July 14, 2014, Special Announcement

July 14, 2014, Feast of Saint Bonaventure:

The work of Christ or Chaos has gone “home” to www.Christorchaos.com!

A reader with vast computer, software and web design and maintenance knowledge contacted me on Thursday, July 10, 2014, the Feast of the Seven Holy Brothers with Saints Rufina and Secunda, and was able to offer me exactly what I wanted to do with the old site. Although the older articles created on the original site are stored as they were created with the Adobe Contribute program, the new front page, which retains much, although not quite all, of the look of the original home page, and all future articles will be written on a system called Drupal, which I like more than the Word Press that has been used on this site, which was converted from being a little used means to promote a little-read book to become the temporary home of my new articles after the Contribute program lost its functionality and denied me the ability to edit older articles or to create new pages. I thank the reader for doing this hard work and for walking this “tech” nincompoop through the process of creating new pages and posting articles.

There is still some work to be done on my part. The rest is explained in the preface to today’s article,

Finally, I noticed over the weekend that the July 11, 2014, Article and Prayer Request post that had been filed under “About Today’s New Article” (something I no longer need to do with Drupal) has disappeared without my doing anything about it. I did not take that post down. I have the text and will restore it in due course after inquiring of the Catholic gentleman whose company hosts this site whether access to its editing functions has been compromised or whether this is simply an unexplained quirk of one sort or another.

To sleep!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.


July 12 Republished Reflection

July 12, 2014, Feast of Saint John Gualbert and the Commemoration of Saints Nabor and Felix:

A brief and revised reflection on the life of Saint John Gualbert is offered to the readers of this site today: Reconciling Enemies One Unto the Other.

Yesterday was given over to inserting more corrections into the text of volume one of Converse in Reverse. Time will be taken today, though, to prepare a brief original article for tomorrow, the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Anacletus on the ninety-seventh anniversary of Our Lady showing Hell to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos as she revealed to them that this is the time of her Immaculate Heart. Indeed it is!

Finally, word reached me late last night of the death of Bishop Oliver Oravec. I did not know Bishop Oravec, who worked in Slovakia most recently. I will, though, certainly pray for the repose of his immortal soul and ask that the readers of this site do so as well.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and all of the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint John Gualbert, pray for us.

Saints Nabor and Felix, pray for us.

Reconciling Enemies One Unto the Other

Forgiveness of one’s enemies is a necessity if we want to save our immortal souls. There is, as I have noted so frequently on this site, no place in the heart of a Catholic for holding or nursing grudges or wishing ill for those we believe have injured us in some way or another. We must forgive as we are forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, and we must seek to do good to those who have injured us, recognizing that there is nothing we can suffer from others that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother to suffer as those Seven Swords of Sorrow were plunged through and through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

The Gospel reading for today’s Mass on the Feast of Saint John Gualbert (and a Commemoration of Saints Nabor and Felix) reminds us that the very Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Mary by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Annunciation, Christ the King Himself, taught us to forgive our enemies and to do good to those who persecute us:

You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: that you may be the children of your Father Who is in Heaven, Who maketh His sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have; do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5: 43-48.)

We must be perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect. We must forgive others. We cannot go about exacting vengeance or engaging in petty acts of vindictiveness against others. We must forgive as we are forgiven. It is that simple. Each of us deserves to be chastised for our sins. We should be grateful to the ever merciful God that He sends us others to calumniate us and to speak ill of us just moments after they may have spoken feigned words of greetings to us through gritted teeth and pretended smiles that betrayed a spirit of inner contempt.

So what?

So what?

Our sins deserve far, far worse than anything we are asked to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears. None of us or our supposed “reputations,” which exist more in our own imaginations than they do in the objective order of things, are so important as to become arrogant and full of self-righteous sanctimony when our “pride” is wounded and especially when things we would rather not hear about ourselves become more widely known in this life as a preparation for the revelation of each of our private thoughts, words and actions on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead. It will only be on that Last Day that the totality of our lives will be seen by others as we saw it at the Particular Judgment, which is ratified and made known to all at the General Judgment to manifest both the justice and mercy of God.

So many people plot and scheme and whisper behind closed doors (or endlessly on their cellular phones) to “protect” their nonexistent “reputations,” fearful that some ill word, whether true or not, will be spoken against them. Meetings are held where tales full of half-truth and lots of positivism are spun to seek reaffirmation from others for a “plan of action” to proactively attack those who know the truth about them and their constant self-seeking. To what end? To what good end? Doesn’t everything get revealed on the Last Day? Why all of the efforts to avoid a little chastisement in this life?

Indeed, much of the chastisement that comes our way could be avoided entirely if we only had more humility to say, “You know what? Boy, I’ve messed up a whole lot. I’ve done some very bad things. I’ve treated people badly. I’ve attempted to make others look guilty in a given situation when I’m the one at fault. You know what? I’m a stinker. Please forgive me.”

Saint John Gualbert, whose feast we celebrate today, was confronted with a plea for forgiveness from the murderer of his own brother. The reading from the Divine Office for this day, as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, tells of this plea and how it changed our Saint’s life:

Saint John Gualbert was born at Florence of a noble family. While, in compliance with his father’s wishes, he was following the career of arms, it happened that his only brother Hugh was slain by a kinsman. On Good Friday, John, at the head of an armed band, met the murderer alone and unarmed, in a spot where they could not avoid each other. Seeing death imminent, the murderer, with arms outstretched in the form of a cross, begged for mercy, and John, through reverence for the sacred sign, graciously spared him. Having thus changed his enemy into a brother, he went to pray in the church of San Miniato, which was near at hand; and as he was adoring the image of Christ crucified, he saw it bend its head towards him. John was deeply touched by this miracle, and determined thereafter to fight for God alone, even against his father’s wish; so on the spot he cut off his own hair and put on the monastic habit. Very soon his pious and religious manner of life shed abroad so great a lustre that he became to many a living rule and pattern of perfection. Hence on the death of the Abbot of the place he was unanimously chosen superior. But the servant of God, preferring obedience to superiority, and moreover being reserved by the divine will for greater things, bestook himself to Romuald, who was then living in the desert of Camaldoli, and who, inspired by heaven, announced to him that the institute he was to form; whereupon he laid the foundations of his Order under the Rule of St. Benedict of Vallombrosa. (The Roman Breviary, as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 79-80.)

Saint John Gualbert’s entire life was changed by extending forgiveness to the man who had killed his brother because he had seen his brother’s murderer plead for his life with a sign of the Holy Cross. He forgave. He laid down his arms of battle to take up arms for Christ the King.

Saint John Gualbert’s show of mercy to his brother’s murderer, however, did not mean that he was, to quote the words used so frequently by the late John Joseph Jackie Boy or “Sully” Sullivan, a “wimp, a fairy, a pansy.” Not at all. Saint John Gualbert hated what God hated, and he was as fierce as a soldier in the Army of Christ the King as he had been as a soldier with the arms of this world. Although he wanted to show mercy to all others, he was fearless in opposing the abuse of ecclesiastical power as he exposed the plots and schemes of clergymen who were interested in their own money and power and privileges rather than serving the souls for whom Christ the King had shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

If we think we have problems today in traditional circles, consider the hatred directed at Saint John Gualbert as he opposed the simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical offices and privileges) that was so very widespread in his day and as he showed himself to be a tireless foe of heresy:

Soon afterwards, many attracted by the renown of his sanctity, flocked to him from all sides. He received them into his society, and together with them he zealously devoted himself to rooting out heresy and simony and promoting the apostolic faith; on account of which devotedness both he and his disciples suffered innumerable injuries. Thus, his enemies in their eagerness to destroy him and his brethren, suddenly attacked the monastery of San Salvi by night, burned the church, demolished the buildings, and morally wounded all the monks. The man of God, however, restored them all forthwith to health by a single sign of the cross. Peter, one of his monks, miraculously walked unhurt through a huge blazing fire, and thus John obtained for himself and his sons the peace they so much desired. From that time forward every stain of simony disappeared from Tuscany: and faith, throughout all Italy, was restored to its former purity.

John built many entirely new monasteries, and restored many others both as to their material buildings and as to regular observance, strengthening them all with the bulwark of holy regulations. In order to feed the poor he sold the sacred vessels of the altar. The elements were obedient to his will when he sought to check evil-doers; and the sign of the cross was the sword he used whereby to conquer the devils. (The Roman Breviary, as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 80-81.)

