Jorge and Barack Have “Experience”

Yesterday’s article, Defect of Form? No, Defection from the Holy Faith, devoted a good deal of time to “Father” Adolfo Nicola, S.J., the Father General of the Society of Jesus in its conciliar captivity.

“Father” Nicola had given a talk in Tokyo, Japan, a country where so many brave Japanese Catholics suffered such horrible persecutions and executions at the beginning of the Seventeenth Century, in which he said that “religion is first of all very much more like this musical sense than a rational system of teachings and explanations.” It is no accident whatsoever that “Father” Nicola and his Jesuit subordinate, fellow layman Jorge Mario Bergoglio, should speak in this way as the influence of the late theological and biological evolutionist, “Father” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., was permitted to corrupt the entirety of Saint Ignatius of Loyola’s Jesuit family once Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII opened the doors wide to the wonders of Modernity and Modernism when he issued the call for the “Second” Vatican Council on January 25, 1959, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle.

Chardin, however, did not start from a blank slate. Many blazed the path for him in the preceding two hundred fifty years. Admitting that it would be unjust to single out any one particular naturalist “philosopher” as having influenced Chardin more than another, the late “theologian” did admit himself it was the writing of Henri-Louis Bergson (1859-1941) who set him “on fire” in the belief that “experience and intuition” were the most important factors governing human existence on its path of evolution that was supposed to culminate in the “awakening of human consciousness” called the “Omega Point.”

Consider the following passage from Bergson’s Creative Evolution that provides a great deal of insight into the warped minds of such contemporary figures as Alfonso Nicola and Jorge Mario Bergoglio and their fantasy word of experience that drives them into accepting most people, save for the “restorationists,” of course, “where they are” without challenging to convert to the true Faith and/or quit their lives of unrepentant sin:

Instinct is sympathy. If this sympathy could extend its object and also reflect upon itself, it would give us the key to vital operations-just as intelligence, developed and disciplined, guides us into matter. For-we cannot too often repeat it-intelligence and instinct are turned in opposite directions, the former towards inert matter, the latter towards life. Intelligence, by means of science, which is its work, will deliver up to us more and more completely the secret of physical operations; of life it brings us, and moreover only claims to bring us, a translation in terms of inertia. It goes all round life, taking from outside the greatest possible number of views of it, drawing it into itself instead of entering into it. But it is to the very inwardness of life that intuition leads us-by intuition I mean instinct that has become disinterested, self-conscious, capable of reflecting upon its object and of enlarging it indefinitely.

That an effort of this kind is not, impossible, is proved by the existence in man of an aesthetic faculty along with normal perception. Our eye perceives the features of the living being, merely as assembled, not as mutually organized. The intention of life, the simple movement that runs through the lines, that binds them together and gives them significance, escapes it. This intention is just what the artist tries to regain, in placing himself back within the object by a kind of sympathy, in breaking down, by an effort of intuition, the barrier that space puts up between him and his model. It is true that this aesthetic intuition, like external perception, only attains the individual. But we can conceive an inquiry turned in the same direction as art, which would take life in general for its object, just as physical science, in following to the end the direction pointed out by external perception, prolongs the individual facts into general laws. No doubt this philosophy will never obtain a knowledge of its object comparable to that which science has of its own. Intelligence remains the luminous nucleus around which instinct, even enlarged and purified into intuition, forms only a vague nebulosity. But, in default of knowledge properly so called, reserved to pure intelligence, intuition may enable us to grasp what it is that intelligence fails to give us, and indicate the means of supplementing it. On the one hand, it will utilize the mechanism of intelligence itself to show how intellectual molds cease to be strictly applicable; and on the other hand, by its own work, it will suggest to us the vague feeling, if nothing more, of what must take the place of intellectual molds. Thus, intuition may bring the intellect to recognize that life does not quite go into the category of the many nor yet into that of the one; that neither mechanical causality nor finality can give a sufficient interpretation of the vital process. Then, by the sympathetic communication which it establishes between us and the rest of the living, by the expansion of our consciousness which it brings about, it introduces us into life’s own domain, which is reciprocal interpenetration, endlessly continued creation. But, though it thereby transcends intelligence, it is from intelligence that has come the push that has made it rise to the point it has reached. Without intelligence, it would have remained in the form of instinct, riveted to the special object of its practical interest, and turned outward by it into movements of locomotion.

