Tyrants Who Speak About “Freedom”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio fashions himself as a man who believes in “freedom.”

As a “street priest” who lived “on the margins” with “the poor,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio “liberated” himself from the “confines” of the sacristy and the “self-referential surety” found in late Monsignor Henry Denziger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma.

As a son of the conciliar revolution, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is “liberated” from the shackles of the “Medieval formalism” of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio speaks constantly of the necessity of letting what he thinks is God the Holy Ghost move “freely” in the structures of his false church, unfettered by the “constraints” imposed upon Him by structural “inventions” of Pharisaical men.

Long before he was promoted to his current position as the universal public face of apostasy by his brother apostates on March 13, 2014, Jorge Mario Bergoglio showed himself to be completely “liberated” from everything to do with Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals.

%-align: justify;”>As the conciliar “archbishiop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from 1998 to the time of his promotion twelve months, thirteen days ago now, Bergoglio chafed under what he considered to be the “stifling” “rules” imposed upon by the curia under Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, with whom he has established a modus vivendi inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River even though there is really no space between them on matters of theological substance.

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been a rebel throughout the course of his masquerade as a priest, auxiliary “bishop,” “archbishop” (and member of the conciliar college of “cardinals”) and the sixth in the line of conciliar antipopes. He delights in his status as the rebel, fashioning himself as the “champion” of “compassion” and “mercy” who “loves” “the people” and wishes them to grow in what he thinks is a “freedom of the spirit.”

As is the case with all other rebels, however, including the Chief of Rebels, Lucifer himself, Jorge Mario Bergoglio are not very merciful with those who disagree with them. He continues to lord it over others in exactly the same manner as he believes his former superiors in the counterfeit church of conciiarism lorded it over him. He is, as has been noted on this site, the latest in  a long line of ecclesiastical tyrants.

One of the reasons, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is no doubt delighted with the scandalously indecent “performance” of Suor Cristina on Italian television last week is that he believes her to she is the very personification of what a “liberated” woman of a religious community is supposed to be.

Remember, it was as the conciliar “cardinal archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, that Bergoglio sought to destroy a group of religious sisters who tried to maintain as much of the Catholic Faith in the conciliar structures as possible by corrupting their innocence and purity by mandating them to look at pornographic videos. This report, prefaced by an introduction written by a fully traditional Catholic priest in Argentina, was translated by Mr. Juan Carlos Araneta, It explains the connection between Bergoglio’s brutal treatment of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate as “Pope Francis” and similarly treatment that he had meted out to religious sisters when he was “Cardinal Bergoglio” in Buenos Aires:

Introduction:

“Msgr.” Bergoglio is a cold and authoritarian man, in the service of a part of a certain modernist ideology. Now he is a “pope.” A change in mentality perhaps, even if our degree of respect for him changes, given the loftiness of his office?

Let us look at the story of the excellent periodical “Página Católica”. During the times of his being “archbishop” of Buenos Aires he disbanded the holy Order of nuns that was founded in the 18th century by Mother Antula, María Antonia de Paz y Figueroa, the Congregation of the Daughters of the Divine Savior, that had various colleges and constructed a House of Exercises in Buenos Aires, a jewel of colonial architecture and a placed blessed with so much graces.

Now, coming from the “Holy See”, follows another act of despotism towards another Congregation, the Franciscans of the Immaculata with the same ferocity.

Reading the story demonstrates that there isn’t any line added because it is sufficient for any Catholic heart to understand and repudiate such a horrible spectacle of ecclesiastical tyranny against the Faith, to holy vocations, and good customs.

Lamentably, it is not possible to reproduce the interviews given to the nuns thrown out on the streets by “Msgr.” Bergoglio. But the can be found by opening the webpage of http://www.paginacatolica.blogspot.com.ar/2013/07/frailes-de-la-inmaculada-y-un-drama.html. [Droleskey note: This page no longer works. There is thus no need to write to me for the link to the video mentioned below as I do not know where it can be found now. Thank you.]

Cosme Beccar Varela

July 30, 2013

Friars of the Immaculate and a “porteño” drama

The nuns of the Holy House of Exercises, an analogous case with the Franciscans of the Immaculata?

Modernism demands that the poor pay for their own destruction.

Today the walls of the Holy House of Exercises breath in solitude.

Your preferred option has to be the poor,” the Neo-Modernists tell us who are abundantly governing the Church, every time there is a clamor to celebrate the true Catholic Mass.

Thus, they foment an ideological animosity between Traditionalism and Charity, on one hand and an erroneous and automatic identity between Progressive Neo-Modernism and true charity towards the needy.

In effect, as sound Catholic doctrine teaches, Charity firstly corrects the erring and showing them the pathway to salvation. Thus true love is yearns for the good of the beloved; the good which is ultimately nothing other than to merit everlasting life.

By this, those who long for the diffusion of the traditional doctrine and liturgy, are the first who have opted preferentially for the poor, by trying to provide them the Mass that has brought holiness upon millions of Catholics throughout the last 2,000 years; and even in the mere human order, it is a monument of good taste and the most exquisite of human arts; incomparably more splendid than that “witches’ sabbath” of the Neo-Modernists of the Novus Ordo that they have accustomed the universal church.

But those who proclaim themselves advanced in the solicitude of the poor, many times drop their mask without them knowing it.

We know that “pope” Francis has taken that name in order to demonstrate a life developed in poverty. Therefore we must suppose that the Friars of the Immaculata are truly poor.

Not withstanding, the decree signed in July 11 by which was intervened upon the Congregation by means of a Pontifical Commissary, that includes only three established conditions:

1. Designate Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, OFM Cap, Apostolic Commissar ad nuntum Santae Sedis of the Congregation, with all the applicable powers.

2. Dispose “that it corresponds upon the Institute of Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata, to reimburse all the expenditure incurred by the Commissary and the personnel that will be eventually designated, as honorary for their services.”

3. Besides what has been mentioned, the “Holy” Father Francis has disposed that everyone of the religious of the Congregation of the Friars of the Immaculata are obliged to celebrate the liturgy according to the “ordinary” form and that eventually, the use of the “extraordinary” form (Vetus Ordo) has to be explicitly authorized by the corresponding authorities, for every religious and/or community that asks for it.”

Thus, we see the knavishness as it manifests itself. Then, in the end, some poor monks will be bereft of the greatest of all treasures, the Traditional Liturgy of the Church. They have to pay for such a great price!

Those who might have doubts as to what this intervention can possibly mean should consider the following: the decree that we have analyzed can only have two dispositions: rob the Tridentine Mass and determine who will pay for the cost of such operation.

Go forth, standard bearers of the poor knowing that God will repay you abundantly and immediately for your great generosity!

The situation that has been raised has had a similarity with a dramatic case that occurred in Buenos Aires under the “archbishopric” of “Cardinal” Bergoglio. We have spoken for some time about this lamentable subject matter, but let us allow ourselves to return to it even if it be succinctly, then we can illustrate to ourselves about what to expect from the Institute of the Friars of the Immaculata.

Founded in the 18th century by Mother Antula and Maria Antonia de Paz y Figueroa, the Congregation of the Daughters of the Divine Savior has reached a degree of prosperity that, in our time, it has been possessor of various Catholic Colleges with thousands of students, one located in the exclusive Avenue of the Liberator in San Isidro, over all, of the terrain where they erected the Sanctuary of St. Cayetan in Liniers (a lot of money in alms) whose revenue was administered by the nuns.

At an opportune moment, “Cardinal” Bergoglio asked of the Mother Superior to transfer the property of the Sanctuary to the Archbishopric of Buenos Aires. Days later, after consulting her councilor Mother Hilda Ledesma responded to the Cardinal in the negative.

Having had a crystal ball maybe would have avoided the catastrophe of ceding to the disposal of the now “pope” Francis, in order to avoid the despoliation of all the goods and the near extinction of the order, as later accounted.

Because, in no time, he designated an apostolic visitor in the person of a Jesuit friend of Bergoglio: the current bishop Hugo Salaberry de Azul, in the province of Buenos Aires. The excuse: that close to 30 nuns lived in the Holy House of Exercises, some young women who in the majority are from Paraguay won for Christ by the zeal of one nun of that nationality, were there detained against their wills and isolated from society.

The isolation is concluded by the fact that these sisters were instructed in the same convent by professors designated as ad hoc, that which was made to avoid excessive contact with the world in which many nuns are used to nowadays.

A little later, in the first hours of the morning, when some nuns haven’t yet groomed themselves, an unfolding of unusual Curial functions informed them that the “Holy See,” with the signature of “Cardinal” Re, has designated as Apostolic Commissar on “Msgr.” Horacio Garcia, Pro Vicar General of the Archdiocese. The lettered “priest” that was supposed to accompany him excused himself for not being in agreement. In his place came “Fr.” Alejandro Russo, current Rector of the Cathedral of Buenos Aires (a favor in return for a favor?)

“Cardinal” Re reigned over the Congregation of the Religious and Institutes of Consecrated Life, who lived here and had one relative in the Archbishopric Curia. A man very close to Bergoglio, who was the one who earned for him the ring of the Fisherman is being flaunted by Francis and that he inherited from a secretary of Paul VI.

The end of this long story, that would give an argument by its vicissitudes to a drama that will be a sure best seller in book stores, ended with the Mother Superior confined to in Cordoba, the sisters returned to the world in such a manner that it can be said that the congregation ceased to exist, and the money and properties in the hands of the “Apostolic Commissariate” whose intervention is prolonged sine die.

An eminent example if how these Pharisees care for the poor, is the case of Mirna, a young Paraguayan woman who had been in the convent since 14 years of age and was bidden farewell by “Msgr.” Garcia who put her in the streets without informing her parents, and without even giving her a single cent to look after her needs.

We put on video all of her declarations and we invite our readers to reread an old post of this blog where she tells her story.

The drama of Mirna (video can be seen in the cited reference above).

At this point of the story our readers allow us to vent with a phrase that is quite irreverent: to those who want to cheat, are good for nothing losers. You who call yourselves progressive, not only do you put souls in grave danger, neither do you know how to look after the needs of the body.

According to the very victims, the Apostolic Commissary disposed that the nuns and novices find out their true vocation, with a method that we can call an immersion in the world: psychoanalysis and including exposure to eroticism. About this, it has already been written in this blog. Please see the video in the links (in the cited reference).  (Translated from the Spanish by Mr. Juan Carlos Araneta.)

Those of you who fall for Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s propaganda that he is “for the poor” are dupes. Dupes. Each and every single one of you.

Religious sisters should be immersed in the world and exposed to “eroticism”?

This is Catholic Charity?

This is serving the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity.

This comports with the teaching of such illustrious saints as Saint Alpohonsus de Liguori and Saint John Mary Vianney and Saint Anthony Mary Claret?

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio, it is “Si, Si, Suor Cristina” and it is “No, No” to those who seek to sanctify from the world while hidden from it as they are immersed in the things of Heaven.

For “the poor”?

Revolutionaries always claim to care for the “poor” on “the margins” while showing their contempt for anyone who dares to dissent from their ostentatious, humble, pious displays of “concern” for the “poor.”

In the case of the Bergoglio, you see, the very man who chafed under the collar when given orders by the conciliar dicasteries in the Vatican goes to great length to give such orders to others.

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio is so concerned for the “lost sheep,” as some duped souls believe, then why doesn’t he try to convert his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbi pal, Abraham Skoka, rather than mocking God and breaking the First Commandment by praying with him straight out of the blasphemous Talmud.

Some people are willfully blind in their abject refusal to see that act of apostasy such as this by itself casts oneself out of the pale of Holy Mother Church.

Antichrist will come in the name of “freedom.”

Antichrist will ooze with false charity for the “poor.”

Antichrist will seek to crush anyone and everyone who stands in his way.

Behold a figure of Antichrist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Well, Jorge Mario Bergoglio will be meeting another figure of Antichrist, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro within a few hours of the posting of this article.

As has been noted on this site so many times in the past year now, the President of the United States of of America speaks about “freedom,” even “religious freedom,” while at the same time persecuting as many people who dare to disagree with him as he can.

Yes, Saul Alinsky’s school of radicals produces graduates such as Obama/Soetoro after training in the ways of rhetorically speaking as agents of change “for the poor” while imposing a brutal tyranny on those who disagree with their statist plans, those who expose them and their hypocrisy for what it is.

Remember, the former first-generation radicals of the 1960s such as William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who loved to flaunt social convention when they were opposing various authority figures, used the White House to punish enemies as they pushed their own statist program of abject evil. Slick Willie even had the temerity to lecture Americans on November 3, 1992, to “listen to your leaders” after he had spent forty-six years up to that point disobeying anyone other than the siren call of his own ego. The Obamas are simply the products of what they learned from the likes of the Clintons’ own contemporaries in his privileged “education” at Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

Obama/Soetoro’s wife, Michele Robinson Obama, showed tremendous chutzpah when waxing on about “free speech” whilst in Red China six days ago even though her husband’s administration seeks to muzzle dissenters by various means, including using the Internal Revenue Service to conduct audits upon those who hurt caesar’s feelings with words of truth criticism:

And that’s why it’s so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the Internet and through the media, because that’s how we discover the truth.  That’s how we learn what’s really happening in our communities and our country and our world.  And that’s how we decide which values and ideas we think are best –- by questioning and debating them vigorously, by listening to all sides of an argument, and by judging for ourselves.

And believe me, I know how this can be a messy and frustrating process.  My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens.  And it’s not always easy, but we wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.  Because time and again, we have seen that countries are stronger and more prosperous when the voices of and opinions of all their citizens can be heard.

And as my husband has said, we respect the uniqueness of other cultures and societies, but when it comes to expressing yourself freely and worshipping as you choose and having open access to information, we believe those universal rights — they are universal rights that are the birthright of every person on this planet.  We believe that all people deserve the opportunity to fulfill their highest potential as I was able to do in the United States. (Remarks by the First Lady at Stanford Center at Peking University.)

Go tell that to Dr. Ben Carson, who found himself the subject of an Internal Revenue Service Audit last year after delivering an address, rife with rank Americanism, to the National Prayer Breakfast in the presence of the august caesar and his wife, who did not cotton to the neurosurgeon’s criticism of ObamaCare.

The neurosurgeon Dr. Carson was not the only one to be audited by the Internal Revenue Service. A cancer patient who was outspoken in his criticism of ObamaCare also herself the subject of such an audit, and Dinesh D’Souza, who produced a documentary in 2012 about Obama/Soetoro’s true agenda, is now facing prosecution by the Department of Justice for what is alleged to be an illegal campaign contribution. Yes, this is the same Department of Justice under Janet “See No Evil, Hear No Evil” Reno, a Catholic, I want to remind you, that knew nothing about the illegal campaign contributions made to the re-election campaign of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1996:

Bill Elliot‘s heart-rending response to having his health insurance cancelled because of Obamacare tugged at America’s heart strings early this month.

His story may have also drawn the focus of the Internal Revenue Service.

Appearing on “The Kelly File” in early November, Elliot explained to host Megyn Kelly that he could not afford the new premiums in the federal exchange and did not want to “burden” his family with the cost, saying he’ll pay the fine for not having health insurance and “just let nature take its course.”

Kelly was unable to mask the devastation of that comment on her face.

Initially, Elliot’s story took a turn for the better when a health insurance broker helped him keep his existing insurance plan, at least until he learned that he’s being audited by the IRS.

According to a report in Front Page Magazine:

[Elliot] went on FOX News where his story was picked up by C. Steven Tucker, a health insurance broker who helped him keep his insurance.

 

Now suddenly Bill Elliot is being audited for 2009 with an interview only scheduled in April 2014. Assuming he lives that long. That might be a coincidence, but Tucker is being audited back to 2003.

 

Elliot was critical of President Obama in his appearance on Fox News. When asked to respond to the president’s quasi-apology for saying “if you like your current plan, you can keep it,” he said: “I believe that was more of an insult to me and other people who have been cancelled.”

That he finds himself being audited may be little more than a coincident, but it would not be the first time a critic of the president found himself up against the agency.

Dr. Ben Carson, the former surgeon who criticized Obama’s leadership and his health care plan at the National Prayer Breakfast in February told Fox News he was unfairly targeted by the IRS because of his comments.

And the scandal involving the IRS intentionally going after conservative groups remains fresh on the minds of many Americans, even though Attorney General Eric Holder has yet to interview a single group unfairly targeted. (Cancer patient critical of ObamaCare now facing IRS audit.)

He concluded, “We live in a Gestapo age.”

But before we get to that, let’s start at the beginning.

Last February, the National Prayer Breakfast invited the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dr. Ben Carson, to speak.

The master of ceremonies said Carson was invited to speak for three reasons: 1. “He loves Jesus.” 2. “He has a compelling life story.” 3. “He is a distinguished man of science and healing.”

He added: “We hope he can help us sort some things out.”

Brother, Dr. Carson did just that, but probably not the way anyone anticipated — especially the president of the United States, who sat at the head table.

Dr. Carson that day delivered a stem-winder, a faith-based speech that, while not what I’d call a head-on partisan address, amounted to a principled rebuttal of President Barack Obama’s policies. It was, no doubt, an uncomfortable 27 minutes for the president.

Carson’s commentary was delivered in an affable style. A black man raised in abject poverty who become a learned man of science, he blistered the paint off how America is devolving into a state of intolerance, welfare, educational slavery and fiscal irresponsibility.

He started innocently enough, with a joke about a successful businessman who always struggled to find gifts for his mother on Mother’s Day.

Finally, he found a pair of exotic birds trained to talk and dance. He had them delivered.

He called to ask her how she liked the birds.

She said: “They was good.”

“Oh no, tell me you didn’t eat those birds,” he said. “They could talk and dance, and they cost $5,000 apiece.”

To which his mother replied: “Well, they should have said somethin’.”

That launched Carson into a string of observations on the principles of free speech.

In today’s America, the politically correct speech police are out in force, he said.

“PC is dangerous,” Dr. Carson told President Obama and the National Prayer Breakfast crowd that morning.

“Because, you see, one of the founding principles is freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And, it muffles people. It puts a muzzle on them. And at the same time keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed. And we cannot fall for that trick. And what we need to do is start talking about things. Talking about things that are important.”

At the conclusion of the speech, Carson became a national story. Liberal writers raised an eyebrow at what they perceived to be an ill-timed dressing-down of the president.

Conservatives, meanwhile, called his message refreshing, a message the country needed to hear.

No one can say whether the president really heard Dr. Carson’s message. But someone in government did, because in June, guess who visited Dr. Carson? The Internal Revenue Service. Carson had never been audited before his speech. Suddenly the tax agency was looking at his real estate holdings.

“I’ve been quite, I would say, astonished at the level of hostility that I have encountered,” Carson said.

“The IRS has investigated me. They said, ‘I want to look at your real estate holdings.’ There was nothing there. ‘Well, let’s expand to an entire [year], everything.’ There was nothing there. ‘Let’s do another year.’ Finally, after a few months, they went away. But they’ve come after my family, they’ve come after my friends, they’ve come after associates.”

And Dr. Carson isn’t the only conservative American under strangely timed IRS scrutiny.

Dr. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, wrote a letter to the president accusing the IRS of unfairly targeting his nonprofit groups.

Christine O’Donnell, the former tea party U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware, says she was audited and that some of her personal tax information was breached.

Former Nevada GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden ran against Harry Reid in 2010. She lost in the Republican primary — and then found herself visited by the IRS.

Even as I was in the process of writing this, a friend forwarded me an email from a man in North Carolina who says that he and his cousin hosted an event for Mitt Romney, and soon thereafter found themselves scrutinized by the IRS.

All of this is anecdotal, of course. But it is beginning to add up, and at a certain point, men and women of good will in both parties must wake up and pay attention to these red flags.

It’s either an unbelievable string of coincidences or our government is, in fact, using the color of law to silence political enemies.

Two things lead me to suspect the latter.

First, Dr. Carson’s story rings true. The timing is so direct, the cause to investigate so suspicious.

Second, in a recent interview with Fox News, President Obama was asked about the allegations that the IRS targeted tea party groups for scrutiny regarding their applications for tax-exempt status.

