As Always, Pro-Aborts are More Perfectly Committed to Evil Than So-Called "Pro-Life" Pols are to Opposing Such Evils

Nothing ever changes in the farcical world of naturalism.

Let me repeat myself if anyone had difficulty understanding the first sentence above: Nothing ever changes in the farcical world of naturalism, and it becomes increasingly for more to point this out over and over and over again after having done so in lectures as well in the articles that I have written in the last thirty years since my first article appeared in The Wanderer.

However, I am once again going to try to document how nothing ever changes in the farcical world of naturalism as most people get so wrapped up in the controversies and agitations of the moment that they have no sense of historical perspective or memory upon which to draw to realize that one of the many constants in farcical world of naturalism is this: Democrats are more completely, unreservedly and uncompromisingly devoted to promotion, institutionalization, and then protect of what are objective evils in the natural order of things than Republicans are in opposing and/or seeking to retard the advancement of such evils.

Almost every Democrat in public life today, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, supports the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children under cover of law without any qualifications or exceptions. These “public servants” are pro-abortion, pro-abortion without exceptions, pro-abortion all the time.

Almost every so-called “pro-life” Republican, on the other hand, supports the chemical assassination of children by means of contraceptive and makes or one more “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment that prohibit the direct, intentional killing of all human life.

Almost every Democrat who has served in the United States Senate since 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, has voted against every nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America who was perceived to be open to reversing those decisions.

Notoriously, pro-abortion Catholics Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Edward Moore Kennedy led the charge against the confirmation of Judge Robert Bork in 1987 and were instrumental in attempting to block the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991. Even the pro-abortion Judge Anthony McLeod Kennedy received quite a grilling from Biden in 1988 until the latter became convinced of Kennedy’s commitment to stare decisis on Roe v. Wade and Judge John Glover Roberts, Jr., won over unconvinced Democrats by his own commitment to stare decisis in 2005.

More recently, of course, Democrats attempted to character assassinate Judge Brett Michael Kavanaugh and they sought, less successfully, to malign Judge Amy Coney Barrett. No one perceived to be a threat to Roe v. Wade can be permitted to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Democrats are abortion absolutists.

So-called “pro-life” Republicans, on the other hand, have slobbered all over themselves to show how “bipartisan” they are whenever a Democratic (aka pro-baby-killing) president has nominated unapologetically full-throated pro-aborts such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyers (nominated by President William Jefferson Clinton in, respectively 1993 and 1994). Only three pro-life Republican—United States Senators Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), Donald Nickles (R-Oklahoma), and Robert Smith (R-New Hampshire), each of whom supported the inviolability of innocent human life without exception—voted against Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on August 3, 1993. Only nine Republicans, including pro-abort Lisa Murkowski, voted against Stephen Breyer on July 29, 1994. Translation: Most Republicans will vote for a nominee to serve on the Supreme Court whom they considered to be “qualified” even though they believe that the Constitution of the United States of America contains a “right to privacy” that permits the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs.

Things changed rather dramatically once Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace pro-abortion Associate Justice David H. Souter, there will still three supposedly “pro-life” Republicans—United States Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina, Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire), and Richard Lugar (R-Indiana)—who joined with pro-abort Republicans Susan Colins (R-Maine) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to confirm this Constitutional emotionalist on August 6, 2009. Adding proverbial insult to injury, the mercurial Lindsey Graham boasted of his support for the “qualified” Judge Elena Kagan a year later, something that prompted to write the following on July 21, 2010:

As those who serve as members of the United States Senate have a limited amount of time on their hands, I will make this article especially brief for the sake of United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).

Senator Graham, a Southern Baptist, serves on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. That committee, which is chaired by United States Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a pro-abortion Catholic in "good standing" in the conciliar structures, and on which serves another pro-abortion Catholic, Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), who is the Majority Whip of the United States Senate, approved President Barack Hussein Obama's nomination of the Solicitor General of the United States of America, Elena Kagan, to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to replace the now retired pro-abortion Associate Justice David H. Souter by a vote of thirteen to six.