How theory of knowledge must take account of these two faculties, intellect and intuition, and how also, for want of establishing a sufficiently clear distinction between them, it becomes involved in inextricable difficulties, creating phantoms of ideas to which there cling phantoms of problems, we shall endeavor to show a little further on. We shall see that the problem of knowledge, from this point of view, is one with the metaphysical problem, and that both one and the other depend upon experience. On the one hand, indeed, if intelligence is charged with matter and instinct with life, we must squeeze them both in order to get the double essence from them; metaphysics is therefore &pendent upon theory of knowledge. But, on the other hand, if consciousness has thus split up into intuition and intelligence, it is because of the need it had to apply itself to matter at the same time as it had to follow the stream of life. The double form of consciousness is then due to the double form of the real, and theory of knowledge must be dependent upon metaphysics. In fact, each of these two lines of thought leads to the other; they form a circle, and there can be no other centre to the circle but the empirical study of evolution. It is only in seeing consciousness run through matter, lose itself there and find itself there again, divide and reconstitute itself, that we shall form an idea of the mutual opposition of the two terms, as also, perhaps, of their common origin. But, on the other hand, by dwelling on this opposition of the two elements and on this identity of origin, perhaps we shall bring out more clearly the meaning of evolution itself. (Creation and evolution.)

Do not be concerned if you do not understand this as it was written by an alien life form.

One of the common characteristics of those who are steeped in error is to make reality obscure. Another of the common characteristics of those who are steeped in error is a sickening pride in their own supposed “originality.”

In truth, you see, the path for the reliance on “experience and intuition” was blazed by many others before Henri-Louis Bergson. He is only important for present considerations as his writing, such as it was, influenced Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., and thus the “Second” Vatican Council and men such as Alfonso Nicola and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

More than one hundred years before Henri-Louis Bergson “came of age” as a pseudo-intellectual trying to imagine the purpose of human existence all on his own without any reference to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His true Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication there was a chap named Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose experientially-based view of the world, building somewhat on the likes of John Locke before him, paved the way for the French Revolution and its warfare against Christ the King and His true Chuch.

Father Denis Fahey described Rousseau’s “philosophy” perfectly in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.

The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.

The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.

To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of “Progress” and of the “onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

With very few exceptions here and there, contemporary jurisprudence in most of the nations of the world, including right here in the United States of America, is based upon an experience-based view of life.

Lacking the sure guidance of Holy Mother Church in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King, a doctrine that has been rejected by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, executives, legislators, judges and non-elected bureaucrats govern tailor public policy and civil law according to the dictates of custom. All that matters is what the “people” want, only that the wants of some people, usually those who are the loudest and who claim to be part an aggrieved “minority” (as those steeped in sins of unnatural vice have claimed in recent decades), matter more than others.

We live in a world where “experience” and “intuition” and rank irrationality have replaced even the understanding,albeit imperfect, of ancient pagan authors in the Natural Law. We did not arrive at this world of legal positivism (the belief that law is whatever is declared to be without any reference to claims of objective moral truth) overnight. The process of evolution, if you will, has taken several centuries, but that process is nothing other than the inevitable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by Martin Luther’s Protestant Revolution that began when he posted those ninety-five theses to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517.

One of the judicial pioneers of legal positivism in the United States of America was the infamous Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America by the thirty-third degree Freemasonic statist named Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 and served until January 12, 1932. Holmes was noted for his belief that the “life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” He made this clear in an essay on that which he disparaged, the Natural Law, drawing from the work of none other than Henri-Louis Bergson:

The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.

Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)

We have been governed by practical atheists for a long time, my friends.

