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.