The investigation is ongoing. From what is known publicly, there is zero doubt that conservative groups were targeted. The only question is how far up the political ladder it went. To compound things, the Justice Department assigned to the case an investigator who just happens to be a big fan of the president. She’s a maxed-out political contributor to President Obama’s campaign.

That in itself is unwise and outrageous. But the point at hand is that the investigation is not complete.

Yet the president tells Fox News that there is not a “smidgen” of evidence of wrongdoing.

How can he know that, unless he has some unholy control over the probe? And how then does he explain his own IRS supervisor taking the Fifth before a congressional hearing?

If there is no “smidgen” of wrongdoing, no one would need to exercise their right against self-incrimination, correct?

It doesn’t add up.

The IRS, of course, isn’t saying a thing about all this.

Let us not forget that these IRS suspicions do not come out of nowhere.

The inspector general issued a report in May that said the IRS “used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status.” Yet the president says there’s not a “smidgen” of evidence. And a few Democrats in Congress want an investigation of the inspector general, not the IRS. Can we get any more like the book “1984”?

Carson likens his treatment to the Gestapo. And it may be.

But one thing is for certain: Something’s going on.

And if you don’t want to be cooked and eaten, you better say somethin’.

(PS: Dr. Carson wasn’t invited back to the National Prayer Breakfast this year.) (Using the IRS for political oppression.)

Yes, Michele Robinson Obama, freedom can be a “messy” thing if it is used to criticsim your husband’s administration. Very messy.

As one who spent over thirty years teaching political science at the college level, I can attest that “political correctness” was in vogue long before the phrase become part of the popular lexicon in the 1980s. Indeed, it was identified on June 8, 1978, by Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in his now-famous commencement address at Harvard University, “A World Split Apart”:

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons – maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons – maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)

Freedom?

It is an illusion.

Just go ask sixteen year-old Thirin Short, who was assaulted by a “professor” of “feminist studies” at the University of California at Santa Barbara on March 4, 2014, because Miss Short was carrying a sign that displayed in graphic terms the reality of the surgical execution of a preborn baby:

A feminist studies professor at a California state university is facing criminal charges after a videotaped run-in with a teenage pro-life demonstrator in which she snatched an anti-abortion sign and appeared to get physical with the girl.

University of California at Santa Barbara Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young was charged with one misdemeanor count each of theft, battery and vandalism in the March 4 incident, Santa Barbara County District Attorney Joyce Dudley announced Friday. The charges came days after 16-year-old Thrin Short and her parents met with prosecutors.

Thrin told authorities what she told FoxNews.com earlier this month: She, her older sister Joan, 21, and some other pro-life activists were holding signs and demonstrating in a free speech zone on the bucolic campus March 4 when Miller-Young, who also teaches courses on pornography, went berserk.

The sisters say they distributed nearly 1,000 informational pamphlets during the event, which was organized by the Riverside-based nonprofit Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust. Things took an unexpected turn when, according to Short, Miller-Young approached the demonstrators and a group of students who had gathered.

“Before she grabbed the sign, she was mocking me and talking over me in front of the students, saying that she was twice as old as me and had three degrees, so they should listen to her and not me,” Thrin Short wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. “Then she started the chant with the students about ‘tear down the sign.’ When that died out, she grabbed the sign.”

With a graphic anti-abortion sign in hand, Miller-Young, whose faculty web page says she specializes in black cultural studies and pornography, then allegedly walked through two campus buildings as Short, her sister and two UCSB students followed closely behind. Short captured much of the incident, which she charged was a “deliberate” provocation by Miller-Young, on a cellphone video later posted to YouTube while her sister called campus police. Miller-Young pushed Short at least three times, the student alleges, as she tried to stop an elevator door from closing as the educator stood inside with her sign, Short said.

“I explained how I had been trying to keep the elevator door open with my foot, because I thought the police would be there any second, and that’s when she pushed and grabbed me,” Short’s email continued. “She then got off the elevator and tried to pull me away from the elevator doors so the others could get away with the sign.”

Short said she suffered minor injuries during the melee — scratches on both wrists — and said campus police are now reviewing the video.

Miller-Young did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment. In the report filed by campus police, she claimed she had a “moral right” to act in the manner she did.

Thrin’s father, William Short, said he would have expected an academic to engage in thoughtful debate with someone she disagreed with.

“She was free to engage in a rational dialogue with them,” Short said after learning the professor had been charged. “Instead, she chose to bully them, steal and destroy their property, and hit and scratch my daughter. After doing so, she said she thought she was setting a good example for her students.

“I think the goal of this prosecution should be to set a good example for her students, one that will not only deter her from repeating this conduct, but will also deter those who approve of her actions from imitating her appalling behavior,” he added.

It was unclear if Miller-Young faces any punishment from the school.

“The university is aware of the incident and it is being reviewed by the appropriate offices,” UCSB spokesman George Foulsham wrote to FoxNews.com earlier this month. “It is university policy not to discuss personnel matters.” (University of California-Santa Barbara feminist professor charged in confrontation with pro-life teen.)

The very people who accuse those of us who oppose various moral evils, including the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn in the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs and the sin of Sodom, are filled with raging hatred towards those who dare to singe their sensitive consciences about the fact that the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law apply to them, who are, like the rest of us, but contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection of the living and the dead on the Last Day.

I know this from first-hand experience.

Remember, feminists at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa, wanted my signed contract canceled after I had been hired in June of 1992, furious after they had discovered that I had run for lieutenant governor of New York on the Right to Life Party line six years before. I was a veritable “non-person” in the eyes of many of my fellow faculty members during the 1992-1993 year that I taught at Morningside College. That is, my existence was not even acknowledged when I walked on the campus to go from building to building Liberals are not exactly known to be very tolerant except of their own. They tend to give you the complete freedom to agree with them.

This is why the meeting that between the reigning antipope and the reigning American caesar that may have taken place by the time you read this commentary will be nothing about an unfettered festival of esteem between two men who are sanctimonious in their “love” of the poor while persecuting those who hold to the “ways of the past.”

Our true popes have taught us that there can be no authentic freedom for the individual or for the state that is not founded in the Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, which is why all of the novel language of the conciliar “popes” about “international solidarity” and “religious liberty” aids and abets the spread of objective evils and encourages armed hostilities within and among nations.

Pope Leo XIII put it this way in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888:

9. What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals. that human law promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law. The precepts, therefore, of the natural law, contained bodily in the laws of men, have not merely the force of human law, but they possess that higher and more august sanction which belongs to the law of nature and the eternal law. And within the sphere of this kind of laws the duty of the civil legislator is, mainly, to keep the community in obedience by the adoption of a common discipline and by putting restraint upon refractory and viciously inclined men, so that, deterred from evil, they may turn to what is good, or at any rate may avoid causing trouble and disturbance to the State. Now, there are other enactments of the civil authority, which do not follow directly, but somewhat remotely, from the natural law, and decide many points which the law of nature treats only in a general and indefinite way. For instance, though nature commands all to contribute to the public peace and prosperity, whatever belongs to the manner, and circumstances, and conditions under which such service is to be rendered must be determined by the wisdom of men and not by nature herself. It is in the constitution of these particular rules of life, suggested by reason and prudence, and put forth by competent authority, that human law, properly so called, consists, binding all citizens to work together for the attainment of the common end proposed to the community, and forbidding them to depart from this end, and, in so far as human law is in conformity with the dictates of nature, leading to what is good, and deterring from evil.

10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”[5] If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.

11. Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God.

12. These precepts of the truest and highest teaching, made known to us by the light of reason itself, the Church, instructed by the example and doctrine of her divine Author, has ever propagated and asserted; for she has ever made them the measure of her office and of her teaching to the Christian nations. As to morals, the laws of the Gospel not only immeasurably surpass the wisdom of the heathen, but are an invitation and an introduction to a state of holiness unknown to the ancients; and, bringing man nearer to God, they make him at once the possessor of a more perfect liberty. Thus, the powerful influence of the Church has ever been manifested in the custody and protection of the civil and political liberty of the people. The enumeration of its merits in this respect does not belong to our present purpose. It is sufficient to recall the fact that slavery, that old reproach of the heathen nations, was mainly abolished by the beneficent efforts of the Church. The impartiality of law and the true brotherhood of man were first asserted by Jesus Christ; and His apostles re-echoed His voice when they declared that in future there was to be neither Jew, nor Gentile, nor barbarian, nor Scythian, but all were brothers in Christ. So powerful, so conspicuous, in this respect is the influence of the Church that experience abundantly testifies how savage customs are no longer possible in any land where she has once set her foot; but that gentleness speedily takes the place of cruelty, and the light of truth quickly dispels the darkness of barbarism. Nor has the Church been less lavish in the benefits she has conferred on civilized nations in every age, either by resisting the tyranny of the wicked, or by protecting the innocent and helpless from injury, or, finally, by using her influence in the support of any form of government which commended itself to the citizens at home, because of its justice, or was feared by their enemies without, because of its power. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

The conciliar revolutionaries have celebrated Modernity and its errors while they have deconstructed and misrepresented Our Lady’s Fatima Message. Yet it is that the darkness of these times will end when a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter consecrates collegially with all of the world’s bishops to Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Every Rosary we pray helps to plant the seeds for an end to the current chastisement, which we well deserve for our our sins, and for the conversion of the souls of those who are steeped in the contagion of error and hatred that destroying what is left of the so-called “civilized” West.

Conscious of our need to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large as we offer up whatever it is we suffer in this time of chastisement to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, may the following words of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori on the Particular Judgment help us always to put Last Things first and never to get bogged down in the “trees” of various crises that have proliferated because of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by Judeo-Masonry:

Worldlings now regard as fools the saints, who led mortified and humble lives; but then they shall confess their own folly, and say: “We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honor. Behold how they they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints”–Wis., v. 4, 5. In this world, the rich and the noble are called happy; but true happiness consists in a life of sanctity. Rejoice, ye souls who live in tribulation; “your sorrow shall be turned into joy”–John, xvi. 20. In the valley of Josaphat you shall be seated on thrones of glory.

But the reprobate, like goats destined for the slaughter, shall be placed on the left, to await their last condemnation “Judici tempus”, says Saint Chrysostom, “misericordiam non recipit”. On the day of judgment, there is no hope of mercy for poor sinners. “Magna”, says St. Augustine, “jam est poena peccati metum et memoriam divini perdidisse judicii”–serm. xx, de Temp. The greatest punishment of sin in those who live in enmity with God, is to lose the fear and remembrance of the divine judgment. Continue, continue. says the Apostle, to live obstinately in sin; but in proportion to your obstinacy, you shall have accumulated for the day of judgment a treasure of the wrath of God. “But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest  up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath”–Rom., ii. 5.

Then sinners will not be able to hide themselves; but, with insufferable pain, they shall be compelled to appear in judgment. “To lie hid”, says St. Anselm, “will be impossible–to appear will be intolerable.” The devils will perform their office of accusers, and as St. Augustine says, will say to the Judge: “Most just God, declare him to be mine, who was unwilling to be yours”. The witnesses against the wicked shall be, first, their own conscience–“Their conscience bearing witness to them”–Rom., ii. 15; secondly, the very walls of the house in which they sinned shall cry out against them–“The stone shall cry out of the wall”–Hab., ii. 11; thirdly, the Judge himself will say–“I am the judge and the witness, saith the Lord:–Jer., xxix. 23. Hence, according to St. Augustine, “He who is now the witness of your life, shall be the judge of your cause”–lib. x. de Chrod., c. ii. To Christians particularly he will say: “Wo to thee Corazain, wo to thee Bethsaida; for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes”–Matt., xi. 21. Christians, he will say, if the graces which I have bestowed upon you had been given to the Turks or to the Pagans, they would have done penance for their sins; but you have ceased to sin only with your death. He shall then manifest to all men their most hidden crimes. “I will discover thy shame to thy face”–Nahum., iii. 5. He will expose to view all their secret impurities, injustices, and cruelties. “I will set all thy abominations against thee”–Ezech., vii. 3. Each of the damned shall carry his sins written on his forehead.

What excuses can save the wicked on that day? Ah! they can offer no excuses. “All iniquity shall stop her mouth”–Ps., cvi. 42. Their very sins shall close the mouth of the reprobate, so that they will have not courage to excuse themselves. They shall pronounce their own condemnation. (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, First Sunday In Advent: On The General Judgment.)

This applies to us!

Our Lady is our only hope now and for all eternity.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint John Damascene, pray for us.

WASHINGTON – Dr. Ben Carson, the brain surgeon turned popular political analyst, told WND Obama administration officials are “acting like the Gestapo” with the Justice Department indictment of Dinesh D’Souza coupled with the Internal Revenue Service’s political targeting of the administration’s critics.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ben-carson-obama-officials-acting-like-gestapo/#fCyW7IvtkUhQCCcb.99
WASHINGTON – Dr. Ben Carson, the brain surgeon turned popular political analyst, told WND Obama administration officials are “acting like the Gestapo” with the Justice Department indictment of Dinesh D’Souza coupled with the Internal Revenue Service’s political targeting of the administration’s critics.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ben-carson-obama-officials-acting-like-gestapo/#fCyW7IvtkUhQCCcb.99

“I believe we are dealing with an extremely corrupt administration,” he said.

Dr. Carson himself became the subject of an IRS audit after criticizing Barack Obama’s policies at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last year.

“I’ve always been someone who has been very careful about my finances and the way I take care of my business,” said Dr. Carson. “I’ve never undergone this kind of scrutiny before, but then it comes after the prayer breakfast. They’re harassing my family. They’re harassing my colleagues. And they’re not finding anything – so that just makes them dig a little deeper.”

In a telephone interview today, Dr. Carson, who is talked about as a potential new brand of non-politician presidential candidate himself in 2016, said he was also disturbed by Obama’s comments in an interview with Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly before the Super Bowl game last week.

See the film that put D’Souza in the feds’ cross-hairs: “2016: Obama’s America.”

“What he said was that his administration was not guilty of any wrongdoing with regard to the IRS and he blamed Fox News for reporting it,” Dr. Carson said. “I don’t think he would be happy unless Fox News were shut down and there was no more criticism of his actions.”

Dr. Carson is the latest high-profile public figures to express deep concern about what they see as, in the indictment of author-scholar-filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, the administration’s misuse of the criminal justice system for political payback.

D’Souza was one of Obama’s most visible critics in the 2012 election year when he released the extremely popular documentary “2016: Obama’s America.”

D’Souza was indicted by a federal grand jury on two felony counts for violating campaign finance laws. He was charged with making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and illegally contributing $15,000 to a Senate candidate. He could face up to seven years in prison.

Cleta Mitchell, an attorney specializing in campaign finance issues, told WND, “The decision to prosecute – or not prosecute – is always a matter of discretion. It was the prosecutor’s decision – indeed DOJ’s decision – not to prosecute widespread conduit contributions to the John Edwards campaign in 2008. Contrast that with this prosecution, which involved $15,000 (not $20,000 as claimed).”

Asked whether she believes the indictment was politically motivated, Mitchell said, “Do I think this is politically motivated? I think if a Republican appointee had done this, the press corps would be going ballistic. Just consider how outraged they were when Bush asked for and received resignations of all U.S. attorney appointees at the start of his second term, something that is customary. Imagine if his appointee had gone after a George Soros friend. Imagine the outrage.”

Brent Bozell, founder and president of Media Research Center, cited former President Bill Clinton and Obama’s own history of accepting highly questionable campaign donations.

“Let’s assume Dinesh D’Souza is guilty, and I mean 100 percent guilty. What is he guilty of? Circumventing FEC dictates by directing [$15,000] to a Senate candidate of his choice. Big deal,” Bozell told WND. “First, in a multi-million Senate campaign, this is a fraction of a fraction. It ‘buys’ a can of soda pop, and that’s about it. Second, and more importantly, compare this ‘crime’ with Bill Clinton, who raised millions of dollars from questionable at best, and illegal at worst, sources, including felons and Chinese Communist generals. Compare it to Barack Obama, who raised millions upon millions from who-knows-who-or-where to this day. Nothing ever came of their fundraising abuses, abuses one thousandfold larger than anything attributed to D’Souza. And yet he was arrested and forced to post a $500,000 bond. It is astonishing. Given all the other abuses of power swirling around this administration, so many of them finding their origins in the ‘Justice’ Department, do I see deliberate persecution against conservatives? I am not conspiratorial by nature, but I will say unequivocally, you better believe it.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called the D’Souza indictment “100 percent” political.

“Of course it is,” she said. “It is payback from the DOJ. Plus, it sends a signal to anyone else for 2016 who may be thinking of producing a movie. It is up to the candidate to return the money. This should have been found when the FEC filing occurred. I don’t know the details, but this could cost Dinesh literally millions in legal defense fees, plus destroying his name and making him toxic to conservatives and Republicans. These are the goals of the political destruction machine at the DOJ.”

Likewise, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND, “Yes, I think it is political. It fits a pattern of abuse of power. As someone else said, President Obama is the president Nixon wanted to be.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ben-carson-obama-officials-acting-like-gestapo/#fCyW7IvtkUhQCCcb.99

Way, Way Beyond the Brave New World

Just about the only thing that truly upsets Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the fact that there are still Catholics in the world who have not accepted him and his falsehoods as the very embodiment of Christianity. He alone, he believes, provides Christians of all denominations the way to “understanding” how to “save their souls,” which can’t be done, he asserts, unless you have lived “on the margins,” that is to say, “on the streets” with “the poor” as one fights with them against the “social injustice” that keeps them in poverty.

Those who do not understand or accept this must are the real “enemies” of moral truth, Bergoglio believes, people who are destined for eternal perdition because they seek to follow “rules” and believe that by doing so they will please God.

A caricature, you say?

Not at all. This is absolute an absolutely, dead-on characterization of the remarks he made yesterday morning, Monday, March 24, 2014, at the Casa Santa Marta during his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy:

Pope Francis’ homily on Monday found inspiration in these words that Jesus addressed to his fellow citizens in Nazareth: “No prophet is accepted in his hometown”. It was a place where he never worked miracles because “they had no faith”. Jesus recalls two biblical episodes: the miracle of the healing of the leper Naaman, and the meeting of the prophet Elijah with the widow of Serapta who shared her last morsel of food and was saved from famine. “Lepers and widows – Pope Francis explained – in those days were the outcasts of society”. And yet, these two outcasts, welcomed the prophets and were saved, while the people of Nazareth did not accept Jesus because “they felt so strong in their faith”, so sure of their faithful observance of the Commandments, they felt they had no need for other salvation”.

“It is the tragedy of observing the Commandments without faith: ‘I save myself because I go to the Synagogue every Saturday, I try to obey the Commandments, I do not want to hear that the leper or the widow is better than me!’ They are outcasts! And Jesus tells us: ‘if you do not put yourself on the margins, if you don’t feel what it is to be an outcast, you will not obtain salvation’. This is humility, the path of humility: to feel so marginalized that we need the Salvation of the Lord. He alone saves us, not our observance of the law. And they did not like this; they were angry and wanted to kill him”. The Pope observed that this was the same anger initially felt by Naaman, because he felt that Elisha’s invitation to wash himself seven times in the Jordan was ridiculous and humiliating. “The Lord asked him for a gesture of humility, He asked him to obey like a child, to be ridiculous”. Namman turned and went off in a rage, but afterwards his servants convinced him to do what the prophet asked of him. That act of humility healed him. “This is the message for today – the Pope said – in this third week of Lent: if we want to be healed, we must choose the road of humility”.

“In her Canticle Mary does not say she is happy because God was looking to her virginity, to her kindness or to her sweetness – all of them virtues that she possessed – no: because the Lord was looking to her humility, the humility of His servant, her smallness. This is what the Lord looks for. And we must take heed of this wisdom and put ourselves on the margins so that the Lord may find us. He will not find us at the center of our certainties. That is not where the Lord looks. He will find us on the margins, in our sins, in our mistakes, in our need for spiritual healing, for salvation; that is where the Lord will find us”. “This – Pope Francis highlighted – is the path of humility”:

“Christian humility is not within the virtue of saying: ‘I am not important’ and hiding our pride. No, Christian humility is telling the truth: ‘I am a sinner’. Tell the truth: this is our truth. But there is another truth: God saves us. He saves us when we are on the margins; He does not save us in our certainties. Let us ask for the grace of having the wisdom to put ourselves on the margins, for the grace of humility so that we may receive the Lord’s Salvation”.  (Apostate: Humility is the path to salvation.)