Saint John Gualbert, man of mercy but also of justice, was dauntless in his effort to expose treachery and to unmask evildoers in shepherds’ clothing, living at the same time as that foe of the pestilence of sodomy then extant in ecclesiastical circles, Saint Peter Damian. Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the holy zeal for truth that consumed Saint John Gualbert, so much so that he had come into conflict with Saint Peter Damian, who had thought that Saint John Gualbert was wrong to have deposed a local bishop because of the latter’s self-seeking and practice of simony:

Never, from the day when Simon Magus was baptized at Samaria, had hell seemed so near to conquering the Church as at the period brought before us by to-day’s feast. Rejected and anathematized by Peter, the new Simon had said to the princes, as the former had said to the apostles: ‘Sell me this power, that upon whomsoever I shall lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.’ And the princes, ready enough to supplant Peter and fill their coffers at the same time, had taken upon themselves to invest men of their own choice with the government of the churches; the bishops in their turn had sold to the highest bidders the various orders of the hierarchy; and sensuality, ever in the wake of covetousness, had filled the sanctuary with defilement.

The tenth century had witnessed the humiliation of the supreme pontificate itself; early in the eleventh, simony was rife among the clergy. The work of salvation was going on in the silence of the cloister; but Peter Damian had not yet come forth from the desert; nor had Hugh of Cluny, Leo IX, and Hildebrand [Pope Gregory VII] brought their united efforts to bear upon the evil. A single voice was heard to utter the cry of alarm and rouse the people from their lethargy; it was the voice of a monk, who had once been a valiant soldier, and to whom the crucifix had bowed its head in recognition of his generous forgiveness of an enemy. John Gualbert, seeing simony introduced into his own monastery of San Miniato, left it and entered Florence, only to find the pastoral staff in the hands of a hireling. The zeal of God’s House was devouring his heart; and going into the public squares, he denounced the bishop and his own abbot, that thus he might, at least, deliver his own soul.

At the sight of this monk confronting single-handed the universal corruption, the multitude was for a moment seized with stupefaction; but soon surprise was turned into rage, and John with difficulty escaped death. From this day John his special vocation was determined: the just, who had never despaired, hailed him as an avenger of Israel, and their hope was not to be confounded. But like all who are chosen for a divine work, he was to spend a long time under training of the Holy Spirit. The athlete had challenged the powers of this world; the holy war was declared: one would naturally have expected it to wage without ceasing until the enemy was entirely defeated. And yet, the chosen soldier of Christ hastened into solitude to ‘amend his life,’ according to the truly Christian expression used in the foundation-charter of Vallombrosa. The promoters of the disorder, startled at the suddenness of the attack, and then seeing the aggressor as suddenly disappear, would laugh at the false alarm; but cost what it might to the once brilliant soldier, he knew how to be abide, in humility and submission, the hour of God’s good pleasure.

Little by little other souls, disgusted with the state of society, came to join him; and soon the army of prayer and penance spread throughout Tuscany. It was destined to extend all over Italy, and even to cross the mountains. Settimo, seven miles from Florence, and San Salvi, at the gates of the city, were the strongholds whence the hold war was to recommence in 1063. Another simoniac, Peter of Pavia, had purchased the succession to the episcopal see. John, with all his monks, was resolved rather to die than to witness in silence this new insult offered to the Church of God. His reception this time was to be very different from the former, for the fame of his sanctity and miracles had caused him to be looked upon by the people as an oracle. No sooner was his voice heard once more in Florence that the whole flock was so stirred that the unworthy pastor, seeing he could no longer dissemble, cast off his disguise and showed what he really was: a thief who had come only to rob and kill and destroy. By his orders a body of armed men descended upon San Salvi, set fire to the monastery, fell upon the brethren in the midst of the Night Office, and put them all to the sword; each monk continuing to chant till he received the final stroke. John Gualbert, hearing at Vallambrosa of the martyrdom of his sons, intoned a canticle of triumph. Florence was seized with horror, and refused to communicate with the assassin bishop. Nevertheless, four years had yet to elapse before deliverance could come; and the trials of St. John had scarcely begun.

St. Peter Damian, invested with full authority by the Sovereign Pontiff, had just arrived from the Eternal City. All expected that no quarter would be given to simony by its sworn enemy, and that peace would be restored to the afflicted Church. The very contrary took place. The greatest saints may be mistaken, and so become to one another the cause of sufferings by so much the bitter as their will, less subject to caprice than that of other men, remains more firmly set upon the course they have adopted for the interests of God and His Church. Perhaps the great bishop of Ostia [Saint Peter Damian] did not take into consideration the exceptional position in which the Florentines were placed by the notorious simony of Peter of Pavia, and the violent manner in which he put to death, without form of trial, all who dared to withstand him. Starting from the indisputable principle that inferiors have no right to depose their superiors, the legate reprehended the conduct of the monks, and of all who had separated themselves from the bishop. There was but one refuge for them, the Apostolic See, to which they fearlessly appealed, a proceeding which no one could call uncanonical. But there, says the historian,. many who feared for themselves, rose up against them, declaring that these monks were worthy of death for having dared to attack the prelates of the Church; while Peter Damian severely reproached them before the whole Roman Council. The holy and glorious Pope Alexander II took the monks under his own protection, and praised the uprightness of their intention. Yet he dared not comply with their request and proceed further, because the greater number of the bishops sided with Peter of Pavia; the archdeacon Hildebrand [the future Pope Gregory VII] alone was entirely in favour of the Abbot of Vallambrosa [Saint John Gualbert].

Nevertheless, the hour was at hand when God Himself would pronounce the judgment refused them by men. While overwhelmed with threats and treated as lambs amongst wolves, John Gualbert and his sons cried to heaven with the Psalmist: ‘Arise, O Lord, and help us; arise, why dost Thou sleep, O Lord? Arise, O God, and judge our cause.’ At Florence the storm continued to rage. St. Saviour’s at Settimo became the refuge of such of the clergy as were banished from the town by the persecution; the holy founder, who was then residing in the monastery, multiplied in their behalf the resources of his charity. At length the situation became so critical that one day in Lent of the year 1067 the rest of the clergy and whole population left the simoniac alone in his deserted palace and fled to Settimo. Neither the length of the road, deep in mud from the rain, nor the rigorous fast observed by all, says the narrative written at that very time to the Sovereign Pontiff by the clergy of the people of Florence, could stay the most delicate matrons, women about to become mothers, or even children. Evidently the Holy Ghost was actuating the crowd; they called for the judgment of God. John Gualbert, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, gave his consent to the trial; and in testimony of the truth of the accusation brought by him against the Bishop of Florence, Peter, one of his monks, since known as Peter Igneus, walked slowly before the eyes of the multitude through an immense fire, without receiving the smallest injury. Heaven had spoken: the bishop was deposed by Rome, and ended his days, a happy penitent, in that very monastery of Settimo.

In 1073, the year in which his friend Hildebrand was raised to the Apostolic See, John was called to God. His influence against simony had reached far beyond Tuscany. The Republic of Florence ordered his feast to be kept as a holiday, and the following words were engraved upon his tombstone: To John Gualbert, Citizen of Florence, Deliverer of Italy. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 75-79.)

Yes, there are precedents for a priest to denounce self-seekers. There are precedents for such a priest to be hated by many for his doing so as the self-seekers wrap themselves up in sanctimony and claim that they are the victims, not those whom they have abused or whose abuse they have suborned time and time again. There are precedents for a priest to be misunderstood and calumniated and abandoned by those who should be supporting him because they prefer not to see the truth of a given matter as this would mean upsetting an established order that has not been in the interest of the sanctification and salvation of souls or, obviously, to the honor and glory of God. 

Truth comes out sooner or later despite all efforts to hide it, to deny it, to misrepresent it, to attack those who speak out in its holy defense. Truth comes out sooner or later.

Saint John Gualbert forgave the man who murdered his brother.

He forgave the simoniac bishop, Peter of Pavia, whose reconciliation to Christ the King was so near and dear to his own deeply pastoral heart, which was conformed to that of the Most Sacred Heart of the Good Shepherd Himself.

There can be no compromise on any matter of Faith. There can be no compromise on any matter of Morals. There can be no compromise in any situation when souls are being abused by those who believe that they are to be served by the sheep rather than to minister unto the sheep who are in such need of succor and encouragement from their shepherds.

