cfnews seems to be running real slow right now (at least for me it is), so I'll post the second half of this just in case:

Of Miters and Yarmulkes

Archbishop Levada is no stranger to the Vatican. From 1976 to 1982, he worked at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He and Cardinal Ratzinger were reported to be friends. Levada was the only American on the seven-bishop editorial committee that produced the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Of the New Catechism, Levada said it “was not meant to ignore or reverse the work of the Second Vatican Council”.[10] He praised Vatican II’s ambiguous Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy as containing “wonderful teaching”.[11] And throughout his career, Vatican II’s new interreligious orientation was the wind in his sails.

In September 1988, while he was Archbishop of Portland, Oregon, Levada and a Lutheran bishop led a joint worship service for a combined congregation of Lutherans and Catholics. He was also the first American bishop to visit a ѕуηαgσgυє, and continued to visit ѕуηαgσgυєs while Archbishop of San Francisco.

March 5, 1996 saw Archbishop Levada take part in an interfaith prayer service at a San Francisco ѕуηαgσgυє to remember the victims of a wave of bombing attacks against Israelis. “Catholic Archbishop Levada”, said The San Francisco Chronicle, “was seated prominently on the bimah or pulpit of the ѕуηαgσgυє, in the company of the rabbis. Levada delivered a brief but powerful prayer to the one God common to Jєωs, Christians and Muslims, in which he described the bombing campaign in Israel as and repulsive’.”[12]

First, there is no one God “common to Jєωs, Christ-ians and Muslims”, since the true God is the Blessed Trinity, denied by Jєωs and Muslims.

Second, the sad bƖσσdshɛd of the victims aside, the Archbishop’s religious visit to a ѕуηαgσgυє is an affront to Catholic and biblical teaching. The ѕуηαgσgυє is set up against the manifest will of Jesus Christ. Our Lord put an end to the religion of the Old Covenant, and had harsh words for those who reject Him. He said to the Jєωs, “If you do not believe that I am He (the Messiah) you will die in your sins.” (John 8:28)

Saint John, faithful to his Divine Master, taught likewise, “He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life.” (1 John 5:12) Saint John also warned that he who denies that Jesus has not come in the flesh is “... a seducer and an anti-christ”. (2 John 1:7) But today’s Jєωιѕн religion, like no other religion, holds the rejection of Jesus Christ as its central tenet.

A Catholic prelate who visits and prays at a ѕуηαgσgυє betrays Jesus Christ, as the visit grants public legitimacy to a religion that holds Jesus Christ in disdain, believing Him to be a liar and deceiver.[13] It tells Jєωs that their religion which spurns Christ is of equal value with the Catholic religion in which Christ is the center of all.

This was precisely the effect of Pope John Paul’s first visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome on April 13, 1986, an unprecedented ecuмenical event.[14] Rabbi Elio Toaff of the Rome ѕуηαgσgυє said that as a result of the Pope’s visit, “a turning point in the history of the church” was made, one that “puts the two religions on a level of equality.”[15]

Only fifty years ago, any well-trained seminarian could have explained the disastrous consequences of the Pope’s ecuмenical visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє. It corrupts the integrity of the Faith and it leaves the Jєω in the darkness of his false religion. Saint Ambrose taught clearly the incompatibility of Christian religion with the Jєωιѕн religion. “The veil of the temple was torn”, said St. Ambrose, “to signify the division between the two groups of people and the profanation of the ѕуηαgσgυє. The old veil was torn to let the Church hang the new veil of Faith.”[16] In other words, what God has torn asunder, let no man join together. It is cruelty to the Jєω for a Catholic leader to tell him by word or example that he will find salvation by living his life detached from Jesus Christ.

Archbishop Levada, however, called Pope John Paul II’s visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє a “good example,” and directly went about imitating him[17]. There is little doubt that the Vatican’s new “Guardian of the Faith” at the CDF is permeated with the error that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant. This theological bankruptcy, sadly, also extends to Pope Benedict XVI, who announced he will perform a Wojtylian-like visit to a ѕуηαgσgυє when he travels to Cologne for World Youth Day.[18]

Interfaith Jamborees

On December 1, 1999, Archbishop Levada participated in a San Francisco interfaith event called, “A Call to Oneness”, A Conference on Compassion and HIV/AIDS Diseases. Political leaders along with key representatives from various religions including Catholic, Jєωιѕн, Buddhist, Islamic, Native American, Protestant, schismatic Orthodox and Hinduism took part in the event. As part of the proceedings, the Archbishop also allowed a World AIDS day ceremony to take place in the archdiocese’s St. Mary’s Cathedral.[19]