“He does not save us in our certainties.”

“And we must take heed of this wisdom and put ourselves on the margins so that the Lord may find us. He will not find us at the center of our certainties. That is not where the Lord looks. He will find us on the margins, in our sins, in our mistakes, in our need for spiritual healing, for salvation; that is where the Lord will find us”.

How is this not exactly what Martin Luther said when he wrote: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly…. as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin…. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” ( Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter from Martin Luther to Philip Melancthon. number 99, August 1, 1521.)

Bergoglio believes in exactly the opposite of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself taught:

Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5: 48.)

No, for Bergoglio, of course, who lives in an alternative universe that is way, way beyond the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley, it is those who obey the Ten Commandments and strive for the heights of personal sanctity, those who believe that they know with certainty what Holy Mother Church teaches who are the ones who are imperiling their immortal souls as they do not permit themselves to go to the “existential margins” of human existence.

This constant effort to equate the Pharisees of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s time to faithful Catholics of today is relentless. It is obsessive. It is sick. It is sickening.

Bergoglio goes so far as to put words on the Divine Redeemer’s holy lips:

And Jesus tells us: ‘if you do not put yourself on the margins, if you don’t feel what it is to be an outcast, you will not obtain salvation’. This is humility, the path of humility: to feel so marginalized that we need the Salvation of the Lord. He alone saves us, not our observance of the law. And they did not like this; they were angry and wanted to kill him”.”

Blasphemer.

Heretic.

Perhaps Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has not said a word in condemnation of the French Parliament’s passage of a “gay marriage” law last year and who has said not a word in condemnation of the Belgian Parliament’s approval of child-killing for children under the age of eighteen who fall into various categories, might consider it “unjust” and, quite indeed, just plain “judgmental” to condemn authorities of hospitals in the United Kingdom who have routinely incinerated the remains of babies killed by surgical abortion in order to provide energy to operate their institutions of murder and mayhem because, after all, these authorities “live on the margins” by providing “necessary” health care to “the poor.”

Here is a report from the Daily Telegraph of the United Kingdom that causes one to ask the following question: Why did England go to war against Nazi Germany?:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.
Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’
At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.
The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

Another ‘waste to energy’ facility at Ipswich Hospital, operated by a private contractor, incinerated 1,101 foetal remains between 2011 and 2013.

They were brought in from another hospital before being burned, generating energy for the hospital site. Ipswich Hospital itself disposes of remains by cremation.

“This practice is totally unacceptable,” said Dr Poulter.

“While the vast majority of hospitals are acting in the appropriate way, that must be the case for all hospitals and the Human Tissue Authority has now been asked to ensure that it acts on this issue without delay.”

Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS Medical Director, has written to all NHS trusts to tell them the practice must stop.

The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has also written to the Human Tissue Authority to ask them make sure that guidance is clear.

And the Care Quality Commission said it would investigate the programme’s findings.

Prof Sir Mike Richards, Chief Inspector of Hospitals, said: “I am disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their families.

This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services and I’m keen for Dispatches to share their evidence with us.

We scrutinise information of concern and can inspect unannounced, if required.”

A total of one in seven pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, while NHS figures show there are around 4,000 stillbirths each year in the UK, or 11 each day.

Ipswich Hospital Trust said it was concerned to discover that foetal remains from another hospital had been incinerated on its site.

A spokeswoman said: “The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust does not incinerate foetal remains.”

She added that the trust “takes great care over foetal remains”

A spokesman for the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said that trained health professionals discuss the options with parents ‘both verbally and in writing.’

“The parents are given exactly the same choice on the disposal of foetal remains as for a stillborn child and their personal wishes are respected,” they added.  (ABORTED BABIES INCINERATED TO HEAT HOSPITALS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.)

How can God’s just chastisement not be far behind?

“Human Tissue Authority”?

This is straight out of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Upon what moral “high ground” can any Western nation, including the United States of America, stand to condemn the actions of the likes of Adolf Hitler in the past or any of the alleged “bad guys” of the present who are supposed to inhabit “other countries”

Don’t kid yourselves: such things are happening right here in the United States of America, the supposed “land of the free” and the “home of the brave.”

Millions of butchered preborn babies have been thrown out with the refuse or simply burned as so much garbage right here in the supposedly “civilized” United States of America.

Yet it is that many killing centers, including hospitals, here in the United States of America and the supposedly “free world” champion themselves as the “lovers of the poor” and the “downtrodden,” to whom their authorities  dispense chemicals, pills and devices to kill preborn babies or to prevent them from being conceived. This is “charitable,” hospital administrators believe, as it helps to “limit” the number of mouths that “the poor” have to feed and permits them to more time and money with which to “enjoy” themselves.

Thus it is that Thursday’s upcoming meeting between Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a proponent of “universal health care” and “income equality,” and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, a proponent of “universal health care” and “income equality,” will be nothing other than an unabashed love-fest of two-like minded pagan statists.

Pagan?

Yes, pagan.

Why?

Well, Jorge Mario Bergoglio projects onto Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Sacred Deposit of Faith his own twisted, demented beliefs as he, the “humble” one, wraps himself up in a mantle of righteous indignation against the modern “Pharisees,” meaning, of course, faithful Catholics. The observance binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. What matters is a false concept of “mercy” and “love” that is the sure path to personal and social ruin in the objective order of things.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro projects his own beliefs about “justice” and “love” and “equality” upon the Gospel of Our Lord in order to make himself look righteous in the eyes of the world. To Obama/Soetoro, of course, what matters is having the “experience” and the “compassion” necessary to “move the country” in the direction of “true justice.” He believes that any kind of “observance” of the text of the Constitution of the United States of America is an impediment to the pursuit of a “better,” “more just” world.

Although there might be some private discussion of “bioethical issues,” as Vatican spin meister “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., is wont to say in his own “newspeak” of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley combined, in two days, the two will embrace each other warmly.

Incinerated babies used to generate energy for the very killing centers in which they had been executed?

Hundreds of Kermit Gosnells running loose under the cover of the civil law in the United States of America and elsewhere in the “civilized” world.

The advance of the sin of Sodom at a rate that eclipses anything yet seen in the history of the world?

The killing of children up to eighteen years of age in some “limited” circumstances?

The proliferation of immodesty and indecency throughout the world, exemplified so clearly by the “performance” of Suor Cristina recently? (See In Search of Roncalli’s “Miracle”.)

None of that matters in the brave new worlds where Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro live.

Alas, our true popes have warned us of these times:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

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.

“So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) November 1, 1885.)

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Yes, we have been warned.

This is  time in which we must do much penance. Much penance.

Today, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we must remember that the Co-Eternal and Co-Equal God the Son chose to become Incarnate in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, as a helpless embryo. He is in complete solidarity with every child in every mother’s womb. It is is Divine Will that each child be born and brought to the baptismal font very soon after birth to make it possible for them to enjoy that which is denied the souls of infants who die before being baptized: citizenship in Heaven by having been incorporated as members of His Holy Church Church and persisting in a state of Sanctifying Grace until the moment of their death.

Hundreds of millions have children have, despite the International Theological Commission’s “unofficial” teaching to the contrary, lost the possibility of ever gazing upon the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. This is a tragedy that so few Catholics want to accept, having been assured by the conciliar revolutionaries that “the Church cannot fail to encourage the hope of salvation for infants who die without Baptism by the very fact that she “prays that no one should be lost”, and prays in hope for “all to be saved” (see The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, April 21, 2007). And it is this tragedy that is ignored in the brave new world of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and aggressively enabled in the brave new world of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

I can guarantee you that Jorge Mario Bergoglio will not speak as follows to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro when they meet two days ago:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

If it is at all possible, therefore, today is a day on which Catholics should make extra reparation for the sin of abortion, whether by chemical or surgical means. The Incarnation is mocked every time an infant is killed in his mother’s womb. We should seek, if this is at all possible where you live, to spend time before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament to pray to Him through His Most Blessed Mother’s Most Holy Rosary in reparation for the sin of willful murder, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

May it never be our own misfortune to permit ourselves to be drawn into the brave new world of Modernity in the world or of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

May we seek always to please Christ the King, He Who became Flesh and dwelt amongst us this very day, as His consecrated slave through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, looking not for results as we beg Our Lady for the graces He won for us on Calvary by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood that the gates of Heaven will be opened to us after death so that we may enjoy an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise before the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.

A blessed Feast of the Annunciation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to you all!

Vivat Chistus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Rand Paul Channels Lee Atwater, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, et al.

My last effort to deal with the follies of naturalism, No Getting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube, was posted thirteen days ago now. Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s constant revolutionary rhetoric and activity uses up all of the oxygen in the “room,” so to speak, leaving little time in the life of  man with family responsibilities to pay much attention to the midget naturalists (see Right This Way–See Midget Naturalists Flip, See Midget Naturalists Flop, See Midget Naturalists Squirm).

Then again, the Midget Naturalists really do not deserve much of my time as their predictable redundancy is boring. All they ever manage to do is to retread one shopworn naturalist, Americanist cliche after another. This is why there is little nothing “new” that can be written about them or their “plans” to “grow” the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right.”

It’s always the same. Always.

One naturalist of the false opposite of the “right” after another has claimed in the past twenty-five years or so that the supposed means of a restoring a Constitution that admits of no higher authority above it than the text of its own words is to “agree to disagree” on the “social issues.”

As readers are bombarded with a plethora of overheated “twitters” about this or that supposed way to “defeat” the policies of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, it is useful to provide an extensive bit of background prior to reviewing United States Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Kentucky) effort to channel Lee Atwater, Richard Bond, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., George Walker Bush, John Sidney McCain III and Willard Mitt Romney, et al.

Twenty-five Years of Shameful Retreat

The shameful retreat on the part of the midget naturalists of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” began shortly after the inauguration of the Skull and Bonesman named George Herbert Walker Bush as the forty-first President of the United States of America on January 20, 1989. Bush the Elder’s handpicked selection as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Lee Atwater, who had been his attack dog campaign manager in his campaign against the pathetic creature of the false opposite of the naturalist “left,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, began to back away from the perceived commitment to the “social issues” during the presidency of Ronald Wilson Regan, under whom Bush the Elder served as a bobble-head doll until he became president.

Atwater explained that it was important for those who support “abortion rights” to be included in the Republican Party as part of a “big tent” able to hold together a group of people with a variety of positions on “difficult” issues. Obviously, President Bush the Elder (or “Bush 41”) approved of Atwater’s effort.

Lee Atwater’s “big tent” movement, which he did not, most unfortunately, repudiate before he died from brain cancer at the age of forty on March 29, 1991 (after having become a Catholic at the hands of Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who informed me first-hand of how some Republican goons tried to keep him from visiting Atwater in the hospital room at one point), did make some inroads in Republican Party circles in the early-1990s, especially as pro-abortion Republican candidates Susan Molinari (1990) and Richard Lazio (1992), won election to the United States House of Representatives from the State of New York, becoming among the first Catholics in the post-Ronald Wilson Reagan era of the Republican Party to run as pro-aborts and to get elected. Their success was followed in the year 1993 when the Presbyterian pro-abort named Christine Todd Whitman (Governorship of the State of New Jersey) and two Catholic pro-aborts, Richard Riordan (Mayoralty of the City of Los Angels, California) and Rudolph William Giuliani (Mayoralty of the City of New York, New York) were elected.

Republicans in the State of New York were in vanguard of promoting the “big tent” as a means of getting rid of the “pro-life” issue once and for all. These careerists were so eager to distance themselves from the language of the national Republican Party platform during the Reagan-era that a then little-known state senator from Peekskill, New York, George Elmer Pataki, engineered the removal of the pro-life plank from the party platform at the party’s 1990 state convention. And it was at that convention that then United States Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato told New York University professor Herbert London, an Orthodox Jew who is partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion (making the immoral “life of the mother” “exception), that he, London, could be the Republican nominee for Governor of the State of New York that year if he became “pro-choice.” (This is what Dr. London told me in 1998 when I was challenging Senator D’Amato for the United States senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party, adding, of course, that the former senator has claimed that he has no recollection of saying any such thing.)  London ran on the Conservative Party line and came within several thousand votes of beating the pro-abort who got the Republican gubernatorial nomination that year, a man named Pierre Rinfret, for second place in the election against the Democratic Party incumbent, the Catholic pro-abort named Mario Matthew Cuomo.

This gave birth to an entire generation of pro-abortion Republicans, many of them Catholics, emerged in the 1990s and thereafter. Rudolph William Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York from 1993 to 2001. Richard Riordan, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles from 1993 to 2001. Christine Todd Whitman, a Presbyterian, Governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001. Thomas Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2001. Enrico Anthony Lazio, a member of the United States House of Representatives from Long Island from 1993 to 2001. Susan Molinari, a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1990 to 1997. Susan Collins, United States Senator from Maine, from 1997 to the present. Olympia Snowe, Greek Orthodox, United States Senator from Maine from 1995 to the present. George Elmer Pataki, Governor of New York from 1995 to 2007. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California from 2003 to the present. There are, of course, many others.

It was in the immediate aftermath of President George Herbert Walker Bush’s defeat for re-election at the hands of then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, that the then Republican National Committee chairman, Richard Bond, himself a product of the Nassau County, New York, political machine of the late Joseph Margiottta and his successor, Joseph Mondello, launched into a broadside against Patrick Joseph Buchanan for his “Culture Wars” address at the Republican National Convention at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, on August 17, 1992, the Feast of Saint Hyacinth. An editorial in The New York Times praised Bond for his “conversion”:

Richard Bond did not go gently into retirement. His swan song as chairman of the Republican National Committee criticized his party’s rightward drift in general and its opposition to abortion in particular. His words, while true, would have carried a lot more credibility had he not waited until he was going out the door to utter them.

Where was Mr. Bond at the Republican Convention last August, when he might have used his influence to mute the demagoguery that wrong-footed George Bush’s campaign from the start? Mr. Bond now says he tried to deny Patrick Buchanan his disastrous half-hour of prime time. Yet Mr. Bond also spent his time in Houston justifying the proceedings. “We are America,” he told one reporter. “These other people are not America.”

Still, his eleventh-hour conversion is welcome. His attack on “zealotry masquerading as principle” makes sound moral sense. His observation that the party must recognize that “America is getting more diverse, not more alike” makes sound political sense. So, too, does his observation that the social issues cherished by the evangelical right, chiefly abortion, are almost certain to confine the G.O.P. to a shrinking tent.

Mr. Bond thus joins prominent Republican moderates like Gov. William Weld of Massachusetts and Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas. Both oppose exclusionary politics. Both believe that President Bush’s intrusive efforts to regulate a woman’s right to choose stood historical Republican principles — limited government and individual responsibility — on their heads.

The question is whether there are enough Kassebaums and Welds (and, belatedly, Bonds) around to reverse the party’s course. The center-right split in the Republican Party is a durable fact of politics; after the 1988 convention Lee Atwater saw that, absent Ronald Reagan’s special magic, future Republican leaders must broaden their base in terms of race and gender.

Mr. Bush did not do so. One distressing result is that the party machinery is now increasingly vulnerable to the religious and cultural right. Pat Robertson, for one, trots out exit polls showing that white evangelicals were Mr. Bush’s most loyal constituency. He does not advertise the polls showing ruinous defections among women, younger voters and independents.

A chastened Rich Bond has absorbed that message — a message surely worth adopting by principled conservatives not now retired from battle. And George Bush, now in retirement, might be forgiven for asking where Mr. Bond’s wisdom was when he needed it. (Rich Bond — Right, but Late.)

This editorial, of course, gave credence to the absurd charge among some “moderate” Republicans in 1992 and 1993 that Patrick Joseph Buchanan’s Culture Wars” speech at the Republican National Convention at the Astrodome (Harris County Domed Stadium) in Houston, Texas, on August 17, 1992, “cost” President George Herbert Walker Bush the election against Governor Bill Clinton. Never mind the fact that Bush the elder ran a terrible campaign that included a moment where he looked at his watch during the middle of a “town hall” debate with Clinton and his fellow Texan, the eccentric billionaire Henry Ross Perot. Never mind the fact that George Herbert Walker Bush broke his “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge that he made at the Republican National Convention at the Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana, on Thursday, August 18, 1988 (for the written text of that speech, see 1988 Republican National Convention Acceptance Address). Never mind the fact that George Herbert Walker Bush never stood for anything other than what a good Skull and Bonesman from Yale University stand for, namely, every Judeo-Masonic principle imaginable. No, Pat Buchanan and the issue of abortion had to be blamed for Bush the elder’s defeat in 1992.

The Republican establishment of careerists has long sought to distance itself from “social issues,” and its effort to do so in last year’s presidential campaign quite predictable even though the now-defeated 2008 Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States of America, John Sidney McCain III, never raised the issue himself in his campaign and gave a most incoherent set of answers on the subject during his final debate with now President-elect Barack Hussein Obama at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 (see Fallacies Galore). And Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin’s discussions of the issue were even more incoherent and laced with her proud and unqualified support for the abject moral evil of contraception (see It’s Still Absolute Insanity). The careerists want the “social issues” go to away, and to this end they must invent mythologies to reaffirm them in their conviction that they must not raise issues about which the “people” are not “obsessed.”

Indeed, Dr. William Bennett, former Secretary of the Department of Education in the administration of the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan, was championing in the Fall of 1995 the cause of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, a pro-abort, as a possible candidate for the Republican Party’s 1996 presidential nomination”We may have to sacrifice abortion for the triple crown,” Bennett said, meaning that to win the presidency and to control a majority of seats in both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America it might be necessary to downplay the issue of baby-killing under cover of law. “My phone’s not ringing off the hook on this issue,” Bennett went on to say. “Win, baby, win.” That’s all that matters. Who cares about truth? Who cares about Truth Incarnate, Truth Crucified and Resurrection?

This is the sort of “thinking” that gave us Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., a thirty-third degree Mason, as the Republican presidential nominee in 1996. “Realists’ such as Dr. John Wilkie, the founder of the National Right to Life Committee (which is not so “right to life” as it takes no position against contraception and supports, as a matter of principle, the execution of innocent children in their mothers’ wombs in cases where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered), Ralph Reed, then the executive director the Christian Coalition, “Father” Frank Pavone, the founder of Priests for Life, and many others supported the incompetent, inarticulate, “split-the-difference-down-the-middle” deal-maker Dole, who told his campaign workers prior to the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, February 20, 1996, to “win it ugly.” He lost that primary. With the help of Reed’s not-so-subtle anti-Catholicism in the South Carolina primary and with the help of Catholic enablers, Dole went on to defeat Buchanan, running an absolutely inept campaign against then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (see Bob Dole, part trois).

The hapless, inarticulate and ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., attempted into insert a “zero tolerance” for bigotry plank into the Republican Party’s national platform in 1996 and to change the platform to express “respect” for a “diversity of beliefs” about baby-killing, an effort that was opposed by Angela “Bay” Buchanan and Dr. Alan Keyes, among others. Dole made sure, however, that the man who had defeated him in the New Hampshire primary on February 20, 1996, and had come very close to defeating him in the Iowa causes on February 12, 1996, Patrick Joseph Buchanan, was not given any speaking role at the Republican National Convention in San Diego, California. Buchanan was allowed to mill around with other Republicans onstage after Dole gave his pathetic acceptance address.

As is well-known, Dole and his running mate, Jack Kemp, another thirty-third degree Mason, ran away from the issue of baby-killing except when speaking to friendly Catholic audiences. Other than that, however, the two Freemasons ignored the issue altogether. Kemp spoke about baby-killing only when asked about it by moderator James Lehrer in the one and only debate between vice presidential candidates, held on October 9, 1996, and called the issue an “emotional” one and that the “debate” over it had to be carried on with “civility and respect,” making it appear that there there can be a “debate” about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment’s absolute prohibition on the direct taking of any innocent human life at any time for any reason.