This is a point that Dom Prosper Gueranger made in his closing prayer in honor of Saint John Gualbert:

O true disciple of the New Law, who didst know how to spare an enemy for the love of the Holy Cross! teach us to practise, as thou didst, the lessons conveyed by the instrument of our salvation, which will then become to us, as to thee, a weapon ever victorious over the powers of hell. Could we look upon the Cross, and then refuse to forgive our brother an injury, when God Himself not only forgets our heinous offenses against His sovereign Majesty, but even died upon the Tree to expiate them? The most generous pardon a creature can grant is but a feeble shadow of the pardon we daily obtain from our Father in heaven. Still, the Gospel which the Church sings in thy honour may well teach us that the love of our enemies is the nearest resemblance we can have to our heavenly Father, and the sign that we are truly His children.

Thou hadst, O John, this grand trait of resemblance. He, who in virtue of His eternal generation is the true Son of God by nature, recognized in thee the mark of nobility which made thee His brother. When He bowed His sacred Head to thee, He saluted in thee the character of a child of God, which thou hadst just so beautifully maintained: a title a thousand times more glorious than those of noble ancestry. What a powerful germ was the Holy Ghost planting at that moment in thy heart! And how richly does God recompense a single generous act! Thy sanctification, the glorious share thou didst take in the Church’s victory, the fecundity whereby thou livest still in the Order sprung up from thee: all these choice graces for thy own soul and for so many others hung upon that critical moment. Fate, or the justice of God, as they contemporaries would have said, had brought thy enemy within thy power: how wouldst thou treat him? he was deserving of death; and in those days every man was his own avenger. Hadst thou then inflicted due punishment upon him, thy reputation would have rather increased than diminished. Thou wouldst have obtained the esteem of thy comrades; but only the glory which is of any worth before God, indeed the only glory which lasts long even in the sight of men, would never have been thine. Who would have known thee at the present day? Who would have felt the admiration and gratitude with which thy very name now inspires the children of the Church?

The Son of God, seeing that thy dispositions were conformable to those of His Sacred Heart, filled thee with His own jealous love of the holy City for whose redemption He shed His Blood. O thou that wert zealous for the beauty of the Bride, watch over her still; deliver her from hirelings who would fain receive from men the right of holding the place of the Bridegroom. In our days venality is less to be feared than compromise. Simony would take another form; there is not so much danger of bribery as of fawning, paying homage, making advances, entering into implicit contracts; all which proceedings are as contrary to the holy canons as are pecuniary transactions. And after all, is the evil any less for taking a milder form, if it enables princes to bind the Church again in fetters such as thou didst labour to break? Suffer not, O John Gualbert, such a misfortune, which would be the forerunner of terrible disasters. Continue to support with thy powerful arm the common Mother of men. Save thy fatherland a second time, seven in spite of itself. Protect, in these sad times, the Order of which thou art the glory and the father; give it strength to outlive the confiscations and the cruelties it has suffered from that same Italy which once hailed thee as its deliverer. Obtain for Christians of every condition the courage required for the warfare in which are all bound to engage. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 75-79.)

We live at a time when so many men who know better, including priests and presbyters within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, make one compromise after another with their own consciences, violating their very integrity as they do so, to fawn over and pay homage to a false “pope” who is a blasphemer and thus a murderer of souls. They are always ready to play The Let’s Pretend Game, proving themselves to be self-seeking hirelings afraid to speak out in defense of the truths of the Sacred Faith.

Truth be told, of course, we really don’t deserve a better situation than this, especially if we consider how our sins have helped to bring on and to perpetuate the chastisements that are now upon us. We are very responsible for the state of the world-at-large and for the state of the Church Militant on earth, which is why we must plead with the Mother of God to help us to be reconciled unto her Divine Son, Christ the King, in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance by making a good, sincere, integral Confession on a regular basis, if at all possible in these times, and to cooperate with the graces received therein to amend our lives and to do penance for our sins, living more and more penitentially as we withdraw from the world, assist more regularly at Holy Mass, spend time before Our King’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Let us keep close to the Divine Redeemer’s Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother in this month of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus that was shed for our sanctification and salvation. If Our Lord shed His Most Precious Blood to atone for our sins, we had better be ready to forgive each other even in the midst of circumstances that find us on opposing sides of those with whom we should desire to spend all eternity in Heaven.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John Gualbert, pray for us.

Saints Nabor and Felix, pray for us.

Dialogue, Anyone?

This will be a very brief commentary as the demands of my preparing Conversion in Reverse as print-on-demand book free of all typographical errors are pretty all-consuming right now, to say nothing of my daily duties of state.

Additionally, although great effort was put into the completion of Arguing Over the Inarguable three day ago, the article has been accessed a total of thirty-eight times. I account for three of those. Another was the result of a fine Catholic attorney, one who does not agree with my position on the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, who called it “excellent,” a compliment I take to heart as this attorney takes no prisoners in behalf of the Social Reign of Christ the King. There is thus really no need to rush to post these articles given the dramatic decrease in the readership of this site.

This is all within the Providence of God. Articles will still appear on this site from time to time. However, the decreased readership comes at a propitious time as I try to complete volumes two and three of my study of Americanism and put volume one and a several anthologies of these articles into a print-on-demand format.

The subject of this brief commentary is simple: the escalating level of violence in the Middle East that is the result of the adherents of two different false religions, Talmudism and Mohammedanism, having souls that are captive to the devil by means Original Sin. Those whose souls are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin are more inclined to hate those they deem responsible for acts of injustice and to visit all manner of violent vengeance in the name of “justice.” No amount of the madness of “dialogue” can soothe the savagery of a land that is suffering from the rejection of Christ the King by the Abrahamic Jews during the thirty-seven year period of mercy that He extended to them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the pagan Romans as a chastisement for their infidelity and hardness of heart. Peace in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world will be the result of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

The mad hatters of conciliarism, apostates that they are, do not recognize this as they are so bereft of even a modicum of Catholicism and even any true understanding of the facts of history as they must be understood through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith that the only thing they can do is to show themselves to be shallow ideologues who are incapable of breaking free from their own enslavement to the doctrines and praxis of a false religion, conciliarism.

Consider, for example, just two passages from a statement released by something called the Justice and Peace Commission of the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in the Holy Land:

We need radical change. Israelis and Palestinians together need to shake off the negative attitudes of mutual mistrust and hatred. We are called to educate the younger generation in a new spirit that challenges the existing mentalities of oppression and discrimination. We need to shake off any leadership that feeds on the cycle of violence. We must find and support leaders who are determined to work for justice and peace, recognizing that God has planted here three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and two peoples: Palestinian and Israeli. We must find leaders who are clear-sighted and courageous enough to face the urgency of the present situation and to take the difficult decisions that are needed, leaders who, if necessary, are ready to sacrifice their political careers for the sake of a just and lasting peace. Such leaders have the vocation to be healers, peace makers, seekers of justice and visionaries of the alternatives to the cycle of violence.

We remember the recent visit of Pope Francis to our region and his incessant call for justice and peace. In his meeting with the Palestinian leadership he said: “In expressing my closeness to those who suffer most from this conflict, I wish to state my heartfelt conviction that the time has come to put an end to this situation which has become increasingly unacceptable. For the good of all, there is a need to intensify efforts and initiatives aimed at creating the conditions for a stable peace based on justice, on the recognition of the rights of every individual, and on mutual security. The time has come for everyone to find the courage to be generous and creative in the service of the common good” (May 25, 2014). Likewise, in his meeting with the Israeli leadership, he said “Here I renew my plea that all parties avoid initiatives and actions which contradict their stated determination to reach a true agreement and that they tirelessly work for peace, with decisiveness and tenacity. There is likewise need for a firm rejection of all that is opposed to the cultivation of peace and respectful relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims” (May 26, 2014). (Holy Land: A call for courageous change.)

Two brief comments, please.

First, the true God of Divine Revelation did not  “plant” “three religions” in the Holy Land.

Repeat after me, you alleged ordinaries of the Holy Land: God used the pagan Romans to disperse most of the Abrahamic Jews out of the Holy Land in 70 A.D. Contrary to what is taught by the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Old Covenant that God made with Moses ended when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ took His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, thereby causing the earth to quake and the curtain in the Temple to be torn in two from top to bottom. The definitive public pronouncement to the effect of the invalidity of the Old Covenant was made by Christ the King Himself when the Jews were expelled from the Holy Land, and the Zionists, who comprise most, although not all, of the Talmudists in Israel, returned in defiance of this dispersal.

God did not “plant” any Judaism in the Holy Land, no less intend it to be recognized as a religion that is pleasing to Him by men who believe themselves to be officials of the Catholic Church.

Repeat after me, you blasphemers of the Most Blessed Trinity who make insane statements about how to break the cycle of violence in the Holy Land: Mohammedanism is a false religion that was born in a violent hatred of the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity. It spread through North Africa and into the Holy Land itself as a result of violent conquest.

