takes its name from its perpetrator, that highly respected religious opportunist, Jacques Maritain.

The slightest acquaintance with Maritain’s history is sufficient to indicate how awry he must be in his Catholicism. He is a former Huguenot who married a Jєωιѕн girl named Raïssa. During their student days in Paris, both Jacques and Raïssa felt a double pull in the general direction of belief. Intellectually they were attracted to the religious self-sufficiency of a Jєωιѕн intuitionist named Henri Bergson. Sociologically they were attracted to the spurious Catholicism of Leon Bloy, a French exhibitionist who made a liturgy of his own crudeness and uncleaness and tried to attach it to the liturgy of the Church. At some point in their association with an unbaptized Bergson and an unwashed Bloy, the Maritains figured out that there was a promising future ahead of them in Catholicism.

Jacques Maritain is noted for his solemn-high, holier-than-thou appearance. For this reason, more than one priest reports that by the time a Maintain lecture is over, any priest who is present has been made to feel that the Roman collar is around the wrong neck and that perhaps he, the priest, ought to put on a necktie and kneel for Maritain’s blessing.

One explanation of Maritain’s distant expression is that he fancies himself to be the Drew Pearson of the Christian social order. Judging by Maritain’s passion for the abstract, the fulfillment of all his prophecies will come in an era when mothers can sing such songs as “Rock-a-bye Baby, on the Dendrological Zenith,” and children recite such bedtime prayers as “The Hail Mariology.”

Jacques Maritain prefers Thomism to Saint Thomas Aquinas and, similarly, he much prefers the notion of the papacy to the person of the Pope. He could not, however, turn down the prestige of an appointment as French ambassador to the Vatican. Maritain went to Rome, but he protected himself against over exposure to Italian faith by visits to Dr. George Santayana. In Maritain, Santayana recognized a brother, the kind of European intellectual cast-off that is annually being grabbed-up by American Universities.

That Jacques Maritain should now be found preaching at Princeton University is not so strange. It did not require too much insight on Princeton’s part to see that a Catholic who hates Franco, speaks at Jєωιѕн seminaries, and favors “theocentricity” in place of Jesus, would be a bizarre, but harmless, addition to anybody’s faculty club.

Perhaps Princeton realized also that a Catholic’s admirers are a good measure of his militancy. Among Maritain’s more prominent sympathizers are John Wild, Charles Malik and Mortimer Adler, who are, respectively, an Anglican, a Greek schismatic, and a Jew. Naturally Maritain could not insult intellectuals like these by telling them that although they are outside the Church they can get into Heaven because of their “invincible ignorance.” It was necessary that Maritain concoct a new way of getting around the dogma, “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.”

After a lot of abstract deliberation, Maritain decided that a man could be “invisibly, and by a motion of his heart, a member of the Church, and partake of her life, which is eternal life.” According to Maritain’s new covenant, the important salvation-actions in our world are no longer a head bowed to the waters of Baptism, a hand raised in Absolution, a tongue outstretched to receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. “A motion of his heart,” says Maritain, is all that is required before a man may partake of eternal life.

The Sacred Heart might have saved Himself a lot of inconvenience had He only known this, one Friday afternoon on Calvary.

https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/the-point-february-1956/


II — The Refugee

The Point ’s second White Jew is drawn from the religious rather than the secular world, but he has been no less a problem to our readers than Mr. Baruch. He is a refugee from Austria who now conducts, at a Catholic college in New Jersey, a one-man propaganda agency called the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies. So “White” is this Jew that at the age of twenty he submitted himself to the ritual of Christian Baptism, and then went on to become a Catholic priest. His name is Father John M. Oesterreicher.

Before Baptism, John Oesterreicher had been a student of medicine. Three years and a few theology books later, he was ordained a Catholic priest. Even his most prostrate apologists have wondered at such a speeded-up process. And more thoughtful observers have concluded that in the Church which harbors such painful and multiple memories of deceitfully converted “Marrano” Jews, there is something most unusual, to say the least, about the urgency with which John Osterreicher was rushed from Baptism to Holy Orders.