Dole  himself made not one single reference to the taking of preborn human life in either his debate with President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on October 6, 1996, or his second on October 16, 1996. Given his efforts to mute all discussion about the life issue prior to and during the Republican National Convention, which was moderated by the supposedly “pro-life” Governor of the State of Texas, George Walker Bush, and the avowedly pro-abortion Governor of the State of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, to showcase the party’s diversity (“pro-life” Southern male, pro-death Northern female). I wrote the following for the very first issue of the Christ or Chaos printed journal:

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his shameless attempt to appease both sides of the abortion issue, relegating us to little more than observers who must go along for the ride in his quest to win.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his support of the so-called hard cases exceptions. We have zero tolerance for those who contend, as a matter of principle, that there are conditions justifying the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his support of fetal experimentation and Planned Parenthood.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for a political party which is maneuvering to put pro-aborts in key positions as the Vice Presidency. [2014 note: Dole played the same game in 1996 that McCain played six years ago, saying he would be “open” to a “pro-choice” running mate. Dole chose his fellow thirty-third degree Mason, Jack Kemp, a partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion former United States Representative from Buffalo, New York, and Secretary of Labor in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, who rarely spoke about the issue at all except in front of “safe” Catholic audiences.]

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his brand of political bossism and the silence of those opponents deemed to be politically incorrect [namely, Patrick Joseph Buchanan]. . . .

It is time to tell Bob Dole we have zero tolerance for anyone who believes that the promotion of sinful lifestyles must be tolerated for the sake of “diversity”.

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for his attitude that “you can be pro-choice or pro-life and still very be a very good Republican.”

It is time to tell Bob Dole that we have zero tolerance for a Republican Party that recognizes the “pro-choice” position as a morally legitimate position. (“Zero Tolerance for Bob Dole, Christ or Chaos, Volume 1, Number 1, August, 1996. p. 3.)

Also interested in muting all discussion of the life issue in 1996 was the chairman of the Republican National Senatorial Campaign Committee (RNSCC), the junior senator from the State of New York, Alfonse M. D’Amato, who had been elected in 1980 against United States Representative Elizabeth Holtzman and the incumbent United States Senator Jacob K. Javits, who ran on the Liberal Party line after losing a primary to D’Amato in his bed for renomination. D’Amato squeaked by, defeating Holtzman by 80,992 votes, 152,470 of which were cast for him on the Right to Life Party line. Javits received 664,544 votes that would, most likely, have gone to Holtzman. However, it was those votes cast for D’Amato on the Right to Life Party line that made it possible for to him to begin the first of three terms as the junior senator from the Empire State to the pro-abortion Catholic named Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

(Interestingly, Moynihan had defeated United States Senator James Buckley, R-NY, in 1976, who had won his only Senate term in 1970 as the Conservative Party candidate at a time the “liberal” vote was split between the Republican incumbent, Charles Goodell, the late father of current National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell, and United States Representative Richard Ottinger, D-NY. Goodell had been appointed to his seat by Governor Nelson Rockefeller, following the death of United States Senator Robert Francis Kennedy on Wednesday, June 6, 1968, after he had been shot following his victory in the California primary against United States Senator Eugene McCarthy. Buckley won the race in 1970 even though he got only thirty-nine percent of the vote. Goodell actually came in third, garnering twenty-three percent of the vote).

Even though D’Amato owed his Senate career to the votes he got, including the one I cast for him, on the Right to Life Party line in 1980, he was a pure political opportunist who believed, as noted earlier, that it was time for Republican candidates who could take a “pro-choice” position to do so. Indeed, if you will recall, Dr. Herbert London said that D’Amato told him point blank to his face that he, London, could be the Republican Party gubernatorial nominee against Mario Matthew Cuomo is only he switched his position from pro-life to “pro-choice,” an offer was not too good for London to refuse. D’Amato also asked the thenCounty of Nassau District Attorney Denis E. Dillon, who died on August 15, 1910, and with whom I had run for lieutenant governor on the Right to Life Party line in 1986, to reach out to me after I had received enough delegate votes at the Right to Life Party convention in May of 1998 to challenge him for the nomination. Denis asked me the following question: “What’s it going to take for you to get out of the primary?” As I knew at the time, I could have written my own ticket for a job from which I could never get fired. No, there was no deal as D’Amato supported “exceptions,” voted to fund “family planning programs” and had, apart from giving us pro-abort Republicans such as George Elmer Pataki and Rick Lazio, who ran such a pathetic campaign against then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton for the United States Senate in 2000, voted to confirm the thoroughly pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to serve as Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. No deal. My friendship with Denis Dillon, for whose immortal soul I pray every day, effectively ended then.

One of the reasons I was adamant in my refusal to withdraw from my primary challenge to Senator D’Amato sixteen years ago now (boy, the time sure does fly), although I did tell Mr. Dillon that there would be no need for a primary if D’Amato decided to decline the Right to Life Party endorsement without being replaced by anyone else (the party, that is, would have run a blank line in that instance, neither opposing nor supporting D’Amato, support that he clearly did not deserve, especially as the party itself had a firm “no exceptions” policy that its leaders at the time were willing to overlook in certain instances), was the role that D’Amato played as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1996 as he tried to muscle senatorial candidates into being silent about the issue of abortion in exchange for NRSCC campaign cash. In other words, D’Amato was hoping that blood money talked more than principle.

Albert J. Salvi, a state legislator in the State of Illinois, a Catholic, had won the Republican primary in 1996 while running a pro-life campaign. The Democratic Party nominee was United States Representative Richard Durbin, a pro-abortion Catholic and now the Minority Leader of the United States Senate. D’Amato believed that the path to victory in Illinois ran through the path of silence about baby-killing. Salvi took the deal for the NRSCC. His wife was very happy to know that I wanted to interview her husband about this as she was still exercised about D’Amato’s strong-arm tactics two years after the 1996 campaign, which her husband lost to the reprobate Durbin. Mr Salvi, though, was unwilling to speak with me. He regretted what he had done and simply did not want to talk about it.

There was, however, a candidate who refused to knuckle under to D’Amato’s use of political blackmail, NRSCC campaign cash in exchange for silence on abortion which was well-documented at the time. That candidate was a woman named Ronna Romney, who was running for the United States Senate seat held then and held today by United States Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan). Ronna Romney is the former wife of G. Scott Romney, who is the older brother of a fellow born six years later, a chap named Willard Mitt Romney. It’s a little ironic that a Romney-by-marriage refused to accept silence about abortion in exchange for NRSCC cash while her former brother-in-law, Willard Mitt Romney, was in the vanguard of trying to pressure United States Representative Todd Akin (R-Missouri) to drop out of his own Senate race by 5:00 p,.m., Central Daylight Saving Time, on Tuesday, August 21, 2012, at the same time that Untied States Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) decided to keep Akin from receiving any NRSCC campaign cash.

As many of us knew and wrote throughout 1995 and 1996, Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was handily defeated by then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Dole ran a pathetic campaign.

What did that matter to the bright lights of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right”?

Nothing.

These careerists anointed then Texas Governor George Walker Bush as the next “Bob Dole.”

Well, surprise, surprise, the “pro-life” Governor of Texas, George Walker Bush, took the same basic line in 1999, saying that abortion was a “divisive” and/or a “difficult” issue about which people of “good will” could disagree legitimately. Oh, really? Really? Truly? A difficult or a divisive issue?

 

It is tiring just thinking about the number of articles that I wrote in 1999 and 2000, most of them published in the old printed journal Christ or Chaos, the predecessor to this website, to state this obvious fact: There is nothing “difficult” about the Fifth Commandment, which forbids the direct, intentional taking of the life of any innocent human being as the first object of a moral action. The Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is clear and it admits of no exceptions. Innocent human life is always to be held inviolable. Period.

“Divisive”? There is nothing divisive about adhering to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the Catholic Church by their Author and her Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Such precepts have only become “divisive” as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and cemented in place by the various naturalistic and semi-Pelagian and anti-Incarnational “philosophies” and ideologies and revolution of the Judeo-Masonic era known as Modernity, with which the counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its most telling “reconciliation.”

The likes of Bob Dole in 1996 or George W. Bush (Bob Dole, part deux) in 1999 and 2000 would have the average voter believe one’s support for surgical abortion, although possibly regrettable, is certainly not something that disqualifies anyone from the holding of public office, whether elected or appointed. As horrible as abortion is, it is, after all, just “one” out of many issues facing the United States of America today and voters and candidates and office-holders should be “free” in a “free country” that values “freedom of speech” and “freedom of press” and ‘freedom of religion” to believe as they want. Sure, it’s terrible that over a million children are killed in their mothers’ wombs by surgical means each year in the United States of America alone. That’s just the way it is. Surgical abortion is here to stay and those who support it should be reaffirmed in their “right” to believe in it as they desire to do so.

Bob Dole, part trois, United States Senator John Sidney McCain III did his best in 2007-2008 to impersonate Dole, as can be seen in a report on the leftist Politico website that was published on August 14, 2008:

McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

In the interview, McCain said “the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party.”

“And I also feel that — and I’m not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out [for vice-president].”

He added: “I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life, but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a — albeit strong — but just it’s a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.” (McCain alarms base with abortion comment.)

Just a disagreement?

Well, let me repeat, more or less (computer crashes have eaten hundreds of my articles over the past twenty years), what I have written so many times before:

Would Bob Dole or George W. Bush or John McCain say that anti-Semitism, the hatred of Jews (and Arabs, it should be pointed out), is just a “difficult” or “divisive” issue that is just a “matter of opinion,” as Bush termed abortion in 1999 and 2000, or, in McCain’s words, “just a disagreement”? Would a virulent, anti-Semite who wills physical harm, perhaps even under cover of law, to adherents of the Talmud and Arabs, one who might even express views sympathetic to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, be “welcomed” in the Republican Party? Would an open, rabid anti-Semite be considered as a potential Vice Presidential running mate or as an appointee to the White House staff or the Cabinet or to the Federal judiciary?

Would Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III say that racialism, the hatred of any one of the races of people on the face of this earth, is just a “difficult” or “divisive” issue that is just a “matter of opinion,” as Bush termed abortion in 1999 and 2000, or, in McCain’s words, “just a disagreement”? Would a virulent racialist who hated people of a different skin color (white, brown, black, red, yellow, turquoise) who wills physical harm, perhaps even under cover of law, to those with black or white or yellow or red or turquoise skin be “welcomed” in the Republican Party? Would an open, rabid anti-Semite be considered as a potential Vice Presidential running mate or as an appointee to the White House staff or the Cabinet or to the Federal judiciary?

Why, then, is it that one who believes that little babies, who have committed no crimes whatsoever, can be poisoned and/or butchered in their mothers’ wombs under cover of law is deemed qualified to serve in public office, whether elected or appointed? Although the hatred of anyone on the basis of his race or religion is evil, the killing of an innocent human being, no matter the means (abortifacient pills, the various butcheries used by surgical baby-killers, guns, knives, bombs, etc.) used in the killing or the age of the victim (preborn, newborn, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, middle-aged, elderly), is one of the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, and is thus higher in the hierarchy of evils than racial or religious or ethnic hatred.

Sure, this is clear to those of us who are believing Catholics. This is not clear to apostate Catholics and to almost every other category of people, albeit with a few exceptions here and there as the light of natural reason does equip men to see and to accept and even to defend certain basic moral truths even though they do not accept the Catholic Church as the divinely-instituted guardian and infallible explicator of those truths, because of the triumph of the naturalistic ethos of Judeo-Masonry that makes of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man by the power of God the Holy Ghost in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb a matter of complete indifference to personal and social order. It is, you see, a relatively easy thing to consider abortion, whether chemical or surgical in nature, as merely a matter of “opinion” about which one is free to disagree when one considers the Incarnation of God as Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the woman who was assumed body and soul into Heaven on this very day, August 15, to be a matter of complete indifference to order within souls and justice within nations and peace among nations.

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sanctified the womb of every mother by becoming the Prisoner of His own Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb for nine months before His Nativity in Bethlehem?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand that every abortion is mystical attack upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is in solidarity with every child in every mother’s womb, no matter the condition of the child conceived or the circumstances of the conception?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III realize that God wills there to be many children born to parents so that they can give him honor and glory here in this passing, mortal vale of tears as members of the true Church He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, so as to be ready at all times to die in states of Sanctifying Grace and thus enjoy the glory of His own Beatific Vision for all eternity with His Most Blessed Mother, assumed into Heaven this very day?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand or accept the truth that no level of government–be it local, state or nation–can ever pass any piece of positive civil legislation that puts into question the inviolability of innocent human life or of God’s absolute Sovereignty over the sanctity and the fecundity of marriage?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand or accept the truth that the civil government has an obligation to help to foster those conditions in civil society wherein its citizens can better sanctify and save their souls as members of the Catholic Church?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand or accept the truth that the civil law can never sanction sin, the very thing that caused the God-Man, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow, under cover of law and in every aspect of popular culture.

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand or accept the simple truth that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the sole foundation of personal and social order?

Does anyone who is a rational, sane human being believe that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., or George Walker Bush or John Sidney McCain III understand that the United States and other parts of the developed world are undergoing profound economic and demographic and sociological changes as a result of contraception and abortion?

What about Willard Mitt Romney?

Hey, I am still exhausted from writing One Year of Visceral Revolutionary Rhetoric and Activity, part four.

You want to read about Willard Mitt Romney’s campaign two years ago?

Just go to the The Follies of Naturalism page on this site for a listing of articles about him in 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2012.

As predicted on this site in November of 2012, the hapless anti-life Willard Mitt Romney’s loss to the unapologetically pro-death Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, resulted in all manner of “professional” Republicans, many of whom have risen through the ranks of naturalism after cutting their political eye-teeth the wards and precincts of local party clubhouses and know no other life than that of “getting out the vote” in order to win for the sake of “winning” as they do and say anything that they have to in order to achieve “victory in November,” to start pounding their toy “tom-toms” once again in preparation for making war once again on the influence that so-called “social conservatives” have had in assuring the defeat of candidates such as Romney, who, it should be noted, run away from the “social issues” during his pathetic campaign in 2012. The war drums are being beaten down by future careerists within the ranks of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” in an effort to stress that there is only one thing that voters care about: the money, the money, the money, and, yes, right again, the money, the money and the money:

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican Party chairman Rience Priebus thanked the College Republican National Committee for releasing a new, 95-page report stating that the Republican Party needs to stop defending traditional values like marriage and defunding Planned Parenthood if it wants to appeal to the youth vote.

The report, called “Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation,” examines voter trends among those 18-29 and claims young voters have problems with the GOP’s views on hot-button sexual issues. The party’s traditional-minded positions on both same-sex-marriage and reproductive issues were cited in the report as turn-offs to young adults.

“Perhaps no topic has gotten more attention with regards to the youth vote than the issue of gay marriage,” the report says. “[Y]oung people are unlikely to view homosexuality as morally wrong, and they lean toward legal recognition of same-sex relationships.”

The report states that only 21 percent of young voters in a Spring 2012 Harvard Institute of Politics survey felt that religious values should play a more important role in government, and only 25 percent felt homosexual relationships were wrong. And the group’s own March 2013 survey found that 44 percent of young voters said that same-sex marriage should be legal across the country, while 26 percent said that it should be up to states to decide.

Only 30 percent said marriage should be legally defined as only between a man and a woman.

“In the focus groups this issue repeatedly came up as one that made young voters wary of supporting the GOP,” the group said. For that reason, they added two questions to their survey “to gauge how young voters would respond to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage.”

The survey asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage. Some 39 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for the candidate, including 51 percent of young independent voters. About one-third said that the issue would make no difference to them.

Wrote the College Republicans, “Surveys have consistently shown that gay marriage is not as important an issue as jobs and the economy to young voters. Yet it was unmistakable in the focus groups that gay marriage was a reason many of these young voters disliked the GOP.”

One young man in the College Republicans’ Columbus focus group said, “In this last election, everyone said that the biggest issue was the economy. I think to a lot of people that definitely was the case…but if there is just that one thing – a lot of those social issues that you can’t get behind – and see, everything is in two buckets, and if one of those things in those buckets is something you just can’t agree with then [it doesn’t] matter what else is there, economic or otherwise.” (College Republicans to GOP: Back off Planned Parenthood, contraception, same-sex ‘marriage’)

Longtime readers of my work, whether in The Wanderer, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Celebrate Life, The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, The Arlington Catholic Herald, the printed pages of Christ or Chaos and on this website that has been live since February 20, 2004, know that I have been completely consistent in my rejection of the “lesser of two evils” slogan as serving only one end: the incremental institutionalization of more and more evils.

Yet it is that each succeeding generation of midget naturalists believes that a new “plan” can be found to bury the “divisive” “social issues” once and for all. Lost in all of this is the simple fact that the belief that “divisive” issues must be put aside for the sake of one election means that such issues will never become the focus of public policy if a naturalist of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” actually winds up in the White House, which, given the divisions and changing demographics of the United States of America, may prove to be as illusory in 2016 as it was in 1996 and 2008 and 2012 (and Bush the Lesser only won in 2000 because of the 97,451 votes that Green Party presidential candidate took away from then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., on November 7, 2000, thus giving Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes to “W” after the long court battle that ensued over “hanging chads”). There was no national “mandate for the supposed “lesser of two evils” in the year 2000.

Once inaugurated, of course, the supposed “lesser of two evils” went on to institutionalize many grave evils in the name of “compassionate conservatism” as he initiated unjust, immoral wars unconstitutionally that helped to bring this nation to the point of fiscal bankruptcy. As I have noted repeatedly, Bush the Lesser made possible the election of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus on November 4, 2008. (For a review of “W’s” anti-life record as president, please see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called “Pro-Life Pols.”)

United States Senator Rand Paul, who, despite some differences with his father, former United States Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), is a libertarian. Although he speaks on occasion on the life issue, his father’s “live and let live” attitude is deeply ingrained in him. Despite being far more intelligent than the likes of Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., John Sidney McCain III and Willard Mitt Romney, Rand Paul really believes much the same thing as his predecessors in naturalism have believed: that the “social issues” are “losing issues” that needlessly divide the Republican Party. What matters is “winning,” and thus it is important to “agree to disagree.”

This is what Rand Paul said recently in an interview:

Q. There was a consensus among young people at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference that the GOP needs to get out of social issues. Do you agree?

A. I think it’s partly that. But I also think young people are very concerned with privacy. I think most young people’s lives revolve around their cellphones. They communicate with their parents by cellphone even when they’re in the house. And I think they are horrified by the idea of the government searching their records and being in possession of their records when they’ve not been suspected of a crime.

Q. Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

A. I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

Q. As a libertarian, you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. But when it comes to the right for gays to marry, you said it should be left up to the states. Isn’t that a contradiction?

A. On issues that are very contentious, that involve social mores—I think that allowing different parts of the country to make their decision based on the local mores and culture is a good idea. But when it comes to taxes and benefits, the [federal] government out to take a neutral position—a way where marriage wouldn’t have an effect, positive or negative, on those things.

Q. You said you endorsed Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s Republican senatorial primary because “there was nobody else in the race.” Would you have preferred to endorse someone else?

A. No, I’m happy with my endorsement, and I think Mitch McConnell is a good conservative.

Q. Your recent op-ed for Breitbart about the future of the Republican Party got a lot of attention. Specifically, you said, “Splintering the party is not the route to victory.” Was that directed at Ted Cruz?

A. I have sort of a Jeffersonian belief in unity, peace and commerce with all. That means we don’t devour our own. We try to find an area where we can stand for principle. But it also includes people you don’t agree with on every issue. (Five Minutes With Rand Paul.)

If you have read the history provided in this article, you can see for yourself that there is nothing “original” in Senator Rand Paul’s “agree to disagree” mantra. This has been going on for twenty-five years. Even those who do not believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King or who want to believe that “victory” in 2014 will produce anything different than it produced in 2010 (when Republicans froze in place in fear of upsetting the 2012 apple cart) cannot deny the truth of the history that this article has provided. Facts are what they are.