Indeed, even though the leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are seen by all Shiites and even some Sunnis as the Mohammedan version of the iconoclasts who were fought by Saint John Damascene in behalf of the true Faith, their commitment to abject violence, which has included blowing up Christian churches in Syria and blowing up Shiite mosques and even Sunni mosques in Iraq that have been deemed to belong to idolaters (see ISIS destroys shrines and mosques, may be targeting Mecca.)

Dialogue, anyone?

We are not going to stop the tide of the threats posed by Mohammedanism and the bloodthirsty, vengeful nature of the Zionists and other false religions with any form of dialogue or with any kind of naturalism. We must avoid all contact with these agents of error and indifferentism.

Who says so?

Look again for yourselves:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

As noted just above, the souls of the Talmudists and the Zionists are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin. The souls of the conciliar apostates, starting with Jorge himself, are steeped in the blindness of what are, objectively speaking, their Mortal Sins against the Holy Faith. As is the case with the Talmudists and Zionists, the officials of the false religion known as conciliarism are thus incapable of serving as instruments of a true peace, that of Christ the King Himself, something that has been pointed out on this site scores upon scores of times by citing the following passage from Pope Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23 1922:

49. It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ — “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ’s kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

What can we do?

Pray the Rosary in fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message, do penance for our sins, make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners and for the conversion of non-Catholics, including the conciliar apostates. Spend time, if at all possible where you live, in prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

There are worse chastisements to come. We must be prepared to suffer them with joy, gratitude and love as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius I, pray for us.

July 8, 2014, Article and Update

July 8, 2014, Feast of Saint Elizabeth of Portugal:

Arguing Over the Inarguable is a much-delayed commentary on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America last week. The writing of the commentary was delayed by the handiwork of the hacker (whose last hacking took place from the vicinity of Alameda, California, confirming my beliefs about the person who is ultimately responsible for directing this activity) and was delayed further last night as I neared the completion of my work by the malfunctioning of my horrific, terrible, fake, phone, fraud Acer notebook computer’s keyboard. This forced me to drive some distance to an office store to purchase a keyboard, which sits precariously on the arm of a chair as look at the computer screen on a folding table to my right. Not the most optimal conditions, especially considering the computer’s tendency to eat text as one is writing, something I have discovered from an online search is a common but completely unadvertised feature of the Acer notebook computer. All to thee, Blessed Mother. All to thy Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.  Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you. Save souls. Penance is better than ever in 2014. (I know better than to make a public appeal for non-tax-deductible gifts to help fund the purchase of a new computer!)

Every effort was made to duplicate parts of the article that got erased last night as I was typing. I will, though, do a follow-up commentary in a day or two to elaborate on a few points and to provide something of a thumbnail history of the Federal government’s funding of the anti-family agenda and how even true bishops, including Francis Cardinal Spellman and Archbishop Richard Cushing (who has made a “cardinal” by “Saint John XXIII), and the phony “bishops” who succeeded them have served as water boys for this agenda at almost every turn.

As I have been noting, I do have other work to complete that will make the posting of articles on this site less frequent. Again, there will be commentaries from time to time, and I might find it a better and more efficient use of my time to record video commentaries (that would be recorded via audio means as well) on occasion. Thank you for your patience.

Finally, please do join us in praying for Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P., on his eighty-seventh birthday today, July 8, 2014.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.

Arguing Over That Which Is Inarguable

One of the nicest things about having a little-read website is that that there are fewer and fewer people to agitate with commentaries such as this one.

Although made in an effort at self-effacing humor, it has my experience over the past thirty-three years, dating back to then President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s nomination of Sanda Day O’Connor to succeed retiring Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Potter Stewart, a Freemason was an appointee of President Dwight David Eisenhower and one of the seven justices who voted in the majority in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, on July 7, 1981, that any effort to point out stark truths during times of celebrations of alleged “victories” for “constitutionalism” is not very welcome at all.

“You’re just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good,”  I was told in 1981 when I pointed out that Arizona State Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor was completely pro-abortion. “Reagan wouldn’t do that,” I was told. “You gotta trust Reagan. He knows what he is doing.”

Ronald Reagan did know what he was doing. He did know that Sandra Day O’Connor was pro-abortion. This not matter to him as he wanted to keep his campaign promise of a year before, 1980, to nominate a woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America and to narrow the “gender gap” for the Republican Party. Reagan knew that O’Connor was pro-abortion, which is why he refused to answer any questions after he made a brief statement in the Rose Garden of the White House, deferring all questions to then Attorney General William French Smith.

Here is a transcript of what happened following Reagan’s brief statement announcing the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor:

Reporter. Do you agree with her position on abortion, Mr. President?

The President. I said that I was going to turn over all questions to the Attorney General here and let him answer the questions.

Q. But the right-to-life people object, and we just wonder if—

The President. All those questions the Attorney General is prepared to answer.

Q. But, Mr. President, you have such a firm position on that. Can you give us your feelings about her position on that?

The President. I am completely satisfied.

Q. On her right-to-life position?

The President. Yes.

Q. And did you interview her personally?

The President. Yes. (Remarks Announces the Intention To Nominate Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.)

President Reagan, who supported the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs in the so-called “hard cases,” would not hear of any objections to Sandra Day’ Connor, who served only on an intermediate level appeals court in the State of Arizona (Arizona’s Court of Appeals is the equivalent of what is the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, which is a trial court, believe it or not; judicial nomenclature within the fifty states make as much sense as many of the decisions rendered by those courts) and who had a completely pro-abortion record when she served as the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate.

The late Mr. Howard Phillips, who was the founder and chairman of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, gave testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate against the nominations of both the O’Connor and David Souter nominations, as he explained in an interview in 2005. Although I disagreed with Mr. Phillips’s support for the philosophy of the founders of the United States of America, his work exposing the fraudulent nature of various “pro-life” Republican administrations was truly admirable and stands of its well-documented merits.The interview in 2005 was conducted after then President George Walker Bush, the man who was the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush, who gave us David H. Souter, had nominated United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge John G. Roberts to replace O’Connor on the Supreme Court:

Let me put this into context. People say you can’t tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it” very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor because it was very clear that she had a pro-abortion record in the Arizona state senate and as a judge in Arizona. She was also allied with Planned Parenthood. I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard in which he said he was a legal positivist and one of his heroes was Oliver Wendell Holmes and that he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence. In addition, he was a trustee of two hospitals: Dartmouth Hitchcock and Concord Memorial. He successfully changed the policy of those two hospitals from ‘zero abortion’ to ‘convenience abortion.‘ I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg because her record was clear. She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature. She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts, I’m in the midst of an extensive and intensive study of his record. Several things become clear, although I’m not ready to reach a final conclusion. It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream. (Flynn Files – Howard Phillips Interview Part I)

The documentation provided by Howard Phillips and Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, about Sandra Day O’Connor’s pro-abortion record was ignored by the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion members of the United States Senate, who confirmed her by a vote of 99-0 on September 21, 1981. Here is an an excerpt from Phillips’s actual testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which was then chaired by United States Senator Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina):

As an Arizona State Senator, she voted twice for abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy; she co-sponsored a proposal to permit abortion without parental consent; she promoted ERA; she opposed the Human Life Amendment; and she failed to oppose abortions at a taxpayer-funded facility. (The Supreme Court Watch – A Public Service of The Conservative Caucus.)

Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, similarly testified against Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination in 1981, also documenting O’Connor’s solid pro-abortion record as the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. Anyone who claims that they were “surprised” by O’Connor’s opinions, summarized below by a pro-abortion organization, is dealing in a world of fanciful delusions. Howard Phillips and Judie Brown documented Sandra Day O’Connor’s pro-abortion record openly and publicly.

Sandra Day O’Connor proved herself to be a reliably firm vote in support of the chemical and surgical execution of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs under the cover of the civil law. Among other cases, Sandra Day O’Connor joined Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by President Ronald Wilson Reagan on November 30, 1987, and sworn in on February 18, 1988, in his now infamous opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992:

Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable, representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. P. 835.

(e) The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. (Text of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.)

The warfare upon the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, a warfare that had been waged with particular fury by Margaret Sanger from the time after the First World War until her death on September 6, 1966, and endorsed “theologically” by the Lambeth Conference of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect in 1930 and established as a constitutional “right” in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, had become so ingrained by the 1990s that this evil was considered a “necessity” in the social and economic life of the entire United States of America. That this is indeed an established fact in the actual order of things does not vitiate the inherent evil of contraception and how it has served as the pathway, both socially and legally, to the establishment and institutionalization of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers’ wombs.