Then on March 28, 2003, Archbishop Levada hosted a “Spirit of Assisi” event at the Archdiocese’s St. Mary’s Cathedral entitled, “Interfaith Prayer Service in a Time of National Crisis,” sponsored by the San Francisco Interfaith Council. According to the Jєωιѕн Bulletin, the participants encountered “the sweet aroma of incense and the gentle sounds of traditional, Jєωιѕн and Christian lit-urgy blended with gospel music, Arabic and a Buddhist chime.” From the pulpit of the Catholic cathedral, Rabbi Alan Lew read from Psalm 30, and then led the Mourner’s Kaddish, first in Aramaic, then in English. Archbishop Levada, the Jєωιѕн Bulletin reported, “set the inclusive tone for the service from the outset.” Levada said, “With all the religions and cultural diversity here, may we know together that our hearts beat as one in prayer to Almighty God for peace today.” Also at the gathering, Norman Fischer of the Everyday Zen Foundation said “We are here to live in harmony.”[20]

Levada’s pan-religious gatherings could not be more contrary to perennial papal teaching, including that of Pope Pius VII who said, “By the fact that the indiscriminate freedom of all forms of religion is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the Immaculate Spouse of Christ is placed on the same level as heretical sects and even as Jєωιѕн perfidy.”[21] Here, Pius VII was condemning equality of religious in civil society. How much more would he condemn a multi-religious gathering in a Catholic cathedral.

Archbishop Levada also gave faculties to priests from the schismatic Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) to operate in parishes in his diocese. The CPA is a human institution created by the Chinese communist government that does not recognize the Pope as its head. Catholics in China are forced to join this schismatic puppet "church", as the Communist government has declared the true Catholic Church “illegal”, and has jailed, persecuted and murdered Catholics who refuse to submit to this schismatic institution. In an Open Letter to the Vatican Joseph Kung from the Cardinal Kung Foundation complained that the CPA priests given faculties by Levada “were allowed to offer Holy Mass publicly in Roman Catholic Churches and to administer other sacraments openly in parishes. No specific mention was made in parish bulletins that the priest in question belong to the CPA and no explanation was made about the schismatic nature of the CPA.”[22]

Pan-Christian Pilgrimage

In April 2003, Archbishop Levada embarked on an ecuмenical pilgrimage with leaders of two other denominations: the Episcopalian Right Rev. William Swing, and the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Anthony, both from San Francisco. The purpose of the trip was to visit Canterbury, Rome and Istanbul, “the centers of their respected branches of Christianity [sic] ... jointly meeting with the leaders of each body and praying together at holy sites.” They described their pilgrimage “as promoting Christian unity, as well as offering a witness to peaceful coexistence against the backdrop of the Iraqi war.”[23]

Yet this pilgrimage is nothing more than a witness to a counterfeit religion condemned by the Popes. In his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, which condemned the pan-religious ecuмenism practiced today, Pope Pius XI said that this pan-Christian initiative presents a “false Christianity, quite alien to the true Church of Christ.”

Pope Pius XI wrote that the Holy See has “always forbidden” Catholics to take part in interreligious assemblies. He rightly insisted, “unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, one faith of Christians ... There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it.” This is likewise the clear teaching of the perennial magisterium, especially that of Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, Pope Saint Pius X’s Ex Quo, and Pope Pius XII’s Instruction on the Ecuмenical Movement. Pope Pius XI further warned that the “fair and alluring words” of the pan-Christian initiative “cloak a most deadly error subversive to the Catholic Faith”.

Nonetheless, the three bishops on their ecuмenical pilgrimage were warmly received by John Paul II. They also visited the Vatican’s Walter Cardinal Kasper, the man who rejoices that Vatican II forsook the truth that non-Catholics must convert to the Catholic Church for unity and salvation. “Today” said Kasper, “we no longer understand ecuмenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”[24] By his ecuмenical pilgrimage and other interfaith activities, Archbishop Levada shows himself to be in basic agreement with Cardinal Kasper’s heterodox views.

One of Levada’s ecuмenical comrades on the ecuмenical pilgrimage, the Episcopalian Bishop William Swing, is a colorful character himself. Swing is the founder of the New Age “United Religions” initiative — a United Nations of religions — that works in tandem with the leftist Gorbachev Foundation and the syncretic World Council for Religion and Peace. It encompasses all religions, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jєωιѕн, Hindu, Muslim, B’hai, Shinto, you name it. Swing’s initiative bears an eerie resemblance to the Masonic “Church Universal” that New Age Alice Baily predicted would arise at the end of the 20th Century.[25]

Can anyone imagine solid Catholic bishops such as Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Saint Francis de Sales, or Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto globe-trotting with a pan-religious flower-child like William Swing? Yet Levada not only considered Swing a friend, but joined him in a lengthy, undoubtedly expensive, ecuмenical pilgrimage as a “symbol of unity” — a false unity condemned by all pre-Vatican II Popes. Not surprisingly, the pilgrimage included a stop in Frankfurt, Germany, where the three bishops and their entourages visited a former cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ and prayed at a ѕуηαgσgυє.