Moreover, Rand Paul’s assessment of the attitudes of “young conservatives” proves the essential point that I made in No Getting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube thirteen days ago now: that young Americans have been programmed (by the mainslime media, by public  schools, by most conciliar schools) to accept moral licentiousness as normal and natural. The only thing that divides them between the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and “right” is “the money, the money, and the money.” That is, the partisans of the “left” believe in statism as the means to enjoy material well-being while those of the “right” believe in the the “free market place” that is anything but free.

Like his father before him, Rand Paul does not understand the simple truth that there can never be long term economic prosperity and social order domestically or peace in the world as long as men are at war with Christ the King by means of their unrepentant sins, which they celebrate in the popular culture and seek to institutionalize under the civil law as part of their “human rights.”

Rand Paul would do well to read these words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano that were quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Very few people, including most of those, perhaps, who bother to actually read these articles, have yet to read or to accept the truth of the following words as written by Pope Saint Pius X 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. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Whether a Republican or a Democrat wins in 2016 matters only around the margins. The United States of America is done, cooked.

No, this does not mean that we roll up into a ball and die. However, it does mean that we must stop trying to believe that “progress” will be made if only the right kind of “leader” is found. This is preposterous. As I noted four and one-half years ago now, No Christ the King? No Rosary? No Good Cause.

Permits it is wise to permit Father Edward Leen to have the final word on this madness:

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived–from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely “secular” life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious–and there are many such still–are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that “life” is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

Father Edward Leen was simply giving expression in 1953 to simple, timeless and immutable truths that true pope after true pope had reiterated time and time again in the last three centuries now. No Catholicism, no social order. It’s that simple. Why should we enable the midget naturalists by believing that they will give us anything other than naturalism. It is incomprehensible that Catholics who claim to be opposed to conciliarism, which is founded in no small measure in a blithe acceptance of the tenets of Modernity, remain as undiscerning now as Catholics were in the 1950s at the time of Father Leen.

We must be champions of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, champions of the Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal, champions of the truth that Catholicism is the and only foundation of personal and social order. Those who disagree do so at the peril to the nation they say they love but for which they have a false sense of nationalistic pride that impedes her conversion to the true Faith, which is what Our Lord Himself mandates for each nation on the face of this earth.

We must not be distracted by the side shows of naturalism or conciliarism. We must serve as champions of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, refusing to march along in the parade of the midget naturalists.

We can only stand tall, that is, to stand above the midgets of naturalism, if we stand uncompromisingly with Christ the King as the consecrated slaves of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

As we pray our Rosaries today, let us remember always to fly unto the patronage of the Mother of God and of her Most Chaste Spouse, making it a point of praying the Memorare to Saint Joseph every time we recite the Litany of Saint Joseph:

Remember, O most pure Spouse of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph my beloved patron, that never has it been heard that anyone invoked thy patronage and sought thine aid without being comforted. Inspired by this confidence, I come to thee and fervently commend myself to thee. Ah, despise not my petition, dear Foster Father of our Redeemer, but accept it graciously. Amen.

The great Dominican, Saint Thomas Aquinas, teaches us to go to Saint Joseph in all of our needs:

Some Saints are privileged to extend to us their patronage with particular efficacy in certain needs, but not in others; but our holy patron St. Joseph has the power to assist us in all cases, in every necessity, in every undertaking.

May Saint Joseph, the head of the Holy Family, help us with our families to accept the crosses that come our way, knowing that his help will lighten the load and that he, who is so favored by her foster-Son and by his Most Chaste Spouse, will win for us all of the humility and meekness that we need to bear the burdens of each day with love and gratitude, willing to lose everything in this passing, mortal vale of tears in order gain the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.

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.

No Getting The Toothpaste Back Into The Tube

Although many well-meaning Catholics, some of whom reject the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar robber barons, believe that there is some kind of “political ecumenism” that can retard the rapid advance of evil in the world today, the truth is that “political ecumenism” is as false as theological ecumenism. No admixture of truth and error is going to retard evil. It is that simple.

It is very tempting for people to be lost in the “trees” as they get agitated by this or that news item. As readers of this website know, it is important at all times to keep focused on root causes, both remote and proximate, as rants about the problems we face do nothing to address the fact that evil has made such strides in the world in the past fifty years, thanks in large measure to the false doctrines and sacramentally barren liturgical rites of the conciliar revolutionaries, that entire generations of young people believe that the forces we know to be are unquestionably perfectly natural and normal.

Consider this story published on December 12, 2013, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, about “texting” in a high school in “Middle America,” Avon, Indiana, which is to the west of downtown Indianapolis by about fifteen miles but borders the large City of Indianapolis-Marion County “unigovernment” limits:

AVON –The Avon Community School Corporation says it’s investigating a case of “inappropriate social media activity” involving high school students.

It was the talk of Avon High School Thursday.

“The question of the day was, ‘Have you deleted your nudes?'” said Janelle Bruce, a freshman at Avon High School.

Nude pictures, some of them, according to Avon Police, were of 14- and 15-year-old female students at Avon High School. School administrators found the questionable photos on at least 16 students’ cell phones.

The school questioned students, confiscated the phones and turned it all over to Avon Police.

By first period, students were already talking about what had happened.

“This is a big deal, like, I found out first period so…yeah, it was pretty bad,” Bruce added.

The incident wasn’t just an embarrassing social mishap, though, giving way to gossip. Avon Police said some of the students involved could face criminal charges of having and sharing child pornography.

“Kids these days don’t realize the consequences of, you know, just sending a photo or, you know, the consequences that are going to follow,” said Bruce’s mother, Jennifer Grant.

Avon Police said the students involved used a smart phone app called “Digit Calc” to hide their questionable photos.

To parents and outsiders, Digi-Calc looks like a calculator. Type in a passcode and hit equals and there they are, photos hidden for your eyes only.

“Kids are sometimes smarter than the parents with technology, but just being a parent knowing what your kids are doing 24/7 is important,’ added Grant.

Parents say it’s an important reminder to have a talk with their children about social media. Avon parent Sonny Reyes says he’s already discussed the issue with this two high school-aged daughters.

“I just told them be careful on what they post on that and they’ll regret it if they put in there the things they don’t want to put in there,” said Reyes.

It seems Reyes’ daughter has gotten the message.

“I would never post things like that,” said Kirsten Reyes, a freshman at Avon. “I know to not post anything like that to social media or to any guy, actually.”

Apparently though, it’s a lesson other Avon High School students are now learning the hard way.

The district issued the following statement Thursday afternoon:

“Avon Community School Corporation is currently investigating a case involving inappropriate social media activity among high school students. During the investigation, several students have been found in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy and Student Code of Conduct. Appropriate disciplinary action is being taken. In addition, local law enforcement officials are involved with this investigation.

When Avon Community School Corporation receives a request for information pertaining to its student population, specifically educational records and discipline issues, our first priority is to comply with all state and federal laws, specifically the Family Educational Rights to Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA deems all information related to educational records, including discipline records, as confidential and it requires school officials to use the utmost discretion in dealing with such requests.”

Avon police said, so far, no one has been arrested. Investigators told Eyewitness News the department will use its forensic tools to go through each phone and determine if possession of and distributing child pornography charges are warranted against any of the students involved. (Avon Schools confiscate student phones.)

These young people are going to grow up to “vote pro-life” and to oppose laws that permit those who engage in perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to be “married”?

Those of you who are tempted to succumb to viewing the world in naturalistic terms had better come to realize the actual reality in which we live.

The reality of the world in which we live is not defined by the incestuous world of “Twitterverse” where like-minded people come to project from the proliferation of comments made by other like-minded people that “we’re going to turn a corner” in the nation soon. Such a belief is irrational as it (a) is premised upon the falsehood that something short of Catholicism can be the foundation of personal and social order; and (b) exists in spite of the fact that America’s concentration camps and what passes for “popular culture” in the mainslime media have done a splendid job in conditioning the young to accept evil as normal and natural, if not a “human right” whose fulfillment must be subsidized by taxpayers. One may review Inside the Prison Walls for a reminder about the madness of “texting” among the young, many of whom believe it is their “right” to use “crack cocaine” after the “highs” produced by marijuana level off and become “boring.”

Indeed, a story published yesterday, Ash Wednesday, March 5, 2014, reported on third graders who were caught smoking marijuana in a bathroom “inside the prison walls.” Third graders:

SONORA (CBS SF) — Three third-grade students at a Sonora elementary school were busted for smoking pot in the school’s bathroom last week.

Two 8-year-olds and a 9-year-old were caught by another student, who immediately informed school administrators.  Those officials then alerted local police.

 

The students were questioned by officers, and later released to their parents on February 27th.

 

Sonora Elementary School Principal Chris Boyles would not speak with CBS SF regarding the case, but Superintendent Leigh Shampain confirmed that the students were caught smoking marijuana in the school’s bathroom.  He would not discuss how the students might be disciplined.

“(I’m) shocked. To be in third grade and have their own pipe,” parent Linda Rodriguez commented to KTXL-TV. “I think they should be expelled, but I also think they should follow it further to where they found (the drugs).”

The case was forwarded to the Tuolumne County Probation Department. (3rd Graders Caught Smoking Pot In Elementary School Bathroom.)

No one should be shocked by this as the country has gone Up In Smoke. The only thing that matters to many children and young adults today is “me, myself, I.” They want pleasure. They want gratification. They want to be “entertained.” They do not want to work hard, certainly not for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity. Most of them believe that life is one big “entitlement” and that they are to be indemnified for “breaking rules” by having recourse to any number of lame, subjectivist excuses. Yes, as I noted fourteen months ago no now, Stick A Fork In”U.S.,” We Are Done, Cooked.

No, there is not a vast army of “future voters” out there who are going to “act” to overturn Arizona Governor Janice Brewer’s veto of legislation to protect business owners from violating their religious beliefs by providing services to “gay couples” that imply recognition of the nonexistent of validity of such perverse relationships. Even the belief by the legislators in the Arizona State Legislature that they were attempting to protect “religious liberty” is illusory as the heresy of “religious liberty” is the precise reason that we have sunk into such an abyss of sentimentality and emotionalism. It is such sentimentality and emotionalism  that have produced “gay mania” that prevails in the world in a completely fascistic manner.

Once again, any of you who are out there in cyberspace and read these articles (it’s also nice to read and respond to the Donations page), we have been warned about this plunge into madness by our true popes, who have explained that “religious liberty” is from the devil and is the pathway to leading entire nations there as well:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

“For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else.

Holy Mother Church is a wise mother. She does not expect the impossible from her children. She is willing to adapt–and has in fact adapted–herself to the varied circumstances in which her children find themselves. She is ready and willing to avail herself of the legal “protections” afforded by the modern civil state, doing so, however, without conceding the validity of the false premises upon which the modern state is founded and operates.

Pope Leo XIII noted this in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, while explaining what happens to those nations that come to “tolerate” increasingly higher and higher doses of evil in the name of “liberty:”

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true — that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

Rants in “Twitterverse” will not stop the advance of evil in the world.

Even if the naturalists of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” win back control of the United States Senate and hold its majority in the United States House of Representatives, attention will be focused almost exclusively on the “money, the money and the money” as careerist politicians remain oblivious to the truth that economic problems must worsen in a world where evil is protected under cover of the civil law and promoted with abandon in all aspects of what passes for “popular culture.”

The sacrifices we make this Lent to distance ourselves from the agitation and hysteria of the follies of naturalism will help us to see the word more clearly through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith rather than through the distorted prism of the babblings of well-meaning “conservatives” who do not realize that we are suffering from the effects of the Protestant Revolution, something that Father Frederick William Faber noted very clearly over one hundred fifty years ago now:

This forgetfulness that we are creatures, which prevails in that energetically bad portion of the world which is scripturally called the world, affects multitudes of persons, who are either less able to divest themselves of the influences of old traditions and early lessons, or are happily less possessed with the base spirit of the world. It leads them to form a sort of religion for themselves which singularly falls in with all the most corrupt propensities of our hearts: a religion which in effect teaches that we can live two lives and serve two masters. Such persons consider that religion has its own sphere, and worldly interests their sphere also, and that the one must not interfere with the other. Thus their tendency is to concentrate all the religion of the week into Sunday, and to conceive that they have thereby purchased a right to a large conscience for the rest of the week. The world, they say, has its claims and God has His claims. Both must be satisfied; God first, and most scrupulously; then the world, not less exactly, though it be indeed secondary. But it is not a “reasonable service” to neglect one for the other. God and the world are coordinate powers, coordinate fountains of moral duty and obligation. He is really the religious man who gives neither of them reason to complain. We must let our common sense hinder us from becoming over-righteous. Men who hold this doctrine, a doctrine admirably adapted for a commercial country, have a great advantage over the bolder men of whom we spoke before. For they enjoy all the practical laxity of unbelievers, without the trouble or responsibility of disbelieving; and besides that, they enjoy a certain good humor of conscience in consequence of the outward respect they pay, in due season and fitting place, to the ceremonies of religion.

Hitherto we have spoken of classes of persons in whom we take no interest, further than the sorrow which all who love God must feel at seeing Him defrauded of His honor, and all who love their fellow-men in seeing so much amiability, so much goodness, with a millstone round its neck which must inevitably sink it in the everlasting deeps. Let us come now to those with whom we are very much concerned; and for whom we have ventured to compose this little treatise. Errors filter from one class of men into another, and appear in different forms according to the new combinations into which they enter. We are all of us more affected by the errors which prevail around us than we really suppose. Almost every popular fallacy has its representative even among the children of faith; and as when a pestilence is raging, many are feeble and languid though they have no plague-spot, so  is it in matters of religion. The contagion of the world does us a mischief in many ways of which we are hardly conscious; and we often injure ourselves in our best and highest interests by views and practices, to which we cling with fatal obstinacy, little suspecting the relationship in which they stand to widely spread evils, which we behold in their naked deformity in other sections of society, and hold up to constant reprobation. The forgetfulness that we are creatures, which produces the various consequences already mentioned, is an error which is less obviously hateful than a direct forgetfulness of God, and consequently it wins its way into holy places where the other would find no admittance, or want hospitality. Good Christians hear conversations around them, catch the prevailing tone of society, read books, and become familiarized with certain fashionable principles of conduct; and it is impossible for their minds and hearts not to become imbued with the genius of all this. It is irksome to be always on our guard, and from being off our guard we soon grow to be unsuspicious. When a catholic enters into intimate dealings with protestants, he most not forget to place his sentries, and to act as if he was in an enemy’s country; and this is unkindly work, and as miserable as it is unkindly. Yet so it is. When newspapers tell us that catholicism is always more reasonable and less superstitious when it is in the immediate presence of protestantism, they indicate something that they have observed, namely, a change. Now if our religion be changed by protestantism, we can have little difficulty in deciding whether it has changed for the better or the worse. All this illustrates what we mean. The prevailing errors of our time and country find their way down to us, and corrupt our faith, and lower our practice, and divide us among ourselves. This unstartling error of forgetting that we are creatures is thus not without grave influence upon conscientious catholics; and it is to this point that we are asking your attention. (Father Frederick Faber, The Creator and the Creature, written in 1856 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 27-29. See also Liars Still Lie, Liars Still Lie Regularly, which was published on the original Christ or Chaos website two months ago now.)

These two paragraphs summarize most succinctly how Catholics have come to make their “peace” with the evils represented by the errors of Modernity and Modernism, starting with the Protestant Revolution itself.

The errors flowing the the various strains of the Protestant Revolution are hateful in the sight of God. Yes, true, God alone judges the souls of individual adherents of the Protestant sects, as He alone judges our own immortal souls. Protestantism, however, is evil of its nature. God hates all false religions. He hates all falsehoods. Why? Because theological falsehoods blaspheme Him and make a mockery of His work of Redeeming us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Protestantism is a revolution against the fact that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded but one Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to be the sole repository of the Deposit of Faith, the sole and infallible teacher of all that is contained in that Deposit of Faith, the sole means of human sanctification an salvation on the face of this earth. This is not a “minor” matter.

Protestantism is a revolution against the fact that Divine Revelation consists of both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic or Sacred Tradition, making of each “believer” his own “interpreter” of the “Word,” an absurdity that leads to a gazillion different “interpretations as to the meaning of various Scriptural passages and, ultimately, to unbelief itself.

It was during the upheavals in England at the time of the Protestant Revolution that the imprisoned Saint Thomas More, less than five onths away from his own martyrdom on July 6, 1535, wrote two reflections, one for February 19 and one for February 20, that are quite relevant to us this Lent as we seek to distance ourselves from the “confabulations” of the world, including the idiocies on the devil’s box, television, once and for all (acknowledgment is hereby made to a friend of ours who was kind enough to send the following passages to Sharon):

Give me They grace, good God,

To set the world at naught;

To set my mind fast on Thee and not to hang

Upon the blast of men’s mouthsl

To be content to be solitary;

Not to long for worldly company;

Little and little utterly to cast off the world,

And rid my mind of all business thereof;

Not to long to hear of any worldly things,

But that the hearing of worldly phantasies may

be to me displeasant.

Gladly to be thinking of God;

Piteously to call for His help.

To lean unto the comfort of God;

Busily to labour to love Him;

To know mine own vility and wretchedness;

To humble and meeken myself under the mighty

hand of God:

To bewail my sins past;

For the purging of them patiently to suffer

adversity.

Glad to bear my purgatory here;

To be joyful of tribulations.

“To enlighten them, that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.”–Luke i. 79

(As found in Saint Thomas More, In the Shadow of Death I. 

Give me Thy grace, good God,

To walk the narrow way that leadeth to life;

To bear the cross with Christ;

To have the last things in remembrance;

To have before mine eye my death that is ever

at hand.

To make death no stranger to me,

To foresee and consider the everlasting fire

of hell.

To pray for pardon before the Judge come;

To have continually in mind the Passion that

Christ suffered for me.

For His benefits uncessantly to give Him

thanks.

To buy the time again that I have lost.

To abstain from vain confabulations.

To eschew light foolish mirth and gladness.

Recreations not necessary to cut off;

Of worldly substance, friends, liberty, life,

and all,

To set the loss at right naught for the winning

of Christ.

To think my worst enemies my best friends, for

the brethren of Joseph could never have

done him so much good with their love

and favour as they did him with their

malice and hatred.

“To direct our feet into the way of peace.” –Luke i. 79.

(As found in Saint Thomas More, In the Shadow of Death I.

Ah, yes, what is your excuse for continuing to listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Mark Levin or any other naturalist’s confabulations?

What is your excuse for continuing to watch television for any reason, including for the “entertainment” provided by watching unshaven, unkempt, tattooed athletes in a backdrop of camera shots of indecently, immodestly dressed women and advertisements for pharmaceutical products that have no business being discussed in public?

Would you like to re-read Saint Thomas More’s reflections just four and one-half months before he put his head on the chopping block for the cause of Christ the King and His Holy Church?

Today is the Feast of Saints Perpetua and Felicity and the Commemoration of Thursday after Ash Wednesday. We must draw inspiration from the account of their martyrdom on March 7, 203, in order to break free from the grip of the false “solutions” offered by the worldly-wise who know not Christ the King and who believe that even the concept of His Social Reign over men and their nations is utterly preposterous:

Perpetua and Felicity were arrested during the persecution of the emperor Severus in Africa, together with Revocatus, Saturninus and Secundulus, and were cast into a dark dungeon, where Satyrus was added to their company. They were as yet catechumens but shortly afterwards they were baptized. After a few days they and their companions were led forth from prison to the court, and, after a glorious profession of faith, were condemned by the procurator Hilarion to the beasts. Thereupon they went down to the prison rejoicing, and there they were refreshed with many visions, and fired with longing for the martyr’s palm. Neither the repeated prayers and tears of Perpetua’s father, a man of extreme old age, nor her motherly love for her baby son still at the breast, nor the atrocity of the torture, could shake her faith in Christ.

As the day of the spectacle came close, Felicity was afflicted with great sorrow lest it should be put off, since she was eight months with child; and the law forbade expectant mothers to be put to the torture. But at the prayers of her fellow-martyrs her delivery was hastened, and she gave birth to a daughter. While she was groaning in the pains of childbirth, one of the jailers said to her: What wilt thou do when thrown to the beasts, if thou groanest thus now? She replied: Now it is I who suffer; but then Another will be within me, who will suffer on my behalf, seeing that it is for him that I am to suffer.