Remember, Oliver Wendell Holmes believed that a state had the right to mandate the sterilization of mentally ill criminals, placing him firmly in the Sangerite camp. Holmes believed the majority had the “right” to enforce its “will” upon the minority by “force” if necessary. He made this abundantly clear in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, in which he wrote a thoroughly utilitarian opinion justifying a compulsory sterilization law that has been passed by the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia:

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck ‘is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,’ and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts,197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208]   But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of  Buck v. Bell)

Yes, the United States of America was engaged in the same sort of legally positivist, utilitarian policies of eugenics as was the government of the Weimar Republic in Germany prior to the ascent of the ultimate eugenicist, Adolf Hitler. This is one of the reasons that the government of the United States of America had no moral “high ground” upon which to condemn Hitler’s crimes (for a review of Catholic resistance to Hitler, please see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

We have arrived at the point where men such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro can get elected and re-elected while acting upon the belief that the law is what they declare it to be as they have the “experience” to “know” what the “people” truly need.

Obama/Soetoro stated this pretty clearly when he introduced Sonia Sotomayor to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America to replace the retiring  Associate Justice and all around nogoodnik named David Souter (see Suiting Disorder Quite Consistently)

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.  Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation’s highest court.  And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient.  We need something more.  For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”  Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers.  It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.  And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court. (Remarks of Caesar Obamus.)

It is no accident that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro made reference to Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous line that the “life of the law is not logic, but experience” as this is what he believes. He chose Sotomayor–and Elena Kagan a year to replace Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who had been an appointee of the thirty-third degree Freemason named Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr./Leslie Lynch King, Jr., in 1975 to replace the notorious William Oliver Douglas–because of his commitment to maintaining the “precedent” established by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, which was not based on true constitutional principles but on “experience,” on sentiment.

A constitution that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words is defenseless against the inexorable pull of “experience” and sentiment. The Constitution was designed to be rendered into meaninglessness by the deconstruction of its text by legal positivists as sin, which is a rebellion of man against his Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, must either be confessed to and absolved by a true priest or sanctioned by the civil law and approved widely by the “people” in order to assuage the sense of guilt and shame that sin produces in the soul whether or not individual sinners recognize this as being so.

The reliance upon “experience” and “the people” is not confined to the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his judicial appointees. None other than Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a practicing Catholic in the conciliar structures and appointee of the much-heralded President Ronald Wilson Reagan, explained to the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate during his confirmation hearings on December 14, 1987, that he believes this is so as well:

Judge KENNEDY: Now it would be highly improper for a judge to allow his, or her, own personal or religious views to enter into a decision respecting a constitutional matter. There are many books that I will not read, that I do not let, or these days do not recommend, my children read. That does not prohibit me from enforcing the first amendment because those books are protected by the first amendment. A man’s, or a woman’s, relation to his, or her, God, and the fact that he, or she, may think they are held accountable to a higher power, may be important evidence of a person’s character and temperament. It is irrelevant to his, or her, judicial authority. When we decide cases we put such matters aside, and as—I think it was—Daniel Webster said, “Submit to the judgment of the nation as a whole.”

The CHAIRMAN. SO Judge, when you said—if it is correct—to Senator Helms: “Indeed I do, and I admire it, I am a practicing Catholic,” you were not taking, at that point a position on the constitutional question that has been and continues to be before the Court?

Judge KENNEDY. TO begin with, that was not the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you tell us what

Judge KENNEDY. We had a wide-ranging discussion and those two matters were not linked.

The CHAIRMAN. Those two matters were not linked. So the article is incorrect?

Judge KENNEDY. In my view, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. I thank you. My time is up. (Questioning of Judge Anthony Kennedy by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman.)

Just by and by, you understand, the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on December 14, 1987, was none other than United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware). Isn’t it nice to see two Americanists converse with one another?

Seriously, Anthony Kennedy put his money where his mouth was back in 1987. He took the “experience” of women as the foundation for upholding the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 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.)

 

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy also proved to be the “swing” vote last year in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2013, that will prove over the course of time to be as deadly to any state defense against the “right” of those engaged in perverted sins against nature to “marry” as Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, was to the sanctity and fecundity of marriage as ordained by God, a decision that led ultimately to the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton just ninety-one months later.

Kennedy’s ruling in these cases demonstrates the long reach from the grave of the likes of John, Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Henri Bergson and Oliver Wendell Holmes:

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other.

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-same marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.  (Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, U.S. v. Windsor.