Whether by deliberate design or not, the historical fact is that, for hundreds of thousands of German-speaking Jews, Father Oesterreicher’s sudden priesthood became an immediate weapon against the rising anti-Jєωιѕнness of Adolph Hitler. With the weight of the Catholic Church presumably behind him, and the passion of his Jєωιѕн blood clearly pushing him on, Father Oesterreicher began a frenzied crusade of writing and speaking. He invoked, as authorities, both saints and sociologists, popes and psychiatrists. He devised arguments from demonology and anthropology, from scholastics and rationalists — all to prove to the Catholics of Austria and Germany that anyone who speaks ill of a Jew is actually blaspheming Jesus Christ Himself!

The same Catholics who well knew that the program proposed by Hitler was hardly the Church’s solution to the Jєωιѕн question, knew quite as well that Father Oesterreicher did not have the answer either.

As Hitler proceeded across Europe, Father Oesterreicher managed to keep several towns ahead of him, and finally, in 1941, turned up as a curate in New York City. Since there were in our whole country only about a dozen Jєωιѕн-convert priests, Father Oesterreicher proved to be a popular novelty. He was the object of much parochial curiosity and found no difficulty in gathering an inquisitive crowd for the lectures he started to give within six months of his arrival here. His message was invariably of one theme. Always there was the appeal to respect, to admire, to love, to fall down in the mud and worship the Jєωιѕн race. And always the appeal was subtly charged with what Father Oesterreicher hoped would pass for the binding authority of the Catholic Church.

But Father Oesterreicher did not have to depend solely upon his own initiative. He had a number of American boosters, of whom perhaps the most zealous was Professor Jacques Maritain. Professor Maritain is the French-born, Protestant-reared, Catholic philosopher who married a Russian Jewess named Raïssa Oumansoff. Although known in this country as a speaker at Jєωιѕн seminaries and teacher at Masonic universities, Maritain did try to get a position at a Catholic school. Some years ago, he was interviewed for a job at Fordham University, and stipulated in the course of the discussion that he would expect to be given free rein in all his classes to criticize the pope. Fordham’s Jesuit president turned him down, and Maritain took a job at Princeton, no holds barred.

When Professor Maritain received an honorary degree a few months ago from Jєωιѕн Brandeis University, his support of Father Oesterreicher accounted for much of the genuine applause he received from the assembled representatives of American Jewry. For Father Oesterreicher, in every point of his Judaeo-Christian program, has complied exactly with the publicized objectives of the powerful American Jєωιѕн Committee. In his books, Walls Are Crumbling and The Bridge, Father Oesterreicher’s glorification of the Jews would erase forever from Catholic minds those New Testament texts which the Jєωιѕн Committee has so repeatedly attacked as “anti-Semitic.” Saint Peter’s accusation in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 5, that the Jews are the murderers of Christ; Saint Stephen’s vehement repetition of this charge in chapter 7; Saint Paul’s elaboration on the guilt and curse of the Jews in I Thessalonians, 2:15 — these and all other biblical indictments of the Jєωιѕн people are blotted out and replaced by Father Oesterreicher’s devotion to such unbaptized “saints” as Jєωιѕн logician Edmund Husserl and Jєωιѕн intuitionist Henri Bergson.

In his compliance with the American Jєωιѕн Committee’s declared aim, “to revise Christian religious teaching,” Father Oesterreicher has consistently depreciated the tall stacks of papal legislation against the Jews. And, even more boldly, he has demanded a rewording of the Church’s liturgy, proposing that our annual Good Friday reference to the “perfidious Jews” be changed in meaning! The American Jєωιѕн Committee followed up Father Oesterreicher’s proposal by pulling every string within its grasp from here to Rome. The result? The following half-hearted, much-guarded statement by the Vatican’s Congregation of Rites: “This Sacred Congregation, having been consulted about the matter, has deemed it advisable to make the following declaration only: That, in translations into the vernacular, phrases are not disapproved of which the meaning (for ‘perfidious Jews’) is ‘infidels without belief.’ ”