At length the noble-hearted women were brought into the amphitheatre, in the sight of all the people, on the 7th day of March, and were first beaten with scourges. Then they were tossed for some time by a ferocious cow, beaten with lashes, and dashed on the ground. Lastly, together with their companions, who had been attacked by various beasts, they were slain with blows of the sword. Pope Pius X raised the feast of these holy Martyrs to the rite of a double for the Universal Church, and ordered it to be kept on March 6th. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saints Perpetua and Felicity.)

Following the example provided us by the wisdom and the martyrdoms of Saint Thomas More and of Saints Perpetua and Felicity, we must consider it our privilege to be hated by the world and to misunderstood by others for “not going along,” whether it be with the hysteria and agitation of the farce that is electoral politics and/or with the revolutionary program of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

We cannot “along to get along,” not for the sake of human respect and not for the sake of believing that one is “doing something” when the truth is that the “toothpaste” of Modernity and Modernism is out of the tube until the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Every Rosary we pray helps to usher in the Reign of Mary.

Why do we tarry?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

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

Saints Perpetua and Felicity, pray for us.

Inside the Prison Walls

Compelled by state laws and Federal oversight of “education” by means of “No Child Left Behind” and the “Common Core,” which is just the logical outgrowth of Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that Christ the King instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, and of the panoply of social engineers, such as Horace Mann, Otto von Bismarck and John Dewey, whom the devil raised up in successive centuries thereafter, somewhere around fifty million children are sent every day by their parents or legal guardians to the prison camps known as public schools.

Many of these fifty million children have never known even the natural love and self-sacrifice of parents, having been shunted off to day-care shortly after their births before “graduating” to pre-Kindergarten programs, Somewhere around the age of five, of course, these children, many of whom are the products of broken homes and are the children of single parents living in situations of real material privation, are admitted inside the prison walls of this country’s program of intellectual deformation, indoctrination and programming whose goal from the very beginning has been to replace Holy Mother Church as the principal influence upon the minds and hearts of the young. Unbeknownst to these children, of course, the thirteen years of programmatic indoctrination in moral and legal relativism, environmentalism, feminism, Communism, atheism, evolutionism and nihilism are designed to rob them of any capacity of human reason and self-control, especially as pertains to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

A substantial number of other children who are shunted off to America’s concentration camps every day come from affluent families, although even many of them may have spent their tenderest years in the care of strangers in “day care” and after-school programs. These particular students have been given every gadget imaginable (video games, cellular phones, iPads, computers) and live their lives “connected” or “wired” to the portals of Hell itself.  Some permit their bodies, which they do not realize are meant to be the temples of God the Holy Ghost, to mutilated by means of tattoos and pierced with veritable symbols of the adversary himself. Despite all of the sense pleasures in which they seek to take refuge from their responsibilities and crosses, these young people are morose and sullen as they become so engrossed in their alternative universes that they do not know, no less care, to greet other human beings whom they might encounter as to do so would interrupt their being connect to “music” and “games” that come from Hell itself and are meant to lead them there for all eternity.

It is inside those very prison walls that I ventured two days ago, Monday, February 10, 2014, in an effort to provide some sort of income for my family beyond that which we have normally each month. The location is not important as the experience I had two days ago is pretty universal. Suffice it to say for present purposes, however, that the high school into which I served as a substitute teacher for a series of classes dealing with a species of industrial arts (which was called “shop” back in my days fifty years ago now) was composed of students from both affluent and poor economic circumstances. Although the particular classes may have not been representative of the entire student body of the high school given the technical, career bent of the program some had decided and that others had been told was “best” for them, several walks around the campus revealed that some of what I experienced in six discrete classes two days ago was not unique to the culture extant at the school.

What was most shocking, though, was to find that the administration of the high school permitted students to walk around with “ear buds” inserted into their ears as they listened to the horror of rock “music” and to keep “connected” during class time when completing a written assignment that the teacher for whom I was substituting had left for them. Moreover, they were permitted to play video games or to sleep after the assignment had been completed.

Although it was very nice to be back in a classroom setting again as I am a teacher to the very core of my being, there was nothing substantive for me to teach these young people other than to explain to them such basics as they do not speak when the teacher is speaking and that they are to follow directions given to them with promptness. Some were aghast when I told them that they were not to work collaboratively with other students on their assignment. The students had never heard of the work “collaboratively” before Monday. Although some of these students were juniors and seniors, I had to explain to them that they were not to cheat on their assignments, an admonition that fell on the deaf ears of some of them who did attempt to cheat during the course of the individual class periods.

Yes, there were some students who were polite and courageous and who did their work with diligence. It was possible in a few of the class periods to engage the more serious students in a discussion of the necessity of structure and order in one’s daily routine as a preparation for all future activities, including college study. I was also careful to note, having done some research over the weekend, my awareness that their regular teacher had accomplished much in his chosen field and that I knew that their, the students’, daily routine had been upset by his absence.

It was all too obvious, however, that the behavior many of them exhibited two days ago was not simply the result of “ranking on a sub,” something that a lot of my peers at Oyster Bay High School did when I was there between September 8, 1965, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and June 22, 1969, the Feast of Saint Paulinus of Nola. It was all too obvious that even their regular teacher permitted them to play video games and to be “connected” with “music” during class time, especially when they were completing written assignments.

Several of the students came to the first class, which began at 7:40 a.m., about an hour after many of them had arrived on the campus (I got there around 6:45 a.m., having had to get up at 4:30 a.m. to get ready to make the forty-five minute drive), simply wanted to sleep, promptly putting their heads on their desks after I had introduced myself and given them the assignment that their teacher had left for them. I had to prompt them to arose from their slumber in order to get to work. It was in that first class that I came to learn, after consulting a teacher in the same department who taught in the classroom next door, that students were permitted to listen to their “music” and to play their “games” or “chat” online when they had free time.

I told this to a friend of mine of nearly forty years, a man who had retired in June of 2013 from teacher music and chorus in a school district on the North Shore of Long Island. As bad as things had gotten in his district, especially as a result of the administrative paper work required of teachers to complete thanks to George Walker Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program and the general pettiness of administrators who do not believe that some people simply have the ability to teach and teach well without constant “updating” programs of ideological indoctrination, he, a funny Long Islander, was as shocked as as I was to learn that students were permitted to carry their infernal” devices, which connect them to the very portals of Hell itself, with them and to use them during class time.

This was not the first time that I had taught in a high school setting as I had spent six months, from December of 1981 to June of 1982, teaching religion to ninth grade students in a private Catholic high school in New York after leaving Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary and before I could return to teach at Nassau Community College. That was a tough situation at first as the students had gone through a series of teachers during a tumultuous time in the school’s history. Over the course of time, though, I was able to win the respect of the students, enjoying my time with them, although I decided to return to my college teaching position the following year. I had also taught two American history classes for the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University at Chaminade High School in Mineola, Long Island, New York, during the entirety of the 2002-2003 academic year. Chaminade had its problems on the doctrinal and liturgical levels. When it came to old-fashioned discipline, however, the Society of Mary enforced the strictest of standards. Some of the students I taught during that year were among the best I have ever instructed. Thus, you see, I am not a novice at the high school level.

Lost, however, on the administrators of both the school district and the school in question is the simple fact that the “connectedness” they afford their students helps to produce the very antisocial behavior responsible for the likes of Adam Lanza, the young man who shot and killed twenty students and six teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday, December 14, 2012. Several of the students I encountered, especially in the last class of day, which a local police officer who patrolled the grounds of the campus explained to me was the roughest of the bunch that I wound, to use Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s favorite phrase, “encounter,” even refused to speak to me when I attempted to greet them as they entered the classroom before class. They were too engrossed in their “music” to be “bothered” by acknowledging a fellow human being.

“Earth to human being,” I said to one poor, isolated, insulated, solitary soul as he passed in front of me and refused to speak to me as he entered the classroom. He turned to his side and scowled.

Yes, these young people could have been cadets fifty-nine years ago at the Captain Video Ranger Academy, reciting the following pledge with fellow cadet Edward Norton, the famous subterranean worker in the City of New York:

Norton: I, Edward Norton, Ranger Third Class in the Captain Video Ranger Academy, do solemnly pledge to obey my mommy and daddy, to be kind to dumb animals and old ladies in and out of space, not to tease my little brothers and sisters and to brush my teeth twice a day and drink milk after every meal.

 

Ed Norton: [taking off his Captain Video helmet] Official space helmet off, Captain Video, wherever you are!  (“The Honeymooners“: TV or Not TV.)

Yes, I’d say ninety percent of the students two days ago could have qualified to have been admitted to Captain Video’s Ranger Academy. Although those who have heard m lectures in person and/or viewed those that are on You Tube know that I have much to teach, I also know when to shut up. It was very evident to me two days ago that the students whom God’s Holy Providence put in front of me that day were not ready to listen to anything I might say to them on any subject. They knew as well as I did that they would not be tested on anything that I taught them, and if it does not relate to the “bottom line,” of course, then there is simply no use paying any attention to something that is not “required” to learn. Thus we see the triumph of the pragmatism of John Dewey, which is so very much a part of the Americanist psyche.

I will be paid sixty-five dollars, minus deductions, for having babysat seven classes of students, including a study hall session during which most of the students slept or played with the iPads (one even moved his seat to recharge his device’s battery, something that the regular teacher permits him to do), who have been robbed of any concept of First and Last Things.

Much more seriously, however, was the overwhelming sense of sadness on the faces of these young people. So many were morose and sullen, uninterested in anything other than their “games” and “music.” Some spoke openly about purchasing and using crack cocaine. Indeed, at least two or three students asked to be excused to “blow their nose” during class time even though they did not show any signs of having a cold or influenza. Their lives are empty because they know not Christ the King or His Holy Church or the fact that they have a loving Mother, Our Lady, who wants them to fly unto her maternal patronage. They are looking for “love,” “meaning” and “fulfillment” in all of the wrong places. One must also believe that more than a handful of these students lead lives of immorality after having been programmed from even pre-school programs to believe that their lower passions must be gratified without delay. And while only a few only a few of the students were young women, some of them looked so sad and depressed as to lead one to believe that they could have killed their own babies at some point in the recent past.

Mind you, I am not in any way judging the subjective states of the souls of these young people, each of whom is a victim of the anti-Incarnational lies of Modernity that are nothing other than the rotten fruit of the revolution Father Martin Luther began on October 31, 1517, a revolution that Jorge Mario Bergolio’s counterfeit church of conciliarism celebrates now as much as the now retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI celebrated it during his visit to Erfurt, Germany, on September 23, 2011. (See Modernist At Work, part two.) These students are also the victims of their own parents’ immersion of them into every aspect of the popular culture, including making possible their “connectedness” with the devil himself.

Make no mistake about it, however, the prison walls in which most of America’s youth are confined for up to one hundred eighty days a year have been designed by the agents of the devil. Pope Leo XIII explained that one of the goals of Judeo-Masonry was to capture the souls of the young:

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. . . .

With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavors to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

Public schooling is in and of itself has usurped the Natural Law right of parents to be the principal educators of their children, who are considered to be the wards of the civil state and not of their parents. The government of one country after another, especially in formerly Catholic Europe, has sought to persecute home-schooling parents. The Federal Republic of Germany, the home of Martin Luther and Karl Marx and Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler (yes, I know that Marx spent most of his life outside of Germany and that Hitler was born in Austria), has been particularly vicious in this regard. Readers of this site had better believe that so-called “professional educators” want to do everything imaginable to shut down home schooling once and for all as they want to indoctrinate every child without exception.

The late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., who said in one lecture in the 1990s that “To send your child to a school today is a Mortal Sin” (Father Hardon knew that the schools in conciliar captivity were the same as the public schools, having adopted the same agenda), wrote a very detailed essay to explain the role of John Dewey, one of the father of the American philosophical school called “pragmatism” (which is based upon a rejection of understanding root causes of problems in order to “solve” them in a “practical” manner), in helping to perfect the program of indoctrination that Horace Mann had initiated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1837:

However, it was not merely participation in social life in general which prompted Dewey to identify the aim of modern pedagogy with the good of society. It is social participation in a democratic society which demands a socialized form of education in modern times.

 

Correlative to the scientific and industrial revolutions in the fields of knowledge and economy, there has been a democratic revolution in the political structure of government. And the democratic revolution means nothing, in Dewey’s hypothesis, if not the destruction of barriers between different strata of the population. “It is fatal for a democracy to permit the formation of fixed classes,”[27] social, cultural or religious. And since education is a participation in social life, it must correspond to and promote the society in which it shares. “For education,” also, therefore, “the distinction of classes must be definitely done away with. Such is the principle, the law, that dominates the whole social conception of education.”[28]

 

An immediate corollary to this socialistic ideal is to give all the citizens of a democracy equal and unlimited educational opportunities. For this reason, “the devotion of democracy to education is a familiar fact.”[29]

 

But Dewey is not satisfied with “the superficial explanation that a government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated.”[30] The real reason why education in a democracy is of its very essence is that “a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority [and] must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education.“[31]

 

Summarily, therefore, the end of democratic education is to form a classless society, in which social stratification has disappeared.

 

A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience…. Obviously a society to which stratification into separate classes would be fatal, must see to it that intellectual opportunities are accessible to all on equable and easy terms. A society marked off into classes need be specially attentive only to the education of its ruling elements.[32]

 

But, as the history of economics teaches us, in such a society “a small group . . . were free to devote themselves to higher things . . . because they lived upon the fruits of the labor of an industrially enslaved class.”[33] Only in a classless society, promoted by socialized education, can we be spared “the confusion in which a few will appropriate to themselves the results of the blind and externally directed activities of others.”[34]

 

OPPOSITION TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS

 

Consistent with his attitude toward religion, as seen in a previous article,[36] we should not expect Dewey to favor religious instruction in American public schools. However, we might not be prepared for the violent opposition to such instruction which he steadily maintained from his earliest years in education.

 

Writing in 1908 in the London Hibbert Journal, under the title, “Religion and Our Schools,” Dewey observed:

 

If one inquires why the American tradition is so strong against any connection of state and church, why it dreads even the rudiments of religious teaching in state-maintained schools, the immediate and superficial answer is not far to seek. The cause was not, mainly, religious indifference, much less hostility to Christianity, although the eighteenth century deism played an important role. The cause lay largely in the diversity and vitality of the various denominations, each fairly sure that, with a fair field and no favour, it could make its own way; and each animated by a jealous fear that, if any connection of state and church were permitted, some rival denomination would get an unfair advantage.”[36]

 

But this, he said, is only a superficial answer to the question:

 

“…there was a deeper and by no means wholly unconscious influence at work. The United States became a nation late enough in the history of the world to profit by the growth of that modern (although Greek) thing the state consciousness. This nation was born under conditions which enabled it to share in and to appropriate the idea that the state life, the vitality of the social whole, is of more importance than the flourishing of any segment or class. So far as church institutions were concerned, the doctrine of popular sovereignty was a reality, not a literary or legal fiction. Upon the economic side, the nation was born too soon to learn the full force of the state idea as against the class idea. Our fathers naively dreamed of the continuation of pioneer conditions and the free opportunity of every individual, and took none of the precautions to maintain the supremacy of the state over that of the class, which newer commonwealths are taking. For that lack of foresight we are paying dearly, and are likely to pay more dearly. But the lesson of the two and a half centuries lying between the Protestant revolt and the formation of the nation was well learned as respected the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the state against all divisive ecclesiastical divisions. Doubtless many of our ancestors would have been somewhat shocked to realize the full logic of their own attitude with respect to the subordination of churches to the state (falsely termed the separation of church and state); but the state idea was inherently of such vitality and constructive force as to carry the practical result, with or without conscious perception of its philosophy.[37]

 

This analysis, it must be admitted, is penetrating. It gives a logical but unhistorical basis for the opposition to religious instruction in the American public schools. The decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the McCollum case was not based on Dewey’s principles or his interpretation of American history. This decision outlawed the use of public school machinery and specifically of classrooms for religious instruction. In its majority opinion, the Court said that the practice of teaching religion in the public school fell “squarely under the ban of the First Amendment, as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). There we said: `Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a Church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.'”[38] If we begin by falsely assuming that the traditional doctrine of separation of church and state really means subordination of church to state, it is only logical that such a controversial subject as religion should be banned from public institutions of learning. The common good of the state as a political unit requires that anything which divides the citizens into hostile camps should be outlawed.

 

However, Dewey goes beyond this position. Not only does he oppose any kind of religious teaching in public schools, but he claims that only such schools minus religion are promoting the common good, which is the unity of the state. The one thing, he said, “which has done most to discredit the churches, and to discredit the cause . . . of organized religion [is] the multiplication of rival and competing religious bodies, each with its private interpretation and outlook.”[39] Such division of peoples of different religions is fatal to political unity. And church-supported schools which teach their respective religions are fostering this discord. On the other hand, he maintained:

 

“Our [public] schools, in bringing together those of different nationalities, languages, traditions, and creeds, in assimilating them together upon the basis of what is common and public in endeavour and achievement, are performing an infinitely significant religious work. They are promoting the social unit out of which in the end genuine religious unit must grow. Shall we interfere with this work? shall we run the risk of undoing it by introducing into education a subject which can be taught only by segregating pupils . . . ? This would be deliberately to adopt a scheme which is predicated upon the maintenance of social divisions in just the matter, religion, which is empty and futile save as it expresses the basic unities of life.”[40]

 

And finally, in line with his distinction between “religion” and “religious” already seen,[41] he concludes that “schools are more religious in substance and in promise without any of the conventional badges and machinery of religious instruction, than they could be in cultivating these forms at the expense of a state-consciousness.“[42]

 

When Paul Blanshard published in 1949 his attack on the Catholic Church under the title, American Freedom and Catholic Power, John Dewey praised the book, saying, “Mr. Blanshard has done a difficult and necessary piece of work with exemplary scholarship, good judgment, and tact.” This recommendation appears on the jacket of the book and is signed, “John Dewey, Dean of American Philosophers.” Dewey’s influence may be seen throughout Blanshard’s work. His two chapters against American Catholic schools conclude with the following quotation from Dewey, arguing against any government support for Catholic education: “`It is essential that this basic issue be seen for what it is namely, as the encouragement of a powerful reactionary world organization in the most vital realm of democratic life, with the resulting promulgation of principles inimical to democracy.'”[43] (Father John A. Hardon, S.J., JOHN DEWEY.)

John Dewey’s prescriptions for the indoctrination of American children in the ways of the “religion” of state consciousness have imprisoned minds and corrupted generations of young Americans into accepting whatever is taught to them while subjecting them to every temptation imaginable to walk along the the smooth road that leads to the wide gate of eternal perdition.

Pope Pius XI explained that the true education of children can be accomplished only in a Catholic school, which excludes, of course, the formerly Catholic schools that have been in conciliar captivity for over five decades now:

It is therefore as important to make no mistake in education, as it is to make no mistake in the pursuit of the last end, with which the whole work of education is intimately and necessarily connected. In fact, since education consists essentially in preparing man for what he must be and for what he must do here below, in order to attain the sublime end for which he was created, it is clear that there can be no true education which is not wholly directed to man’s last end, and that in the present order of Providence, since God has revealed Himself to us in the Person of His Only Begotten Son, who alone is “the way, the truth and the life,” there can be no ideally perfect education which is not Christian education. . . .

 

60. Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those modern systems bearing various names which appeal to a pretended self-government and unrestrained freedom on the part of the child, and which diminish or even suppress the teacher’s authority and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative, and an activity independent of any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education.