One of those thirteen votes was cost by Senator Graham, who questioned Kagan closely about surgical-baby killing during her confirmation hearings. Senator Graham's remarks, which will be posted in full once they are available, were summarized in the following report found on the Politico website:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Tuesday that he will support the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, making him the first senator to cross party lines in favor of or against the nominee.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Graham explained his vote in favor of Kagan as a product of his view that senators ought to defer to the president’s prerogative to pick judges except in extraordinary circumstances.

“There’s plenty of reasons for conservatives to vote no, plenty of good reasons, but I also think there’s a good reason for conservatives to vote yes and that’s provided in the Constitution,” Graham said. “I understood we lost; President Obama won. And I’ve got a lot of opportunity to disagree with him. But the Constitution, in my view, puts a responsibility on me a senator not to replace my judgment for his.”

Graham suggested that some of his colleagues were more focused on upcoming elections for their seats than on the voters’ choice of Obama in 2008. “I’m going to vote for her because I believe the last election had consequences,” Graham said. "I could give you 100 reasons I could vote no--if I based my vote on how she disagrees with me."

“How do you stay within keeping your job and honoring the fact that the people have spoken?" Graham asked. Kagan, he said, "would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely.”

While many of Graham's GOP colleagues have argued passionately that Kagan showed disrespect to the military when she locked recruiters out of the Harvard Career Services office because of the ban on openly gay servicemembers, the longtime Navy lawyer said he wasn't troubled.

“In 2005, more Harvard graduates entered the military than at any time in history….At the end of the day it didn’t affect it, it actually helped,” Graham said. “If I believe she had animosity in her heart about those who wear the uniform I would easily vote no. I don’t believe that.” 

Graham said he was more impressed with her forceful advocacy for the Obama Administration's position in national security cases. "I thought she's done a good job representing our nation in war-on-terror issues, which are very important to me….I think that she understands we’re at war," Graham said. "I believe that she is a loyal American, very patriotic and loves the military as much as anyone else." (Graham is Kagan's first GOP vote for court.) 

Here is a memo to United States Senator Lindsey Graham.

Dear Senator Graham:

It matters not whether the Solicitor General of the United States of America, Elena Kagan, whose nomination to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America you voted to approve as a member of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, agrees with you on anything or everything. What matters is that Solicitor General Kagan believes that the civil law can permit licitly the slaughter, both by chemical and surgical means, of innocent human beings whose only crime is having been conceived as the natural fruit of procreative powers that God has given to zenith of His creative handiwork, man. No such person who supports even one direct, intentional attack on any innocent human being at any stage of life from the moment of fertilization until natural deal is "qualified" to hold any position of public trust, whether appointed or elected.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan "disagrees" with God Himself, Who has expressly forbidden the direct killing of the innocent, which is part of the Natural Law itself, in His Fifth Commandment. Solicitor General Elena Kagan is unfit to hold any public office no matter her "qualifications" for doing so in the eyes of the world. Support for even one direct abortion, whether by chemical or surgical means, disqualifies one from being a fit instrument of the public weal, which must be exercised at all times to help advance man's Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity as a member of His one true Church, the Catholic Church, that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order (see appendix below).

Social order is contingent upon order within the souls of men, something that even some of the Greek and Roman writers of antiquity, who had recourse to reason alone without being enlightened by the light of Divine Revelation, understood. It is impossible to produce social order when the souls of men, who are, after all contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day, are in such states of disorder as to reduce to the status of a "disagreement" positions taken in support of the very social evils that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and upon which no true social order can ever be established and maintained.

Writing in the Sixteenth Century, Silvio "Cardinal" Antoniano, wrote the following words that are just as relevant now as when he wrote them because they express eternal truths that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication:

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.) 