This is all a very important prelude to commenting on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Connestoga Wood Specialities v Burwell, June 30, 2014, as the majority in these jointly decided cases was cobbled together on the following premises: (a) that all contraceptives, including those that are unquestionably abortifacient in nature, are thoroughly legal to manufacture, sell and use; (b) that the government of the United States of America has the right to mandate that employers provide health insurance coverage for all forms of contraceptives and “voluntary” sterilization; and (c) that Affordable Care and Health Protection Act is beyond any constitutional review (see Here To Stay).

Let me explain the premises before proceeding to comment on the case.

There are only three justices (Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas) who believe that Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a nonexistent “right” for married couples to purchase contraceptives (the right was extended to the unmarried in the case of Eisentadt v. Baird, March 22, 1972), was decided incorrectly and thus established a nonexistent constitutional “right to privacy” based on what were said to be “penumbras” emanating from the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Any assault in the Hobby Lobby and Connestoga Wood cases on the “right” to manufacture, sell and use contraceptives would not have passed muster with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (see Planned Parenthood v. Robert Casey above), a Catholic, or with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who did, after all, switch his vote in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 28, 2012, to bestow upon us the “gift” of the “constitutionality” ObamaDeathCare. John Roberts, a Catholic who is associated with Opus Dei, cares too much for “precedent” and actually said during his confirmation hearings in 2005 that Roe v. Wade was “settled law.” The decision in the Hobby Lobby and Connestoga Wood Specialties combined cases could not have attracted a five vote majority without extolling the availability of contraceptives, including abortifacients, to the employees of both firms, albeit not paid for by the firms themselves. And it could not have been rendered without an acknowledgment of the “right” of the government of the United States of America to mandate that employers afford health insurance coverage for “family planning” programs.

That which is inarguable, the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, must be denied as arguments based in an acceptance of legal positivism and moral relativism are used to protect that which is ultimately responsible for this madness, religious liberty, for the owners of for-profit corporations that are “tightly-held” by private families. Even those owners, as well-meaning and courageous as they were to incur the possibility of monstrous fines that might result in the closure of their firms and the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs, had no objections to contraception in se, only to those that work without question as abortifacients.

Moreover, as will be seen from the excerpt from the decision of the court, which was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the entire framework of the legal reasoning of the five justice majority was that the contraceptive mandate imposed an unreasonable burden on the exercise of “religious freedom” as defined in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as there are other ways for employees to obtain health insurance coverage for “family planning” programs, including the four abortifiacient contraceptives to which the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Connestoga Wood Specialities objected. Justice Alito went to great lengths to explain that no female employees of either firm were at risk to losing access to the four baby-killing contraceptives.

While this may be a victory for the consciences of the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Connestoga Wood Specialites, it is no kind of a victory at all for moral truth as every form of contraceptive is evil and as the Supreme Court conceded the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate in and of itself, deciding that “religious freedom” and the undue burden placed on its exercise took precedence over the mandate in the cases before it.

Here is the essential reasoning of Justice Alito in the combined cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Connestoga Wood Specialities v Burwell, June 30, 2014:

We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies for-feited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.

Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.

Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contracep-tives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 1–2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” Post, at 2. The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.)

To decide that the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration to owners of closely-held companies does not cause an “undue burden” on women to realize the benefits mandated by  Department of Health and Human Service’s contraceptive mandate, which was, if you recall, written personally by the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a nefarious pro-abort Catholic who was closely allied and took blood money from the murdered late-term baby-killer George Tiller (see Reichstag II) and remains a Catholic in good standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is to use the exact same reasoning that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy employed in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.

To wit, Justice Kennedy argued that the Federal government’s ban on the the killing of babies by means of “partial-birth abortion,” known in the baby-killing trade as “dilation and extraction,” in cases except where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered represented no undue burden on women who wanted to kill their babies in the later stages of their development because other methods of late-term baby-killing (hysterotomy, dilation and evacuation, saline solution poisoning) remained perfectly legal:

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

     Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05-1382, at 408-409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05-380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858.

     D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.)

In other words, Justice Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy both reasoned their way to conclusions that well-meaning pro-life Americans believe will save babies by pointing out quite explicit that those who felt “burdened” by the laws in question had other means available to kill their babies and, in the present instance, to obtain health insurance coverage for the abortifacients to do so.

While taking nothing away from the personal victory of the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the fact remains that the baby-killing potions they refuse, correctly, of course, to provide coverage for directly will still be available to their employees by the alternatives provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. And while not seeking for one moment to castigate these courageous individuals who have suffered much at the hands of the anti-life anti-family, anti-Theistic statists, it is nevertheless true that their blithe acceptance of contraception in se and their willingness to provide it is offensive to God in the objective order of things and is detrimental to the eternal and temporal good of their employees and that of society-at-large.

Then again, Protestantism long ago made its “official reconciliation” with family planning. It was shortly after the Lambeth Conference met in England in 1930 that a federation of Protestant sects gathered to endorse the use of contraceptives in “limited” cases as being perfectly in accord with the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This caused The Washington Post, of all newspapers, to issue the following editorial on March 22, 1931:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on “marriage and the home,” which has now submitted a report favoring a “careful and restrained” use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for “regulating the size of families” is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and ‘scientific’ propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. (“Forgetting Religion,” Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1932. I have given you part of this quote in the past. This is the full editorial. I had to purchase the editorial in order to do so. No expense is spared, good and few readers, to bring you these articles.)

Several objections might be raised to this commentary, starting with the belief that the decision in the combined Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Burwell v. Connestoga Wood Specialities cases has dealt a severe blow to ObamaDeathCare’s “one size fits all” mandates, some of which have received “waivers,”  whose authorization is not to be found in the Affordable Care and Health Protection Act, from President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, That this might be the case is conceded. However, it does not change the underlying reasons why what is, for all intents and purposes, government-mandated free contraception for everyone, is here to stay.

Yes, it is important at all times to recognize the limitations of the concrete circumstances in which we live, meaning that, as noted earlier in this commentary, concessions were made by Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas to the government’s “right” to mandate health insurance for contraceptive services in order to make it possible to apply the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The legal groundwork is being laid for the five justices to provide protection to religiously-affiliated institutions, such as Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, and the Little Sisters of the Poor in Denver, Colorado, from the Obama-Sebelius contraception coverage mandate. Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, that Holy Mother Church will make use of the legal means available to her children to protect themselves without ever conceding anything to the falsehoods of “protections” that would be part of rightly-formed state that flow naturally from the Social Reign of Christ the King. All well and good.

My point remains, however, that the very fact that we find ourselves in this situation of arguing over the inarguable is the precise, inevitable result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that institutionalized theological relativism as a normal part of social life. Indeed, the revolution begun by Father Martin Luther before spreading all over the kingdoms of western Europe was founded on a rejection of the inviolability  of a ratified and consummated marriage in complete defiance of the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11.)

The forces of naturalism that can be termed as Judeo-Masony exploited Protestantism’s theological relativism to make it possible for the triumph of moral relativism in every nook and cranny of everyday existence. Attacking the the inviolability and the sanctity and fecundity of marriage has been a goal of Judeo-Masonry from its very inception.

Writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Pope Leo XIII explained how the theological relativism of Protestantism made possible the rise and the triumph of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry:

23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Pope Leo XIII also explained the attacks on the integrity of the family by Freemasons, first in Arcanum, February 10, 1890:

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true — namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

The assault on the inviolability of marriage by the forces of Judeo-Masonry made possible the triumph of contraception and the contraceptive mentality in the second, third and fourth decades of the Twentieth Century. Pope Pius XI prophetically warned the suppression of the primary end of marriage, the propagation and education of children as God sees fit to send them, in favor of lustful desires would result in the rise of all manner of new species of “unions” that would one day enjoy the cover of the civil law:

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony — hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label “temporary,” “experimental,” and “companionate.” These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern “culture” in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

We have arrived at that time when these new species of civil unions and worse yet have been endorsed under cover of the civil law and/or mandated by judicial fiat.

Remember, it was the aforementioned Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who issued the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2014, that has opened the floodgates to the judicial imposition of “gay marriage” all over the country. (See Irreversible By Means Merely Human.) This is why four justices could not be found to grant certiorari to docket a case presented by plaintiffs who sought overturn a ban on naturalistic therapy designed to convert minors steeped in perversity from their sinful ways (see Supreme Court Declines Case Contesting Ban on Gay Conversion Therapy.)