Levada and the True Mass

Archbishop Levada, while in Oregon, allowed an “indult” Tridentine Mass. Once he came to San Francisco, however, he refused to establish the indult. George Neumayer wrote that Levada was probably afraid to anger and alienate priests attached to his predecessor’s policies. Archbishop Quinn, the former Ordinary of San Francisco, vehemently opposed the Latin Mass, saying of the indult, “Not in my diocese.” Quinn also called the indult “divisive” in a letter to a diocesan priest who petitioned for it in 1984.

Neumayer quoted an acquaintance of Levada who said, “I’m not surprised by it. He (Levada) is keenly aware of priestly backlash ... And he knows, like most American prelates, that traditionalists are an expendable group, what with their lack of money and institutions.”[26] The fact that Levada angered those traditional Catholics petitioning for the indult seemed not to trouble him at all.

Archbishop Levada, while Ordinary of Oregon, also had run-ins with Father Eugene Heidt, a feisty traditional priest. Levada eventually illicitly “suspended” Father Heidt for his no-compromise adherence to Tradition. Before the “suspension”, during a meeting with the Archbishop, Father Heidt complained that the Archbishop’s Pastoral Letter on the Eucharist contained no mention of Transubstantiation. Levada replied that Transubstantiation is a “long and difficult term” and that “we don’t use it any more”.[27]

This is a mockery to the infallible Council of Trent, that committed the Church to this precise scholastic definition, hallowed by long usage. Even Pope Paul VI’s 1965 Mysterium Fidei reiterated that the parish priest is duty-bound to speak of “Transubstantiation.” (#54) Levada’s approach is also an insult to “modern man” to whom post-Conciliar churchmen constantly claim to be appealing. It implies that modern man is too stupid to comprehend a term that 2nd grade Catholic school children grasped only fifty years ago.

Shaky Moral Teaching

In a 1995 San Francisco Chronicle interview when he first arrived in San Francisco, Archbishop Levada was asked about the Catholic teaching on birth control and (immoral) devices for AIDS prevention. His answers were not exactly lucent. He said, “The Catholic Church does not teach against the regulation of birth, but says artificial contraception is not in God’s plan. But natural family planning is not given the same attention in the medical community as artificial contraception.”

Clearly, the Archbishop does not even think to reiterate the true Catholic teaching on the goodness of large families, nor does he mention that according to Catholic Moral teaching, any sort of birth regulation for a Catholic can only be for the gravest of reasons. Once again, NFP is falsely touted as a legitimate means of “Catholic” birth control.

Regarding devices for protection against AIDS, Archbishop Levada said, “Certainly if someone has decided not to follow the path of abstinence, and engage in extramarital sɛҳuąƖ relations, that already is something that is not in accord with God’s plan. It could be the better part of their choice to use the protections that are available.”

This response is a variation on Martin Luther, “Sin strong, but protect yourself stronger.” Mind you, Levada is saying this to a secular newspaper read by millions, and in San Francisco, no less.

Levada goes on to say that the Church does not believe there should be a widespread campaign to promote the use of these devices, and that the “better policy” is one that “corresponds to God’s plan, to refrain from sex until you marry and are faithful to one person.”[28]

Better policy? Why are men like Levada afraid to speak the simple truth: that the human acts under discussion are mortal sins that send a soul to hell for eternity? Why use the delicate phrase “not in accord with God’s plan”, with no mention of the horrifying eternal consequences for discarding God’s plan? How can a Catholic Archbishop possibly advance the falsehood that for those who will deliberately sin anyway, “it could be a better part of their choice to use the protections that are available”? Does he not know that use of these “protections” are intrinsically evil? That no set of circuмstances can justify employing them? Even for the sake of AIDS prevention, has he forgotten Saint Paul’s warning that we may not do evil that good may come from it? Is he not aware that the lesser of two evils is still an evil? And that evil can never be the direct object of our will? Levada’s moral theology appears to be as wobbly as his ecuмenical theology.[29]

His Eminence

All of what has been said reveals Archbishop Levada to be a child of Vatican II, a creature of the age, a prelate who side-stepped hot issues in his diocese, a churchman who covered-up clerical abuse and transferred known abusers to active parishes, a man whom no right-thinking Catholic would allow to teach religion to his children.

Yet out of all the bishops on the planet, Archbishop Levada is the man chosen by Pope Benedict XVI to be the alleged “watchdog of orthodoxy”, and to occupy the second most influential position in the Catholic Church worldwide.

Our Lady, Conqueror of All Heresies, pray for us!