61. If any of these terms are used, less properly, to denote the necessity of a gradually more active cooperation on the part of the pupil in his own education; if the intention is to banish from education despotism and violence, which, by the way, just punishment is not, this would be correct, but in no way new. It would mean only what has been taught and reduced to practice by the Church in traditional Christian education, in imitation of the method employed by God Himself towards His creatures, of whom He demands active cooperation according to the nature of each; for His Wisdom “reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly.”[41]

62. But alas! it is clear from the obvious meaning of the words and from experience, that what is intended by not a few, is the withdrawal of education from every sort of dependence on the divine law. So today we see, strange sight indeed, educators and philosophers who spend their lives in searching for a universal moral code of education, as if there existed no decalogue, no gospel law, no law even of nature stamped by God on the heart of man, promulgated by right reason, and codified in positive revelation by God Himself in the ten commandments. These innovators are wont to refer contemptuously to Christian education as “heteronomous,” “passive”,”obsolete,” because founded upon the authority of God and His holy law.

63. Such men are miserably deluded in their claim to emancipate, as they say, the child, while in reality they are making him the slave of his own blind pride and of his disorderly affections, which, as a logical consequence of this false system, come to be justified as legitimate demands of a so-called autonomous nature. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Public schools are dens of error, dens of relativism and positivism, dens of every falsehood imaginable dens of the devil himself. No one but no one can justify students being permitted to be “connected” during the middle of school days. No one can claim that “no harm” is done to students by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Taxpayer monies are wasted on this indoctrination, to say nothing of the waste engendered by the “down time” that students spend on their “devices.”

Although I have been a vocal advocate of home-schooling for nearly thirty years now, I am even more convinced than ever before that home-schooling parents do more to educate their children in the sacred and secular subjects in four hours than these American prisons do eight hours a day, five days week, forty weeks out of the year, holidays not included.

Yes, public schools exist. They are matters of fact and state and Federal law. We live in what is called the “wired” or “connected” age in which the young today have spent their entire lives, accepting their “devices” as natural appendages, meaning that they are going to accept the “microchip” when our slave-drivers demand that they get it for their own “safety” and “good,” you understand. As noted before, the students I taught two days ago are the victims of a world that has not submitted itself to the Social Reign of Christ the King, thus inserting itself into the grip of the devil himself.

This does not mean, however, that we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to the harm that these institutions, subsidized by our own taxpayer dollars, do to the young, most of whom will grow up to be compliant servants of the monster civil state of Modernity. Almost no one seems to care that the “connectedness” permitted by so many public schools robs students of the capacity to reason clearly, to read complex material while taking notes and seeking to retain the knowledge acquired, to write and speak clearly and intelligibly and to have sustained attention-span that predisposes them to listen to lectures attentively, making the work of college professors that much harder.

Or, of course, is this the point of it all? I believe that it is.

Absent the Catholic Faith, all sense of personal self-discipline, no less the desire to pursue excellence as befits redeemed creatures, must be eroded over the course of time. No “election” can turn this around. Indeed, our future “voters” are being indoctrinated to make sure that those of us who still submit to Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church lose what little freedom we still have to do so without being threatened with arrest and/or psychiatric confinement.

Some would say that to recount stories such as those provided in this commentary is to do nothing but “curse the darkness.” Nonsense. We live in a world in which most people think that the darkness is light. It is thus essential to remind readers of the darkness that envelops us at this time. And while some might even say that one could “stay and fight” within the prison walls even on a substitute basis, this is impossible when administrators of so-called educational institutions want to “meet the students where they are” as they reaffirm them in empty lives that leave them filled with such sadness and loneliness, leaving many of them in states of hostility against everyone as they have learned to hate themselves.

Saint John Bosco, for example, did indeed “meet his students” where they were, but he took them from where he found them to lift them up in sanctity as he taught them to provide for themselves and to add to the greater glory and honor of the Most Blessed Trinity as they did so:

When the boys began to live permanently with Don Bosco the program he set up for them in the beginning was very simple.

They came down to the study hall at five-thirty. Later they attended Mass during which they said morning prayers, recited the rosary and listened to a short spiritual reading. To enable the greatest number to receive Communion he heard confessions either the night before or early in the morning, so that there were always daily communicants, while on Sunday nearly everyone received.

In the beginning Don Bosco gave the boys a few cents to buy breakfast on the way to work.

After a morning at work or school in the city they returned at noon for dinner. Each boy went up to the steaming pot and either Margaret, one of the older boys or Don Bosco ladled out a soup made from rice and potatoes, pasta and beans or chestnuts and cornflour. The last was a favorite with the boys. On special occasions cheese, dried codfish or sausage was served with the soup.

If the weather was good they ate in the yard, sitting on benches, stones, or tree-stumps; if bad, they sat in one of the rooms or on the stairs. Dinner over, each washed his bowl and spoon. Spoons were important items, each taking care of his own, since if he lost it, he had to buy another. One boy who let his spoon fall on the floor of the classroom was surprised when the others teased him about it.

“Do you think,” was his reaction, “I’d leave my spoon at the Oratory?”

As for Don Bosco’s meals- on Sunday his mother prepared a dish of vegetables, sometimes mixed with tiny pieces of meat or egg,which would be served, warmed up, for several days in a row. If this threatened to turn sour he would freshen it up with a drop of oil or vinegar. For the rest, he was so unconcerned about food that once he arrived too late for supper and, not wishing to disturb anyone, went to the kitchen and in the dark found what appeared to be a bowl of soup.

Next morning he learnt that he had eaten, not a bowl of soup, but a bowl of paste which had been left there to stiffen by the book-binders! (Peter Lappin, Stories of Don Bosco, Salesian Publishers, 1979, pp. 90-91.)

Saint John Bosco cared not for his own earthly comforts. He cared only for the true education of his students unto their eternal salvation as he taught them useful trades.

It was six centuries before the work with difficult youths of Saint John Bosco at his oratory that Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, learned from a master teacher, Saint Albert the Great, who held the attention of his students with his commanding knowledge and means of presenting it in his lectures:

There was a sudden hush as Father Albert scooted in and went to the desk on the platform at the front of the big room. Father Albert belonged to a noble German family. He has a commanding manner that made Thomas think of his mother. There, however, Albert’s resemblance to any other human being ended. He was unique.

 

He was perhaps forty years old – he himself did not know the exact year of his birth. He had the spare frame and wrinkled face of a far older man. Only his gray eyes were young, terribly young and piercing. He lectured in a thin, tart voice. But he was so wise, so learned, that even the minds of the dullest students caught fire as he talked.

He was famous as a theologian and as a scientist. All over Europe many people spoke of his as Albertus Magnus, meaning Albert the Great. He had devoted years to studying flowers and animals, and has recorded his observations in a series of books. A trained chemist, he was the first man to produce an important medicine – the poison called arsenic – in a free form.

His lecture this morning was on the subject of logic – on the subject, that is, of how to think. He talked steadily for two hours; and for two hours the young men, jamming the room, listened in fascinated silence.  (Father Brendan Lauren, O.P., and Milton Lomask, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Preaching Friars, pp. 165-166.)

 

The methods used the likes of Saint Albert the Great and of his very student, the Angelic Doctor himself, can work today just as well they did over seven hundred fifty years ago now. It has only been the diabolical warfare waged against the eternal and temporal welfare man as a result of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of and then the triumph of the naturalist ideologies and “philosophies” that are part and parcel of Judeo-Masonry.

 

 

We need, therefore, to intensify our prayers and sacrifices for home-schooling parents and their children as this last remaining bastion against the “common core” of the ideologues in professional non-education is within the sights of the criminals in the educational bureaucracies of the Federal government and of the state governments.

Let us pledge ourselves anew with each beat of our hearts, which cease not even while we sleep, to be the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, to which the Founders of the Order of Servites, whose feast we celebrate today, dedicated their religious life and provided us with an example of a total oblation in honor of the Seven Swords of Sorrow she suffered because of our sins and those of the whole world.

Let us pledge ourselves anew each day to transform ourselves and the world by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits, accepting the penances of the present moment as nothing in comparison to the joys of eternal bliss in Heaven that awaits the souls of those who die in a state of Sanctifying Grace after first having lost everything in this world to serve Christ the King through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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.

The Seven Holy Founders of the Order of Servites, pray for us.

Yet She Will Remain In Perfectly Good Standing

Those who are familiar with my writing over the past few decades know that I have been an “equal opportunity” critic of the naturalists of the false opposite of the “right” in the organized crime family known as the Republican Party and of the naturalists of the false opposite of the “left” in the organized crime family known as the Democratic Party.

Great damage was done to my academic career by running for lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986 at a time when the nefarious pro-abortion Catholic who was the incumbent Governor of the State of New York, Mario Matthew Cuomo, was running for re-election for a second term. And I didn’t do myself any favors when waging a primary against then United States Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato in 1998 or by having campaigned actively for Patrick Joseph Buchanan in 1995 and 1996.

There was also that nine year period period the beginning of 1992 and January 20, 2001 when certain people named William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton came in for a great deal of criticism.

Indeed, the first article of mine that was published in The Wanderer was about then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s having referred to Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Jr., who had been diagnosed with a disease caused by behavior contrary to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, as a “hero.” My article was entitled, “Magic, You’re No Hero.” An article of mine was published in Sioux City Journal just before the presidential election on November 4, 1992, entitled, “Character Is A Real Issue.”  And my second article in The Wanderer, written on the night of November 4, 1992, was entitled, “What Kind of People Are We?”, a prelude of over one hundred, if not more, articles that I wrote about the Clintons during their eight years in office.

One of those Wanderer articles, which was published also in the Arlington Catholic Herald, from whose pages I was banished in early-1994, dealt with the scandal represented by an invitation that a women’s group associated with the University of Dayton, which is run by the Marianist Brothers, had extended to the then First Lady of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The article got some “traction,” so to speak and was one of the factors, among others, that prompted Clinton’s invitation to be withdrawn before she could respond one way or the other.

The fantastic world built theological and ideological lie after another in which the adheents of the false opposites of the naturalist “left” and naturalist “right” live is it is considered to be a highlight in their political careers to be feted by organizations for “helping” families. And thus it the Planned Parenthood Federation of America gives an honor named after its principal founder, Margaret Sanger, who was a racialist and eugenicist  to the very core of her nymphomaniac being.

The anti-family movement, which started with efforts on the part of Masonically-controlled state legislatures to liberalize existing divorce laws in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, gained great impetus with Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control League in 1919 and numerous organizations devoted to “eugenics” in the 1920s, some of which were successful in convincing state legislatures ton enact mandatory sterilization laws for criminals and the retarded (once again, thank you states’ rights). That anti-family movement, which comes from the devil and is designed to lead souls to Hell for all eternity as social order is disrupted as a result of the breakup of the family, had been given its “wedge” issue as a result of the Thalidomide babies, giving its leaders a “cause” to try to open the legal floodgates to surgical abortion-on-demand to complement the chemical abortions being produced by the “pill” and other abortifacient contraceptives. Indeed, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists issued a statement in 1965, shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), that declared in a most positivistic manner that drugs that stopped the life of a child after fertilization but before implantation in a mother’s womb were to be called “contraceptives” instead of “abortifacients.”

Regardless of these incontrovertible facts, however, or perhaps because of them, a number of public officials of the “left” and of the “right” have been honored by the nefarious killer of babies, abuser of the spiritual and temporal welfare of women, destroyer of familes and corrupter of the minds and hearts of the youth, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Here is a list of some of those who have received the annual Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood since the award was instituted in 1966 and it was bestowed upon the plagiarist and notoriously adulterer and Communist named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the then President of the United States of America, the statist war monger and adulterer named Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose administration had begun “family planning” programs as part of the “Great Society” and “War on Poverty:”

2012
Philip Darney, MD, MSc and Uta Landy, PhD

2011
Anthony D. Romero

2010
Ellen R. Malcolm

2009
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008
Kenneth C. Edelin, MD

2007
Dolores Huerta

2006
Karen Pearl
Allan Rosenfield, MD

2005
Gloria Feldt

2004
Ted Turner
Forum for Women, Law, and Development of Nepal
K-MET of Kenya

2003
Jane Fonda

2001
Kathleen Turner

2000
Nafis Sadik, MD

1998
The Reverend Howard Moody

1997
Louise Tyrer, MD
Robin Chandler Duke

1996
Justice Harry A. Blackmun

1995
Jane Hodgson, MD

1994
Fred Sai

1993
Richard Steele, Audrey Steele Burnand, Barbara Steele Williams

1992
Faye Wattleton

1991
The Honorable Bella Abzug

1990
Mufaweza Khan

1989
Henry Morgentaler, MD

1988
Ann Landers
Abigail Van Buren

1987
Phil Donahue

1986
Jeannie I. Rosoff

1985
Guadalupe de la Vega
Mechai Viravaidya

1984
Bishop Paul Moore

1983
Katharine Hepburn

1982
Madame Jihan Sadat

1981
The Honorable William G. Milliken

1980
Mary S. Calderone, MD
Sarah Weddington, Esq.

1979
Alfred E. Moran
The Honorable Robert Packwood

1978
Julia Henderson
Frederick S. Jaffe
Edris Rice-Wray, MD, PhD

1977
Bernard Berelson, PhD

1976
John Rock, MD

1975
Cass Canfield

1974
Harriet F. Pilpel, JD

1973
Sarah Lewit Tietze and Christopher Tietze, MD

1972
Alan F. Guttmacher, MD

1971
Louis M. Hellman, MD

1970
The Honorable Joseph D. Tydings

1969
Hugh Mackintosh Foot

1968
The Honorable Ernest Gruening

1967
John D. Rockefeller III

1966
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
General William H. Draper
Carl G. Hartman, MD
President Lyndon Baines Johnson

This is a rogues gallery of arch-criminals, men and women whose support for contraception and abortion has helped to spread promiscuous behavior among the young and then people of all ages, increased marital infidelity, led to an epidemic of divorce, feminized poverty and has left a carnage of dead bodies and, more importantly, dead souls, all in the name of “social justice” and “serving women.”

It is very fitting that Lyndon Baines Johnson was one of the first four recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award as his administration took full advantage of the destruction of the family that was engineered in large measure by Margaret Sanger and her nefarious organization by using said destruction as the means to increase the size, the power and the scope of the Federal government. Indeed, Federal entitlement programs and that mandated equivalents at the state level have taken the place of the family in the past fifty years to such an extent that the Natural Law principle of Subsidiarity has been turn on its very head as most citizens look to the government first to resolve social problems as a great many families today have been rent asunder by the schemes of the social engineers.

Each of the individuals who has received the Margaret Sanger Award has, objectively speaking, earned the fires of Hell for their support for violations against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that has created nothing other than social chaos, making ours a society of violence wherein no one is safe from a random attack from a complete stranger.

Thus it is that no one is more deserving of the Margaret Sanger Award than the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, United States Representative Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi (D-California), as she, one of the prime movers behind Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s chief instrument of promoting baby-killing and perversity and the corruption of the young, ObamaCare, as had a career in public life dedicated to the service of Satan himself. It is very fitting that one servant of Satan should receive an award after one of the adversary’s chief high priestesses of the Twentieth Century, Margaret Sanger.

Enter, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, into the Pantheon of Margaret Sanger, Racialist and Eugenicist, who had worked with some of Adolf Hitler’s chief eugenicists prior to the onset of World War II. Here is a partial listing of  what the devil’s high priestess, Margaret Sanger, said during her long career of evil-doing prior to her death and, it must be presumed, entrance into Hell on September 6, 1966:

“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, p.366)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:

“This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable – these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:

A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On the Catholic Church’s view of contraception:

“…enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
“I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine.” What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep… for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.” (Luke 23:24)]

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923) (Margaret Sanger Quotes.)

Black Americans ought to rethink their attachment to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as he considered it no shame or dishonor to have worked with those who were the direct acolytes of the racialist and eugenicist named Margaret Sanger or to have received an award named in her memory.

Obviously, we will not see Jorge Mario Bergolio or Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez or the probationer who is the conciliar “archbishop” of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, excommunicate Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, who has been enabled by one conciliar “archbishop” of San Francisco after another in the past twenty-seven years since her first election to the United States House of Representatives on April 7, 1987, to fill a vacancy that had been caused by the death of United States Representative Sala Burton. John Quinn, William Levada, George Niederauer and Salvatore Cordileone have maintained this reprobate, demagogic servant of the devil himself, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, in “good standing” within their own false church, where everyone is welcomed except those who adhere to the unchanging truths of Truth Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Ah, yes, this is time of the Jorge the Merciful.

I forgot.

Please, send me no postcards about the fact that Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi got slapped on the wrists a bit when she visited Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on February 18 2009, about six months after her infamous interview with Tom Brokaw of the National Broadcasting Company’s Meet the Press on August 24, 2008, in which she claimed “expertise” on Church teaching on the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies in their mothers’ wombs.

Here is a report of what Pelosi said to Brokaw on August 24, 2008:

I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months, we don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose,” she said at the time on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

She then added that the Church has only held the view for 50 years or so that life begins at conception. The remarks earned her widespread corrections by Catholic clerics.  (Pelosi, German Modernist Posing as Pope Have No Meeting of the Minds. )

Nothing happened to her after the meeting with Ratzinger/Benedict five years ago. Nothing happened to her a year later as she hoodwinked and browbeat members of the House Democratic Caucus to support ObamaDeathCare. Indeed, the best that that the Press Office of the Holy See could do five years ago was to distribute the following summary of what the then false “pontiff” said to Pelosi and her entourage:

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”  (Benedict strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion.)

All talk. Never any action.

Pointedly, Donald “Cardinal” Wuerl, the conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, has said publicly that he would not deny the likes of Pelosi what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Then again, there is a precedent for one who has been seen as a supporter of “programs for the poor” such as Pelosi to be viewed with great favor by conciliar officials.

One of the past recipients, Mary Calderone, was the founder in 1964 of an organization designed to promote explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Despite Calderone’s being the medical director of Planned Barrenhood prior to the founding of her own organization, she was deemed fit by the then Monsignor James T. McHugh, a priest of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey (and later the conciliar “bishop” of Camden, New Jersey, and, for a very brief time before his death on December 10, 2000, of Rockville Centre, New York), to use for advice in devising an allegedly “Catholic” program of classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in direct violation of Pope Pius XI’s absolute prohibition, contained in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, against such instruction. As Mrs. Randy Engel documented so well in The McHugh Chronicles, “Bishop” McHugh was a close collaborator with Calderone, who received “The Humanist of the Year Award” from the American Humanist Association in 1974.

The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have associated with the enemies of the Faith for many decades now. Even some of their Americanist predecessors in the Catholic Church did so in the decades leading up to the “Second” Vatican Council (see Cushing’s Children).

To set the record straight, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi’s ignorance on the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment can be refuted very succinctly:

Fact: The Catholic Church does not define when life begins. Although various theologians in the early centuries of the Church were unsure as to when life begins and/or when the soul entered the body of a preborn human being, the simple facts of biology teach us that life begins at conception. This simple fact has been fortified by the discovery of DNA. Each of us has a specific and unique genetic code from the moment of conception to the point of our deaths. The only things added after conception are time, nutrition and hydration.

Fact: Although various theologians speculated in the early centuries of the Church as to the time when life begins and/or when the soul enters the human body, the condemnation of chemical and surgical abortion by the Catholic Church and by her Fathers was consistent and it was unanimous. Nancy Pelosi is a liar or one gigantic ignoramus if she claims otherwise. (Yes, it is possible that she is taking Church history lessons from the current Secretary of State, John F. Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who said in 2004 that he subscribed to the views of the “Second” Vatican Council that had been called by “Pope Pius XXIII.” It is possible that Kerry got this information from watching “Peabody’s Improbable History” on Rocky and His Friends or Bullwinkle.)

No one who reviews the quotations that follow, drawn from the conciliarist Priests for LIfe website, can have any doubt about the fact that the House Minority Leader, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, is a liar and an ignoramus who has long sought to convince others that her support for the mystical dismemberment and destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn children is “in line” with the “tradition” of the Catholic Church. It is not. Her support for the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies in their mothers’ wombs is in line with the work of the devil himself, and this must be pointed out to this woman as exercises of two of the Spiritual Works of Mercy (to instruct the ignorant, to admonish the sinner).