There’s that “evolving understanding” business again. Henri Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin and Oliver Wendell Holmes and Alfonso Nicola and Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio owe a whole lot to Georg Hegel and Charles Darwin. A whole lot.

Yes, strictly speaking, good readers, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who remains in perfectly “good standing” in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, despite his pro-abortion and pro-sodomy record on the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the past twenty-six years now, is correct. The Federal government has no power to intervene in the sovereignty of the states over the “definition” of what constitutes marriage. Strictly speaking, though, no human being, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, has any right to “define” that which has been decreed by God Himself when He created Adam and Eve. States have no right to “define” marriage, and thus it is the entirety of the passage from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the case of the United States v. Windsor is premised upon the acceptance of the Judeo-Masonic falsehood that the civil state has authority over marriage, which it does not.

It is essential to remember that there is no merely natural, religiously indifferentist, socially ecumenical or “non-denominational” way to retard the spread of evil as it is those very falsehoods that has made the triumph of such moral evils as ready divorce, contraception, abortion, vital body member harvesting, euthanasia  and sodomy possible, and will one day result in the social acceptance of perverse relationships with minor children and polygamy inevitable. Without the Catholic Faith, ladies and gentlemen, and the Social Reign of Christ the King, men are destined to fall into the abyss. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool (yes, a fool) for refusing to look clearly at the level of tolerance and acceptance of evil has been reached within most countries of the supposedly “civilized” Western world, including the United States of America.

Pope Leo XIII explained in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that the reduction of public policy to the natural level alone results in public life being stained with crime. While we can and must take measures to protect the common temporal welfare and to punish malefactors, it is simply insufficient to take these measures absent a subordination to the Deposit of Faith as It has been entrusted by Our Lord Himself exclusively to the Catholic Church and absent any consideration of how public policy assists or hinders man in the pursuit of his Last End:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is “the Life,” just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word “all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made.” This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ’s mercy, that is to say, “the life of grace,” whose happy consummation is “the life of glory,” to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that “we being dead to sin, should live to justice” (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. “The just man liveth by faith” (Galatians iii., II). “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. “If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth” john xv., 6). “He that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men’s hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, does not believe that there is any need to retard social evils as it is important, he believes, to engage in a “dialogue of encounter,” which is why he has said nothing as the French Parliament approved “gay marriage” last year or just last month when the Belgian Parliament voted to permitted the execution of “suffering” children who are under eighteen years of age.

This is why there will be a love-fest of smiles and hugs six days from now as Jorge Mario Bergoglio meets Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. The Argentine Apostate and the Hawaiian Statist are kindred spirits of the New World Order, men who have learned what they “know” by “experience.” For Bergoglio, of course, this means projecting onto the Catholic Faith his own “experiences.” Obama, for his part, does the same as seeks to “transform” the United States of America into the sort of “fairer,” “more equal,” “more just” society about which Bergoglio is always preaching as a result of his “experience” as a self-styled “street priest.”

Yes, Jorge and Barack have “experience.” Unfortunately for them, however, is the sort of “experience” from comes from the very depths of Sheol and leads there for all eternity while causing endless chaos in its wake here in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

 

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.)

We must have confidence in Our Lady of Perpetual Help, whose feast we celebrate today, June 27, 2013, consecrating ourselves to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life. The only election that really matters is the one that took place in the Baptismal font when we were elected to be citizens of Heaven. There is only one judicial verdict that matters: that of Christ the King upon our immortal souls at the moment of our Particular Judgment.

This is our destiny, please God and by the graces that flow forth from the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother we persevere to the points of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace.

No matter the results of a particular election or the results of a particular plebiscite, we can be assured that our efforts to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King by means of our total consecration to Him through Mary our Immaculate Queen will help to plant a few seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith as we, recidivist sinners that we are, attempt to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, remembering to say each day:

O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

These are the words spoken by the Mother of God in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-seven years ago. They should be on our lips at all times so that there will come a day when the words uttered by the Cristeros in Mexico and the brave Catholics during the Spanish Revolution will be on the lips of all men and heralded on the flags of all nations:

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Benedict of Nursia, pray for us.