As I noted a year ago and have emphasized repeatedly since that time, it it impossible for sentimentality and emotionalism to be retarded absent the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

One of the reasons our problems are so intractable is that the Americanist bisops of yore in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries saw in the false, naturalistic, semi-Pelagian, religiously indifferentist and anti-Incarnational principles of the American founding the means by which the Holy Faith could be protected. Most, although not all, especially those of German ancestry, of these bishops encouraged Catholic immigrants to become imbued with the ethos of the country, oblivious to the fact that Catholics were being converted slowly over time into viewing Holy Mother Church through the eyes of naturalism (democracy, egalitarianism, religious indifferentism, materialism) rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the Holy Faith. It is no accident at all that the revolutionaries who serve as “bishops” of the counterfeit church of America have enabled the statists at almost every turn, leaving it to well meaning members of Protestant sects to fight, albeit upon principles that are objectively false, the battles that should be fought by the Catholic Church without making any concessions at all to erroneous principles and certainly without celebrating the very false premises that are responsible for spreading all manner of social evils under cover of the civil law and throughout the midst of our popular culture much to the great delight of most Catholics.

That the lords of conciliarism in the United States of America do not fight upon the foundation of Christ the King leads them to exalt the very thing that has given us Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetro and his regime of utter statism and wanton disregard for the laws of God and man (see Taking Refuge in Racism to Break the Laws of God and Man), religious liberty.

Permit me to elaborate upon this in order to demonstrate why efforts to fight the prevailing moral evils of the day will in spite of occasional court victories that caesar will ignore just as surely as he is ignoring the just laws of the land concerning the protection of the integrity and security of this nation’s borders.

1. Barack Hussein Obama is the quintessential end product of “religious liberty.” The heresy of “religious liberty” championed by the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America is what produced the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and made it possible for Catholics in the United States of America to view the Catholic Church and their solemn duties to her through the eyes of the Americanist concepts of “democracy,” “equality,” “freedom” and “individualism.”

Pope Leo XIII explained what the future holds for men who do believe that civil society can know social order over the course of the long term when the state gives “equal rights” to all religions, an absurdity that leads to the triumph of practical atheism, of which Barack Hussein Obama is a prime example:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

To think that one is going to fight the assaults of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Company against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law with the very poison, religious liberty, that made their rise to public prominence possible is insanity.

2. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has insisted on protecting the “liberty” of its institutions while failing to protect the rights of individual Catholic employers.

3. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has thus far refused to assert that the Obama-Biden-Sebelius “contraception mandate” is evil in se and is offensive to Christ the King and to the good ordering of the domestic cell of the Church and the fundamental building block of society, the family.

4. Most of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America, noting very few exceptions here and there, support ObamaCare as a matter of principle.  Most of the members of the conciliar “hierarchy” and their chancery factotums subscribe to some variation of the “leftist” brand of naturalism.  These unfortunate men, who offend God every day as they stage the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that is sacramentally barren and that falsifies Catholic doctrine (the sacerdotal nature of  the priesthood, the expiatory nature of the Holy Mass, the very Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) and who propagate one condemned proposition after another, really believe that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve as the foundation of personal and social order. They are apostates.

5. Many of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America have suborned the use of contraceptives by those who bother to darken the doors of their formerly Catholic church buildings. Some have gone so far as to invite “theologians” who openly dissent from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to speak in parishes and/or have done nothing to prevent such speakers from speaking at universities or colleges.

6. Moreover, apart from their complete support for each of conciliarism’s multiple defections from the Holy Faith (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, condemned interpretation of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and States) while embracing in a full-throated manner many aspects of a culture that glorifies evil, particularly by means of indecent attire and amusements that are in and of themselves incentives to sin, they have enabled and suborned Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn.

7. The American “bishops” support the vivisection of living human beings in the name of “organ donation” for purposes of “giving the gift of life.”

8. The American “bishops” undermine the innocence and purity of programs by providing programs of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

9. Many of the American “bishops” have promoted tolerated the promotion of –a “gay friendly” agenda in their schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, parish, religious education programs, conferences and “workshops” for purposes of “theological updating.”

10. Many of the American “bishops” and their chancery factotums still continue to recruit, protect and promote effeminate men to the conciliar presbyterate and then browbeat, intimidate and harass the victims of those among these effeminate ranks who have abused children or others for their own immoral purposes. These criminals, some of whom are still hiding information that protects men who are threats to souls and whose lack of veracity on key points could be attested to if conciliar officials had the desire to protect souls rather than the “club,” have had to be dragged yelling and screaming into court so that civil justice could be done in behalf of the victims. Is it not more than a little ironic that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has more a sense of justice in behalf of the brutality known as “college football” than the conciliar officials (and some traditionally-minded Catholics who have been just as determined to protect friends despite the clear evidence of the “grooming” of victims, who are then blamed in a vicious campaign of character assassination, a tactic taken straight from the “playbook” of the American “bishops” and their attorneys to victimize the victims and thus to indemnify threats to souls without the slightest regard for the souls who might in jeopardy in the future as it is all about “winning” and protecting “one’s own,” you understand) have had to defend the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and who have looked to them, the conciliar officials, for pastoral care? (Yes, that was one sentence.)

Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is unconcerned about the fact that immoral practices have become institutionalized as something “good” accepted by large segments of society, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. He believes that he must mitigate doctrinal and moral principles in the name of “mercy.” This might be the path of the “new evangelization” that is simply part of a “new ecclesiology” and its “new orientation” to the world and to truth itself, both supernatural and natural. It is not the path of Christ the King and His Catholic Church.

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII issued prophetic warnings to the American bishops in the 1890s to remind them that the American constitutional regime, although it had provided the framework of a what appeared to be the framework of a well-ordered republic up to that point (an order that had been maintained because of the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world by means of the universal offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), was not in all of its specifics the model for the rest of the world and that if left unchecked its influence would lead to a church in American different from that which was in the rest of the world:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

But if this [the term Americanism] is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

Yes, as I noted in volume one of Conversion in Reverse, which should be in a print-on-demand format in a few weeks, if not sooner, and in so many articles on this site, the worldwide church of apostasy that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism is but a manifestation of the Americanist spirit concerning Church-State relations, which is why even Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America who might be inclined to advert to transcendent truths must instead be prisoners of the written words of a document that nowhere acknowledges the fact that the common civil good must be pursued in light of man’s Last End as those in public life respect, observe and apply the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the concrete deci

The spirit of concilairism is the spirit of Modernity, which is the spirit of the diabolical admixture of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. No nation can be truly “one” unless that is a true brotherhood among its citizens effected by the bonds of the Holy Faith, bonds that unite them to other Catholics worldwide in fealty to a true and legitimate Roman Pontiff, bonds that make them defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. We are merely seeing the universal manifestation of Americanism as predicted in glowing terms by Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s biographer, Abbot Klein. Behold the wretched results as the conciliar “popes” help to reinforce the very falsehoods have dethroned Christ the King enshrined men as sovereign “kings” over their own affairs, both personally and socially.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

The spirit of concilairism is the spirit of Modernity, which is the spirit of the diabolical admixture of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. No nation can be truly “one” unless that is a true brotherhood among its citizens effected by the bonds of the Holy Faith, bonds that unite them to other Catholics worldwide in fealty to a true and legitimate Roman Pontiff, bonds that make them defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. We are merely seeing the universal manifestation of Americanism as predicted in glowing terms by Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s biographer, Abbot Klein. Behold the wretched results as the conciliar “popes” help to reinforce the very falsehoods have dethroned Christ the King enshrined men as sovereign “kings” over their own affairs, both personally and socially.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

You continue to doubt this?

Well, consider once again these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.

We must enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.

The Rosary, the Rosary, the Rosary. Use it well. The enemies of Christ the King within in our souls and in the world-at-large will be defeated by Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

Our Lady of  the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.

July 6, 2014, Article

July 6, 2014, Fourth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of the Octave Day of Saints Peter and Paul:

Although not exactly by popular demand, a brief new article has been posted.

Jorge Just Won’t Go Away is a relatively brief commentary that focuses on two of the false “pontiff’s” answers in Interview Number Nine that was published by Il Messagero in Italy. Also given a mention are the comments of Lorenzo “Cardinal” Baldisseri, the secretary-general of the conciliar “novelty” known as the “Synod of Bishops,” concerning an Italian presbyter who had called cohabitation by its proper name: sin.