It matters not whether Elena Kagan disagrees with you or with me about anything. It matters that she is displeasing God by her support for one of the gravest social evils imaginable. And while, Senator Graham, you are correct in stating that elections have consequences, you are grievously incorrect in concluding that this means you must support a "qualified" nominee of the man, Barack Hussein Obama, whose election on November 4, 2008, you opposed vigorously. The election of pro-abortion statist should mean that those in public office who have at least some understanding of the evils of our day are emboldened to oppose those evils as they manifest themselves in such an administration as the current one.

Would you, Senator Graham, vote to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America who was an active member of an organization, the Ku Klux Klan, that was once quite influential in the politics and governance of your own home state of South Carolina?

If not, why do you believe that a nominee who believes in a graver evil than the unquestionably heinous evils promoted by the Ku Klux Klan under cover of the civil law is qualified to serve during "good behavior" (effectively a lifetime appointment) on the highest judicial tribunal in this country?

How are you advancing "true temporal peace and tranquility" by supporting a nominee who promotes things that are "repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity"?

The "people" are not the sovereign of any nation, including our own. The "people" must choose to act in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the Catholic Church for their explication without any deviation whatsoever. If they fail to do by electing men such as Barack Hussein Obama, then it is the obligation of those in public life committed, at least ostensibly, to right principles to resist the "people" by remember these stirring words written by Pope Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.

Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters, for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.

As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men." This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.) 

Although you are not a member of the Catholic Church, Senator Graham, to whose maternal bosom we pray that you are joined before you die, you are bound by these words as the authority of Holy Mother Church extends to all men and to all nations on the face of this earth without any exception or qualification whatsoever, something that even the men who appear to be the "leaders" of the Catholic Church on earth (but who are in fact defectors from the Catholic Faith themselves) do not understand or accept. You have a solemn duty to oppose evil and to oppose the appointment of those who promote evil under cover of the civil law. Christ the King is sovereign of men and their nations, not "the people" or their elected officials--and the appointees named thereby--in the civil government.

There are consequences for the choices that we make in this passing, mortal vale of tears. Pope Pius XI explained the eternally fatal consequences of those who dare to support the slaughter of the innocent preborn:

"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.) 

Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose nomination last year to serve on the Supreme Court also received your support, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, to say nothing of the countless other fully pro-abortion figures in public life, including each member of the majority party who serve on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, will face this judgment at the time of their deaths.

Although Solicitor General Elena Kagan is assured of confirmation by a vote of the full membership of the United States Senate as that body is control of the Democratic Party, you are solely responsible before Christ the King for your own support of Elena Kagan. Rather than being concerned with showing deference to "the people," Senator Graham, you ought to be concerned for your own soul's sake not for the "results" of elections but for the results of your own moral choices and for the consequences of your own words that have communicated to us that a woman who supports chemical and surgical baby-killing is "qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. She is not so qualified, Senator Graham.

May the very Mother of God, she who is the patroness of the United States of America under the title of her Immaculate Conception, pray for you to convert to the true Faith and to know truly how to serve her Divine Son, Christ the King, as you rely upon her maternal intercession, especially through her Most Holy Rosary.

Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen,

Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.


(The writer was the nominee of the New York State Right to Life Party for lieutenant governor of the State of New York in 1986 and taught political science at various colleges and universities from January of 1974 to January of 2007.) 

I have this to say to those who might object to the above memorandum as being "too Catholic:" Shut up!

Although a terrible sinner, I am a Catholic from the top of my balding head to the tip of my toes, which are now more visible to me because of my continuing weight loss (down a total of 63.4 pounds since Ash Wednesday, February 4, 2010--with forty more to go). I will write and speak as a Catholic to one and to all until the day I die, however soon or far in the future that might be within the Providence of God to occur. Do you think that I care about losing more human respect and financial contributions than I have already? It is far, far too late in my life for that, thank you very much.