Here are just some of the quotations from Church documents and the Church Fathers found on the Priests for Life website:

“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following….Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74] ). The Letter of Barnabas

“Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400] ). The Apostolic Constitutions

On therapeutic abortion:

And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man’s power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that time it is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death may overtake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead. -Enchiridion 23.86

Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, “I do not see that which you say must be believed.” – Sermon 126, line 12 Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine. Hence too come idolatries, since many, with a view to become acceptable, devise incantations, and libations, and love potions, and countless other plans. Yet still after such great unseemliness, after slaughters, after idolatries, the thing [fornication] seems to belong to things indifferent, aye, and to many that have wives, too. -Homily 24 on Romans  John Chrysostom (347-407)

You may see many women widows before wedded, who try to conceal their miserable fall by a lying garb. Unless they are betrayed by swelling wombs or by the crying of their infants, they walk abroad with tripping feet and heads in the air. Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. – Epistula 22 Jerome (347-420)

Indeed there are those women who cut off the word prematurely born/aborted, before they give birth, there are those who have Christ in the womb but they will not yet have formed (him), to whom it is said: my children, whom I desire to bring forth again and again until Christ be formed in you. Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 10, line 252 [private translation]

 

Just an interjection at this point: One can see in this previous quote, which comes from Saint Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, the same language that many, including yours truly, have used for decades now to describe abortion as attack mystically upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn child.

I digress. Back to the sources quoted on the Priests for Life website:

But why the eye or the hand, since the aborted child has both a hand and an eye which has already been formed? -Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. 10, line 283 [private translation]

And elsewhere the same Ecclesiastes, being an old man, guarded him better whom his mother had cast out by abortion, because he did not see these bad things which they make in this world, he neither came into these shadows nor walked in vanity, and for that reason he who did not come into this life will have more of a rest than he who came. – De bono mortis, cap 2, par. 4, line 11

The poor get rid of their small children by exposure and denying them when they are discovered. But the rich also, so that their wealth will not be more divided, deny their children [when they are] in the womb and with all the force of parricide, they kill the beings of their wombs [while they are] in the same fruitful womb. In this way life is taken away from them before it has been given. –Hexameron V.18.58 [private translation] Ambrose (c.340-397)

To Anfilochius, Bishop of Iconia:

She who has intentionally destroyed [the fetus] is subject to the penalty corresponding to a homicide. For us, there is no scrutinizing between the formed and unformed [fetus]; here truly justice is made not only for the unborn but also with reference to the person who is attentive only to himself/herself since so many women generally die for this very reason. First Letter 2

Canon II.

Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not. – The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.

…those who give the abortifacients and those who take the poisons are guilty of homicide. –First Letter 8 Basil (c.329-379)

That the unborn child is alive:

How are they dead unless they were first alive? But still in the womb an infant by necessary cruelty is killed when lying twisted at the womb’s mouth he prevents birth and is a matricide unless he dies. Therefore there is among the arms of physicians an instrument by which with a rotary movement the genital parts are first opened, then with a cervical instrument the interior members are slaughtered with careful judgment by a blunt barb, so that the whole criminal deed is extracted with a violent delivery. There is also the bronze needle by which the throat – cutting is carried out by a robbery in the dark; this instrument is called and embryo knife from its function of infanticide, as it is deadly for the living infant.

This Hippocrates taught, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus and Herophilus, the dissector of adults, and the milder Soranos himself, – all of them certain that a living being had been conceived and so deploring the most unhappy infancy of one of this kind who had first to be killed lest a live woman be rent apart. Of this necessity of crime, Hicesius, I believe did not doubt, as he added souls to those being born from blows of cold air, because the word itself for “soul” among the Greek relates to such a cooling. – De Anima 25.5 – 6

They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and each is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits. Tertullian (c.160-240)  – De Anima 26.4

Council of Elvira (c. 305)

Canon 68: If a catechumen should conceive by an adulterer, and should procure the death of the child, she can be baptized only at the end of her life.

Council of Ancyra (314)

Canon 21: Women who prostitute themselves, and who kill the child thus begotten, or who try to destroy them when in their wombs, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of their lives. We, however, have softened their punishment and condemned them to the various appointed degrees of penance for ten years. Quotes from Early Councils 

The Lord’s Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles:

1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference.

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant. “Do not covet your neighbor’s property; do not commit perjury; do not bear false witness”; do not slander; do not bear grudges. Do not be double-minded or double-tongued, for a double tongue is “a deadly snare.” Your words shall not be dishonest or hollow, but substantiated by action. Do not be greedy or extortionate or hypocritical or malicious or arrogant. Do not plot against your neighbor. Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life. Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

The Priests for Life website also includes several citations from pagan authors who condemned abortion. Both of these quotations were found in that book called Abortion in the Early Church:

Of what avail to fair woman to rest free from the burdens of war [i.e. pregnancy], nor choose with shield in arm to march in the fierce array, if, free from peril of battle, she suffer wounds from weapons of her own, and arm her unforeseeing hands to her own undoing?

She who first plucked forth the tender life deserved to die in the warfare she began. Can it be that, to spare your bosom the reproach of lines, you would scatter the tragic sands of deadly combat? –De Nuce, lines 22-23; cf. Amores 2.13 (Ovid, 43 B.C.-65 A.D.)

Juvenal (c.57/67-127)

Poor women…endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot condemns them; but how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb. Pagan Sources

It is also important to point out to Mrs. Pelosi that there was a chap named Hippocrates who inserted the following two provisions into the oath that he administered to physicians, an oath to which physicians swore in its original text until some medical colleges and universities altered it in the 1970s in the aftermath of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973:

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

 

As advances were being made by Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League (now known as the International Federations of Planned Parenthood) and her eugenicist friends in the Weimar Republic and its successor, the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, to promote contraception, which is in se a violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marital relations, efforts that were being rotten fruit in the heretical and schismatic Anglican “Church,” Pope Pius XI used Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, to condemn contraception and abortion:

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother’s womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic “indication.” Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the “indication,” which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

As to the “medical and therapeutic indication” to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill:” The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the “law of extreme necessity” which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: “Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.”

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic “indication” may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Yes, there is no place for the likes of  Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi or any other of their like-minded Catholic brethren in the two organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, the Democrat and the the Republican parties, to hide. The words written by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii over eighty-three years ago nowring out very loudly at the present time to warn them of the fate that awaits them at the moment of their Particular Judgments if they do not abjure their support for chemical and surgical child killing and work to undo the harm that they have caused by said support for this crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance:

And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.

 

Saint Augustine did not have access to biological science. He did know, however, that abortion was a crime against God and man. The quotations above demonstrate this, as did Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: “Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

 

Wouldn’t you say that Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi was being rather selective about her quotation of the great Saint of Hippo, who turned away from his sins as a result of the twenty years of prayers said and tears shed by his dear mother, Saint Monica, and was baptized by an ardent foe of abortion, Saint Ambrose, to make him a “witness” in her sordid, perverse behalf? Saint Augustine, although unsure as to when life began, was opposed to abortion, and Nancy Pelosi is, once again, an ignoramus or an calculated liar to use his uncertainty about the beginning of life to make him a “witness” for what the bishop who baptized him called an attack upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the womb.

As has been noted in this site quite a lot, the daily slaughter of the preborn by means of chemical abortifacients and surgical abortions is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “reconciliation” with the modern civil state that has arisen as a result of that overthrow. It is the proliferation of error in civil society, however, that has led many a soul to eternal death as social chaos has been unleashed within nations and wars have raged among nations. Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi and all of her like-minded Catholic brethren in the Republican and Democrat parties are simply the logical “issue,” if you will, of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism in which they are so much at home and are, despite the “tsks, tsks” and “naughty, naughties” issued by a few conciliar “bishops,” very much in “good standing.”

Yes, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi will remain in perfectly good standing after receiving the Margaret Sanger Award as Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that this is the time of “mercy” and “encounter.” Go tell them to the babies who have been slaughtered and the families who have been broken apart by the support that Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi has given to each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Catholics need not be in doubt as to when life begins. Biology teaches us this. The pro-aborts know the facts of biology. They know that one does not have kill something that is dead. Preborn babies are alive and growing, which is why those who do not want the “bother” of their births must seek to kill them by various means, each of which is equally morally heinous. Only one who seeks to confuse fact with fiction would contend that such a fact of biology is above his “pay grade,” as the Communist-trained Barack Hussein Obama contended recently.

Catholics also need not be in doubt as to when the soul enters the body. We have really known this all along, have we not?

In prinicipio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est. In ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum: et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Joannes. Hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per illum. Non erat ille lux, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine ejus. Qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. ET VERBUM CARO FACTUM EST, et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men: and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That was the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them He gave great power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1: 1-14.)

The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Our Lady, she who was conceived without stain of Original and Actual Sin at the moment of her Immaculate Conception, by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. The hypostatic union of the two natures in the one Person, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, took place at the moment of his Incarnation. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had His soul with those two natures from the first moment of His conception as He sanctified the womb of every mother while He was in the all-holy and ever-virginal womb of His Most Blessed Mother. Our Lord is in solidarity with every child in every mother’s womb, no matter the condition of the conception or the condition of the child conceived, whether “normal” or suffering from some “abnormality.” To attack an innocent child in the womb is to attack Our Lord Himself mystically, and this is a fact that  Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi and her ilk must be confronted with over and over again.

Our Lord instructed Saul of Tarsus, who had just presided over the stoning of the first Catholic martyr, Saint Stephen, that an attack upon one of His least members is an attack upon Him:

And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. (Acts 9: 1-5.)

 

The likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, Andrew Mario Cuomo and the next President of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton are known persecutors of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ mystically in the persons of preborn human babies. And those in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who enable them in this regard must also reckon with the words written by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii that were quoted earlier:

And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

 

The hour is late. Nations, including our own, stand to be annihilated by the wrath of God if we do not heed Our Lady’s Fatima Message and make reparation for our sins. In the midst of apostasy and betrayal on every side imaginable, we must enfold ourselves in the mantle of Our Lady’s Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as our shield and use her Most Holy Rosary as our weapon to pray in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, offering our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May that Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary come soon. Very soon!

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Barack Hussein Obama: The End Product of Americanism

Two articles from last week, We Oppose You Because of Your Policies, Mister President, Not Because of Your Skin Color ,and Up In Smoke, neither of which have gained “traction” from the readership of the original Christ or Chaos, discussed the demagoguery used by the reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, to advance his policies and positions. There is really not much “original” to add to the previous articles that I wrote and have now cataloged on this site as a means of providing reading “back links” to the original site.

What I do want to reiterate, if ever so briefly, in this commentary is that the lawlessness of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his band of statist social engineers is the end-product of the false, anti-Incarnational, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and Pelagian principles of the American founding. The lion’s share of Catholics in the United States of America have idolized these false principles, resulting in the conversion of most them over the course of time to viewing Holy Mother Church through the lens of the American founding rather than viewing the latter through supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith. I stand by every word that I wrote in Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Resulted in the Rise of Conciliarism.

This is all pretty simple.

The belief that men can pursue the common temporal good without a due subordination of all that pertains to the good of souls to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to His Catholic Church for eternal safekeeping and infallible explication is false.

The belief that men can maintain themselves in lives of “virtue” over the course of the long term without a belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace is false.

The heresy of Americanism exalts the possession of natural virtues over the supernatural virtues, which is why naturalists who host talk shows are prone to repeat the slogan that “Americans can do anything they put their minds to doing,” which implies that “special graces” are given to Americans merely because they are Americans.

Pope Leo XIII dealt a death-blow to this nonsense, writing in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, that men need the exterior guide of the Catholic Church to know what God has revealed and need the sanctifying helps of Holy Mother Church in order to persevere in virtue:

Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser ‘of his own gifts. “The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth.” — John iii, 8.

“And to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” — Eph. iv, 7.

And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs- and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. “For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who give’s unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit.”-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.

Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. “He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase.”-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God’s loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.

For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, “What dost Thou wish me to do?” yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: “Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do.”

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one’s self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself?

Can it be that those men illustrious for sanctity, whom the Church distinguishes and openly pays homage to, were deficient, came short in the order of nature and its endowments, because they excelled in Christian strength? And although it be allowed at times to wonder at acts worthy of admiration which are the outcome of natural virtue-is there anyone at all endowed simply with an outfit of natural virtue? Is there any one not tried by mental anxiety, and this in no light degree? Yet ever to master such, as also to preserve in its entirety the law of the natural order, requires an assistance from on high These single notable acts to which we have alluded will frequently upon a closer investigation be found to exhibit the appearance rather than the reality of virtue. Grant that it is virtue, unless we would “run in vain” and be unmindful of that eternal bliss which a good God in his mercy has destined for us, of what avail are natural virtues unless seconded by the gift of divine grace? Hence St. Augustine well says: “Wonderful is the strength, and swift the course, but outside the true path.” For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

Why is this so difficult for those who persist in the psychic diseases of naturalism, including Americanism, to accept, thereby jettisoning once and for all the madness of “tweets” generated by individuals who believe in an “American way” that was the direct consequence of the Protestant Revolution and the rise of Judeo-Masonry?

(By the way, of course, the passage above from Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benvolentiae Nostrae deals a death blow to the so-called “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” and all other forms of Pentecostalism that is held in such high esteem by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who will address a “slain the spirit” conference in Rome later this year.)

It is time for Catholics in the United States of America and elsewhere to understand once and for all that political ecumenism is as wrong as theological ecumenism, that no social evil can be retarded by means of political ecumenism.

Pope Saint Pius X made this very clear 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Pope Pius XI emphasized that the only true reform of men and their societies comes from cooperating with Sanctifying Grace:

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Why do not these eternal truths apply here in the United States of America at a time when the chastisement represented by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is being visited upon us?

Despite of all his lawless, indeed, his rank criminality, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro retains the approval of around two-fifths of the American electorate. Support for his statist plans of redistributionism in the name of “income equality” and “social justice” is going to increase, not decrease, over time as the demographics of this nation change.

Yes, make no mistake about the fact that the demographics of the United States of America are changing. More so than supposedly “true” adherents of the “conservative” brand of naturalism, Obama and his band of statists understand the reality of demographics very well. His political strategists knows that demographics of this country have changed dramatically in the past thirty-three years since the election of former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan to the Presidency of the United States of America on Tuesday, November 4 1980.

As has been many times on this site, America’s concentration camps and the mass media (news, sports, “entertainment” and other bread and circuses), have aided and abetted in no small part by the false “doctrines” of the conciliar revolutionaries and their sacramentally barren liturgical rites, have done a superb job of programming between two-fifths and one-half of the American population to accept “leftism” of one sort or another as the means to the “better life.” This is just part of the natural process of degeneration that must occur in a nation founded on false, anti-Incarnational, naturalistic religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetero is only the end product of this process of degeneration.

Ah, but Obama/Soetero is also the “gift” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “reconciliation” with the “new principles inaugurated in 1789.” He was groomed by true ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries in the Archdiocese of Chicago, who shared with him a commitment to “reshape” society by means of the methods and the goals of the atheistic mocker of religion, Saul Alinsky, whose “rules for radicals” perfectly described the tactics that Obama/Soetero has used throughout his life to achieve his goals, tactics that he believes can be used–and even admitted publicly– to accomplish the end “necessary” for the “changing” of the United States of America: election an re-election.

The demographic shift brought about in large measure by contraception and abortion will continue by even more dramatic leaps and bounds once the naturalists of the organized crime family of the naturalist “right” assist Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Hillary Rodham Clinton and the other mobsters of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” in solidifying their electoral power at the presidential–and hence Federal judicial–level–in perpetuity by caving on the issue of illegal immigration in the belief that Spanish-speakers will be grateful to them. This is delusional.  (For my own study on the issue of illegal immigration, please see Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 1 and Good Catholic Common Sense Must Prevail, part 2.)

It is this demographic shift that is returning some states of the Confederacy back to the Democratic Party after being fairly reliable “red” states in presidential elections from the time of President Richard Milhous Nixon’s landslide re-election on November 7, 1972, to the election of then United States Senator Barck Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro on November 4, 2008. States such as Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida have changed dramatically just in the past decade. Even the State of Texas is changing, making the rabid pro-death State Senator Wendy Davis’s bid to be elected Governor of the State of Texas this year, 2014, to be categorized in the realm of something that is not unthinkable. If defeated this year, Davis, who comes from the same genre of literary autobiographical novelists as Obama/Soeotro himself, may have a much stronger chance of getting elected in 2018.

Just as nothing is stable or secure in the Modernist view of the Catholic Faith, so is the the case that nothing is stable or secure in the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity. What is done in one election can be undone in another, and the most important end of career politicians is keep getting elected, which is why they will yield to the demigod of popular opinion rather than realizing that God, as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, is a majority of One.

A constitution that admits of no higher authority than the force of its own words, which must be interpreted by mere human beings, is as fungible in the hands of legal positivists as the words of Sacred Scripture are in the hands of Protestants and Modernist Catholics.

Again, why is this so difficult to accept?

Nations that do not place themselves under the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King must live under the tyranny of the shifting sands of popular sovereignty and of the caesars who curry favor with “the people.”

As I noted almost a year ago now, the best response to the statism of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and the statism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio was delivered by the  Archbishop of Venice, Giuseppe Melchiorre, in 1896:

In August 1896 in Padua, the second Congress of the Catholic Union for Social Studies took place. We have already seen that this organization had been created seven years before by Professor Giuseppe Toniolo, in the presence of the Bishop of Mantua [Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto]. This time, eight bishops were present and several directors of the Opera del Congressi took part. All the eminent representatives of the Italian Catholic Movement were present (Medolago Pagnuzzi, Alessi and others). Cardinal Sarto’s address attracted considerable notice. Faced with “ardent enemies” (unbelief and revolution) “…menacing and trying to destroy the social fabric,” the Patriarch of Venice invited the participants to make Jesus Christ the foundation of the their work: “the only peace treaty is the Gospel.” He warned them against what is now called the “welfare state,” the state which provides everything and provides all socialization: “substituting public almsgiving for private almsgiving involves the complete destruction of Christianity and it is a terrible attack on the principle of ownership. Christianity cannot exist without charity, and the difference between charity and justice is that justice may have recourse to laws and even to force, depending on the circumstances, whereas charity can only be imposed by the tribunal of God and of conscience.” If public assistance and the redistribution of wealth are institutionalized, “poverty becomes a function, a way of life, a public trade…” (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 100)

No formula of a naturalist of the “left” or of the “right” can produce true improvement that will redound to men and their nations. It is only by light of the Catholic Faith that men can see clearly enough to pursue temporal matters in light of eternity.

Get out of the diabolical trap of naturalism. Refuse to be agitated by the “talking heads” on radio and television who do not understand anything about First and Last Things and thus whose histrionics are nothing more than the injurious babbling spoken of by Pope Pius IX as they do not understand that the remote cause of all human problems is Original Sin and that their proximate causes are to be found in the Actual Sins of men and thus can be remedied only by the daily conversion of souls as they seek to grow in sanctity by cooperating with the graces sent to them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

These “talking heads” make constant advertence to the genius of the “founding fathers,” men who a founding hatred for Christ the King, and their founding principles that have convinced men that they can establish a social order without regard to any religion, no less the true religion, which is the very premise of Judeo-Masonry. How can men who believe in the very principles that are the fruit of the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Judeo-Masonry that are the foundation of “American exceptionalism” help us to understand issues that must be viewed through the deeper, supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith? They can’t.

Consider these words of Father Edward Leen and learn from them once and for all, please!

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived–from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely “secular” life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious–and there are many such still–are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that “life” is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

What should we do?

Spend more time in prayer before Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, if this is at all possible during this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Pray more Rosaries.

Make more sacrifices.

Do more fasting.

Pray for more crosses.

Pray for humiliation.

Enthrone your homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Read more books about the lives of the saints.

Stop watching television once and for all! The saints did not need to be bombarded with incessant news reports, did they?

Don’t be agitated by the lies of naturalists and their enablers.

Know that Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will triumph.

Conscious of making reparation for our own sins, which, although forgiven and thus no longer exist, are in need of our making satisfaction here in this passing, mortal vale of tears before we die, may our Rosaries each day help lift the scales of naturalism that cloud our vision, thus making us courageous apostles of the Social Reign of Christ the King who recognize and are unafraid to proclaim that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.