The much-anticipated commentary (I am poking fun at myself, please) on the decisions last week of the Supreme Court of the United States of America will be published on Tuesday, presuming this site says up that long! Although I am in the midst of other work now that will occupy me for most of this month and next, there will be commentaries such as the current one on occasion.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Jorge Just Won’t Go Away

What a tormentor is this Argentine Apostate named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is just seven days away from completing his sixteenth month of his masquerade as the world’s beloved “Pope Francis.” Jorge seems to delight in tormenting believing Catholics with nonstop and seemingly marathon interviews and “homilies,” which wind up surprising us during those periods when he is supposed to be “resting” and has ceased giving his daily “homilies” at the Casa Santa Marta during his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy.

As time is at a premium after a day of running errands for the family, I am going to make this commentary very short. This, I am sure, will please most of the twelve of you who view these articles regularly, presuming that our hacker friend does not prevent you from doing so.

Jorge gave a “homily” yesterday, Saturday, July 5, 2014, the Feast of Saint Anthony Mary Zaccaria within the Octave of Saints Peter and Paul, wherein he repeated the old line from Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick (three months, thirteen days until this wretched Modernist is “beatified) concerning the service of “man” as being the first priority of what is alleged to be the Catholic Church. Here is but a very brief excerpt:

“It is necessary to place the dignity of the human person at the centre of every prospect and every action. Other interests, even if legitimate, are secondary,” he said to applause. “At the centre is the dignity of the human person. Why? Because the human person is in the image of God, he was created in the image of God and we are all in the image of God!” (Serve and live in the freedom of God.)

The human person is at the “centre of every prospect and every action. Other interests, even if legitimate, are secondary.”

No, Jorge, God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church is the center of all. Every one of our actions must be pleasing to God. It is worthless to serve the “dignity of the human person” while suborning those things that are repugnant to the greater honor and glory of God and the sanctification and salvation of the souls redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of Jesus.

Yet it is that the “human dignity” mantra has been repeated endlessly by the conciliar “popes.”

The soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” said the following at the United Masonic Nations Organization on October 4, 1965, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi:

Our message is meant to be, first of all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty institution. This message comes from Our historical experience. It is as an “expert in humanity” that We bring to this Organization the suffrage of Our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and Our own, convinced as We are that this Organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace.

In saying this, We feel We are speaking with the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI’s Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965.)

No room for Social Reign of Christ the King in such an apostate celebration of the “ability” of a Judeo-Masonic organization that sucks billions of dollars into its behemoth bureaucracy to advance an agenda of unbridled moral and social evils all throughout the world. No room for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity or for the sanctification and salvation of souls.

As is well known, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was forever discoursing about the “dignity of the human person.” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI spoke of this very frequently as well.

Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of The Sillon, whose false theology and philosophy provided important building blocks for the edifice of the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism, put the lie to this very simply and directly:

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can.” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Papa Giuseppe Melchior Sarto was a Catholic.

Antipapa Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate.

Pope Saint Pius X worked for the honor and glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio works for “mankind. Excuse, “humankind.”

Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants us to believe the the true role of a pope is to be Bishop of Rome and to then to act “synodally” (collegially) on a universal basis:

–Q: Why, since the beginning, have you wished to stress so much the role of the Bishop of Rome?

–Pope Francis: Francis’ first service is this: to be the Bishop of Rome. He has all the Pope’s titles, universal Shepherd, Vicar of Christ, etc., in fact, because he is Bishop of Rome. It’s the first choice,  the consequence of Peter’s primacy. If tomorrow the Pope wished to be the Bishop of Tivoli, clearly they would throw me out. . . .

Q: Where is Bergoglio’s Church heading?

–Pope Francis: Thank God I have no Church; I follow Christ. I didn’t found anything. From the point of view of style, I haven’t changed from the way I was at Buenos Aires. Yes, perhaps some little thing, because one must, but to change at my age would be ridiculous. In regard to the plan, instead, I follow what the Cardinals have requested during the General Congregations before the Conclave. I go in that direction. The Council of Eight Cardinals, an external body, was born from that. It was requested to help reform the Curia. Something, moreover, that isn’t easy because a step is taken, but then it emerges that this or that must be done, and if before there was one dicastery, it then becomes four. My decisions are the fruit of the pre Conclave meetings. I haven’t done anything on my own.

–Q: A democratic approach?

–Pope Francis: They were decisions of the Cardinals. I don’t know it it’s a democratic approach. I would say it is more Synodal, even if the word is not appropriate for cardinals. (Jorge Babbles On Yet Againw With ‘Il Messagero.”)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants to make everyone believe that he has no agenda of his own.

Guess what?

He has an agenda of his own, and it is one of complete and total revolution against anything and everything that is recognizably Catholic. Jorge has bulldozed, belittled and persecuted many of those “restortationists” who have sought to oppose his schemes that have been denounced by our true popes, whether acting on their own or as they have promulgated decrees of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils, each of which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

Although Jorge likes to emphasize his role as a putative Bishop of Rome, this is yet another mask of his disdain for Papal Primacy. While Senor Bergoglio will mouth lip service platitudes about the primacy of the Chair of Peter, his visible signs of disgust with almost the entirety of papal protocol, including living in the Apostolic Palace as he holds forth in his quarters in the Casa Santa Marta, indicates that he speaks with a forked tongue.

Contrary to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s words and actions have conveyed to the word, a true pope is indeed the Visible Head of the true Church on earth. Pope Pius IX issued Pastor Aeternus at the [First] Vatican Council to define Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility and the true governing powers of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Intent on finding a “new way” for what is called the “Petrine Ministry” can be exercised to the satisfaction of the heretical and schismatic Orthodox and the Protestant sects, the conciliar “pontiffs,” starting most notably with “Saint John Paul II” in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995 (look for a big celebration of that heretical document’s twentieth anniversary next year), have done everything imaginable to extol their “collegial” or “synodal” relationship with the world’s conciliar “bishops.”

Even Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is reported to have said to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, in their infamous meeting at Castel Gandolfo on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, that “My authority stops at that door” as the old German Modernist pointed to the door leading out of the room where the meeting was taking place. In other words, the “bishops” are the true “governors.” “Rome” is merely a “clearinghouse” to provide a bit of direction now and again.

Most of the conciliar “bishops,” of course, are every bit as revolutionary as have been the conciliar “popes,” including the visceral revolutionary named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The Italian “cardinal” who serves as the secretary-general of the conciliar institution called the “Synod of Bishops,” Lorenzo “Cardinal” Badisseri, has denounced as “crazy” the words of a conciliar presbyter in Italy who had dared to state that men and women who cohabit together without the benefit of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are leading sinful lives.

Yes, one must be denounced as “crazy” for simply professing a basic fact of the Catholic moral theology.

Here is the story as provide by a “conservative” blogger, who appears to be “mystified” how this can be the case even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his pals Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and Reinhard “Cardinal” Marx and Oscar Andres Maradiaga “Cardinal” Rodriguez each has stated that a “new” “pastoral approach” along the lines use by the Orthodox in the cases of divorced and civilly “remarried” couples must be “considered” at the upcoming synod:

In exalted ecclesiastical circles in Italy, there seems to be a new orthodoxy emerging with regard to the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. So strict is it that a parish priest gets a guided missile from the heart of the curia for his dissent.

Many readers follow Sandro Magister’s English language blog, Chiesa, for its well-informed and incisive comment on Vatican affairs. Magister also writes an Italian language blog for L’Espresso, called Settimo Cielo which often has additional material of great interest.

A few days ago, in his article Cose da pazzi. Il cardinale Collins e il curato di campagna (“Crazy things. Collins and the country priest”) Magister told of the reaction to Fr Tarcisio Vicario, a parish priest of the diocese of Novara in Italy who recently spoke about the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, saying:

“For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”

The Bishop of Novara made it clear that an appeal to logic or the proper understanding of rehtorical analogy, would fall on deaf ears, characterising the priest’s expression as:

“an unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”

In fact Fr Vicario did not “equate” irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different – one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.

The wrath descending upon poor Fr Vicario did not end with a rebuke from his Ordinary. Cardinal Baldisseri, the Secretary General of the forthcoming Synod, said that the words of Fr Vicario were “crazy, a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” (“una pazzia, un’opinione strettamente personale di un parroco che non rappresenta nessuno, neanche se stesso.“)

Leaving aside the tortuous hyperbole (as Sir Bernard Wooley might interject, his opinion cannot be personal yet not represent himself) it must be asked why such a mainstream and orthodox opinion, expressed with clarity, should be the object of such vehement condemnation. (Crazy Man, Just Crazy.)