How else is Senator Graham going to hear Catholic truth before he dies except if those who live Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen attempt to explain it to him, who has an immortal soul for which Our King shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem?

As readers of this site know, it is impossible to pursue temporal justice while protecting heinous sins under cover of the civil law, crimes that are also promoted in every aspect of popular culture.

Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer once in time in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death. Sin is what caused His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow. Sin is what wounds His Mystical Body, the Church Militant, here on earth in this passing, mortal value of tears. No one who is an agent in the promotion of grievous sin, no less sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, is a fit holder of the public weal. While such a person is an object of our prayers and while his actions must prompt us to make much reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, he is not deserving of anyone's "support" or "approval."

All the more reason, good readers, for us to make many acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by continuing Bishop Robert Fidelis McKenna's Rosary Crusade,

As I have noted on this site very consistently, unlike so many in the world and even so many who are in "good standing" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, we can never accept evil with urbanity and indifference. Indeed, speaking as a sinner who has so very much for which to make reparation, we must be conscious at all times of our need to pray and to fast and to make many, many sacrifices to more perfectly conformed to the mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must always remember that our sins have contributed mightily to the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and the state of the world, which is why we need to pray many Rosaries of reparation for our own sins as well as those of the whole world.

The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for this great triumph and the ushering in of the Reign of Mary and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King. (From Memo To Lindsey Graham, July 21, 2010.)

Well, nothing has changed as supposedly “pro-life” Republican senators Lindsey “Neoconservative War Hawk” Graham and Timothy Scott (R-South Carolina) have voiced open support for Judge Julianna Michelle Childs, a Catholic who is from South Carolina, if President in Name Only Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., nominates her in fulfillment of her pledge to nominate a black woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Judge Childs was a judicial pioneer in supporting the perversity of “same-sex” marriage (see Profile of a Potential Nominee, J. Michelle Childs) and her view of the Constitution is such as to guarantee that she would uphold baby-killing under the cover of the civil law.

Yet it is that Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott have high praise of her “qualifications”:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Wednesday that he pitched district court Judge J. Michelle Childs to the White House counsel's office this week and warned that voting to support another pick would be "much more problematic" for him.

"I told them what I've been saying publicly, that Michelle Childs is well known in South Carolina, there's a lot of support among Republicans, Democrats who practice law in South Carolina. I've known her and I think she's a quality person, somebody I could see myself supporting," Graham told reporters, recounting the conversation that took place on Tuesday night.

"I was just telling them I think she's a good candidate. She would get a lot of bipartisan support if she did well at the hearing," Graham added. 

Graham has been publicly talking up Childs, who the White House has confirmed is under consideration to succeed retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, and she came up as part of a conversation Graham had with Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Wednesday. 

Clyburn has blitzed the TV networks to talk up his belief that President Biden should pick Childs. Childs is currently a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. She has been nominated for the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, though Democrats have hit pause on advancing her appeals court nomination as she undergoes consideration for the Supreme Court.

Graham's support for Childs comes as he's viewed as one of the Republicans most likely to vote for Biden's impending Supreme Court nominee. Graham supported then-President Obama's Supreme Court nominees and, along with GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), have supported most of Biden's judicial nominees over the past year.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is viewed as the front-runner for succeeding Breyer. Graham, Collins and Murkowski were the only Republicans who voted for her confirmation last year.

Asked if he could see himself voting for other nominees under discussion, Graham said that "it would be much more problematic." 

"Stay tuned," Graham added. "We'll see. We'll see who he picks." (Graham lobbies White House on Childs for Supreme Court seat.)

Another Senate Republican on Wednesday praised possible Supreme Court nominee J. Michelle Childs as President Biden named an ex-senator to be the “sherpa” to help confirm his pick to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) lauded home-state federal judge Childs as “a strong candidate” — hinting at more potential GOP backing if Biden picks her.

Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who left the Senate in January after losing re-election, will serve as the White House’s point person to confirm whoever Biden nominates.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are openly campaigning for Biden to pick Childs, 55, for the lifetime position, which he can do with a simple majority.