No, there is no reason to be mystified about how “Cardinal” Lorenzo Baldisseri can call a conciliar presbyter, who had been reprimanded by his own conciliar “ordinary,” “crazy” for stating Catholic moral truth plainly.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has provided us with the answer:

Q: Wojtyla learned to say volemose bene, damose da fa’ [Roman dialect phrases meaningLet’s love another, let’s get to work!”]. Have you learned any sayings of you own?

–Pope Francis: For now little. Campa e fa’ campa [live and let live]. [Naturally, he laughs]. (Jorge Babbles On Yet Againw With ‘Il Messagero.”)

Sure, just “live and let live.”

The martyr who gave up his life for Papal Primacy and for the inviolability of a ratified, consummated marriage, Saint Thomas More, on July 6, 1535 (his feast day, which is celebrated along with that of the Bishop of Rochester, Saint John Fisher, who was martyred on June 22, 1534, is July 9 in England and Wales), refused to let King Henry VIII’s heretical and schismatic actions and his personal immorality to just “live and let live”:

For as much as, my Lords, this Indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament, directly repugnant, to the Laws of God and his Holy Church, the Supreme Government of which, or of any part thereof, no Temporal Person may by any Law presume to take upon him, being what right belongs to the See of Rome, which by special Prerogative was granted by the Mouth of our Savior Christ himself to St. Peter, and the Bishops of Rome his Successors only, whilst he lived, and was personally present here on Earth: it is therefore, amongst Catholic Christians, insufficient in Law, to charge any Christian to obey it. And in order to the proof of his Assertion, he declared among other things, that whereas this Kingdom alone being but one Member, and a small part of the Church, was not to make a particular Law disagreeing with the general Law of Christ’s universal Catholic Church, no more than the City of London, being but one Member in respect to the whole Kingdom, might enact a Law against an Act of Parliament, to be binding to the whole Realm: so he shewed farther, That Law was, even contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom yet unrepealed, as might evidently be seen by Magna Charta, wherein are these Words; Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, & habet omnia jura integra, & libertates suas illcesas: And it is contrary also to that sacred Oath which the King’s Majesty himself, and every other Christian Prince, always take with great Solemnity, at their Coronations. So great was Sir Thomas’s Zeal, that he further alleged, that it was worse in the Kingdom of England to resist Obedience to the See of Rome, than for any Child to do to his natural Parent: for, as St. Paul said to the Corinthians, I have regenerated you, my Children, in Christ; so might that worthy Pope of Rome, St. Gregory the Great, say of us Englishmen, Ye are my Children, because I have given you everlasting Salvation: for by St. Augustine and his followers, his immediate Messengers, England first received the Christian faith, which is a far higher and better Inheritance than any carnal Father can leave to his Children; for a. Son is only by generation, we are by Regeneration made the spiritual Children of Christ and the Pope. (The Trial and Execution of Sir Thomas More.)

Live and let live?

The more Jorge babbles, my good and vanishing readers, the more he demonstrates how he, a self-professed child of the “Second” Vatican Council as proclaimed and implemented initially by Giovanni Montini Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick. Bergoglio professes a false religion that has false doctrines on Faith and Morals and false liturgical rites. Those who believe that this apostate is a Catholic in good standing and is thus a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are badly mistaken.

All the more reason to beg Our Lady to send us the graces won for us by the shedding of her Divine Son’s Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the woo of the Holy Cross so that we can save our souls as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to this end we need to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

July 5, 2014, Evening Hacker Update

July 5, 2014, Feast of Saint Anthony Mary Zaccaria within the Octave of Saints and Paul:

Word reached me this afternoon from the owner of the company that hosts this website that it was available for public viewing once again. I do not know how long this will last as someone is really determined to attack this site. Although it would be most imprudent to identify the likely culprit, suffice it to say that there are some who are opposed to sedevacantism who believe that all evidence in its support should be eradicated from public viewing.

This is all within the Providence of God. As noted two days ago now, a time frame that seems like an eternity to me as I have been unable to access this site myself in order to complete the article on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that were rendered five days ago now, everything that happens to us occurs within the Providence of God. Each situation unfolds as God has known from all eternity that it would.

It is always important to keep uppermost in our minds, which must be conformed to the mind of the Divine Redeemer, that nothing anyone does to us, says about us, thinks about us or causes us to suffer is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross as those Swords of Sorrow were plunged through and through Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. He forgave us and made excuses for us as He hung on the gibbet of the Holy Cross. It is thus that each of us must forgive others even when we have suffered from an injustice, whether real or perceived. The Pater Noster teaches us that we must forgive others as we are forgiven by God Himself.

Writing in In The Likeness of Christ, Father Edward Leen, S.J., wrote some words that should sober us up every time we think “we have it bad” or feel any kind of resentment, hatred or bitterness over that which has happened to us:

Under the reign of Satan men were hard and unfeeling, without pity or tenderness. The one thing they looked up to was the physical power to dominate, and the one thing they feared was the helplessness of poverty. Their life was divided between pleasure and cruelty. Pride and haughtiness instead of being regarded as defects were regarded as manly virtues. Weakness was almost synonymous with vice, and all this tended to fashion hearts imperverious to the grace of God and to every human feeling. Conversion of heart was for them extremely difficult. What God required on the part of man as a necessary condition of their friendship with Him was to them abhorrent, for the practice of the Christian virtues of submission, humility, and patience would be regarded by them as degrading. They had to learn that what was not degrading to God–since nothing could degrade Him in reality–could not be degrading to them. Turning to God postulated on their part not only a change of heart, but also a change of mentality. Their human values were almost all wrong. In the terse words of St. Ignatius describing the pagan world” “They smite, they slay and they go down to Hell“.

In other words, it is the law of things as they actually are that we must continually suffer from others; it is the condition of our being that we shall be the victims of others’ abuse of their free wills; it belongs to our position that our desires and inclinations should be continually thwarted and that we should be at the mercy of circumstances. And it is our duty to bear that without resentment and without rebellion. To rebel is to assert practically that such things are not our due, that they do not belong to our position. It is to refuse to recognize that we are fallen members of a fallen race. The moment we feel resentment at anything painful that happens to us through the activity of men or things, at that moment we are resentful against God’s Providence.

We are in this really protesting against His eternal determination to create free beings; for these sufferings which we endure are a consequence of the carrying into effect of that free determination. If we expect or look for a mode of existence in which we shall not endure harshness, unkindness, misunderstanding, and injustice, we are actually rebelling against God’s Providence, we are claiming a position that does not belong to us as creatures. This is to sin against humility. It is pride. (Father Edward Leen, In The Likeness of Christ, Sheed and Ward, 1936, pp, 17-18; 182-183.)

Thus it is, of course, that I express my forgiveness to the culprit responsible for hacking this site. Everything we suffer is an occasion for us to make reparation for our own sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering every suffering has been ordained for us by the loving hand of God from all eternity.

Who are we to complain or to utter a word of protest?

While I do hope that the hacking will stop as measures have been taken to make this less likely, I hold nothing against the individual or individuals responsible for the hacking.

Now, I hope to have a new article tomorrow, assuming that I can complete it before the hacker gets back to work!

Thank you for your patience. I have had to be patient through all of this as well.

July 3, 2014, Hacker Update

July 3, 2014, Feast of Pope Saint Leo II within the Octaves of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Saints Peter and Paul:

We were away for almost the entirety of yesterday, the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary within the Octave of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Commemoration of Saints Processus and Martinian. It was around mid-afternoon that I was informed by Mr. Mark Stabinski that this site was down., having exceeded its bandwidth for the month of July even though yesterday was just the second day of the month.

The owner of the company whose servers hosts this site informed me late last night that the problem was cause by a hacker from Cupertino, California, who broke into this site and then used up all of its available bandwidth for the month.

I am sorry for this inconvenience. It is interesting that someone went to the trouble to do this as readership of the articles posted on this site has dropped in recent weeks. Of what importance is this site in the general scheme things?

Not very much.

The work is done for the honor and glory of God as the consecrated slave of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have never advertised this site nor have in any way attempted to “boost” its “traffic. All has been left to Divine Providence as those who access this site must be ready to read the articles published hereon. Many of those who access this site are dissuaded from reading articles I write because of their length. This site is not for everyone, and I have always known this to be the case.

The fact that someone has seen fit to make these articles inaccessible for almost an entire day either means that someone had a lot of time on his hands or is very agitated by the content of my articles. I have prayed for this person, offering forgiveness right readily, of course, and ask the readers of this site to do the same.

Scroll down below for yesterday’s republished article on the feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. My commentary on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America should appear by tomorrow morning.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

Pope Saint Leo II, pray for us.