“She certainly has been received with great acclaim from South Carolinians on both sides of the aisle. I think we have to go through a vetting process if she is the nominee. But I am, uh, I think she has a strong record and would be a strong candidate,” Scott told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Biden says he will pick a black woman for the post.

Despite his warm words for Childs, Scott, who is the only black Republican in the Senate, said, “I don’t know at this point” if he would vote for her confirmation.

Graham told reporters earlier Wednesday that he called the White House counsel’s office on Tuesday night to push for Childs to be the nominee. (Tim Scott Praises Supreme Court Candidate Julianna Michelle Childs.)

For an antidote to this madness of supposedly “pro-life” legislators being willing to confirm anyone the thoroughly pro-abort, pro-sodomite, statist agent of open racial discrimination named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., nominates to serve in his administration or on the Federal bench, please see Memo To Lindsey Graham, July 21, 2010, quoted above.  Nothing ever changes in the farcical world of naturalism.

Although neither Senator Graham nor Scott may wind up supporting Biden’s ultimate nominee to replace Stephen Breyer as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the fact that they are willing to support a nominee who is clearly of retaining Roe v. Wade demonstrates yet again that the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” are always more principled and unyielding in their support of evil than those who belong to the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” are even in their rhetorical—no less actual—opposition to the surgical execution of the innocent preborn.

Moreover, supposedly “pro-life” Republicans know that they will not lose points on the fake, phony, fraud National Not-So-Right to Life Committee’s Political Action Committee (NRTL PAC) as votes on judicial nominations are not “scored” as counting against a senator’s supposedly “pro-life” voting record. The political action committee also does not score votes on “family planning” issues as its parent committee takes no position in support of or in opposition to contraception. These are points that I raised when running against Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato for the United States senatorial nomination of the Right to Life Party of the State of New York in 1998 as Senator D’Amato voted for the nominations of both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, voting also to support funding for “family planning” programs.

For now, however, can be assured that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. will be told to nominate someone who shares his rather expansive view of the Constitution, which, of course, is its own worst enemy as its text admits of nothing other than itself as the ultimate authority of law, meaning that is as so much silly putty in the hands of judicial positivists as Holy Writ is in the hands of Protestants and Modernists:

And, you know, it’s — there’s always a renewed national debate every time we nominate — any President nominates a justice, because the Constitution is always evolving slightly in terms of additional rights or curtailing rights, et cetera.  And it’s always an issue.  And there’s several schools of thought in terms of judicial philosophy.  And we’ll see. 

But the fact is that I’m looking for someone who I can — this is not a static issue; it flows back and forth.  What I’m looking for is a candidate with character; with the qualities of a judge, in terms of being courteous to the folks before them and treating people with respect; as well as a judicial philosophy that is more of one that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment

And — but I intend to take this decision — to make this decision and get it to my colleagues by — by the end of the month.  That’s my hope.

And — and I’m looking forward to their advice in how to proceed and how the hearings will be conducted and the like.

 So, thank you very much.  We’re going to get a chance to talk, and I want to hear from them today. (Remarks by PINO Biden in meeting with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin and Ranking Member Charles Grassley.)

One can see “evolutionary jurisprudence” as the basis for Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s, lifelong war against the plain meaning of the Constitution’s text. This evolutionary jurisprudence sees the Constitution only as empty vessel into which can be read whatever it is said the people “needs” are at any particular time without regard to any kind of constitutional or legal reasoning. The “left” basis all legal and Constitutional misinterpretation on pure emotionalism its adherents then graft onto the Constitution by a series of sophistic arguments designed to permit their foregone conclusions to receive a solemn and “definitive” judicial approbation that can never be questioned thereafter.

This is what the man under whom Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., served for eight years as his vice president said after the resignation of Associate Justice David Souter in 2009 and then a year later upon the nomination of the aged and now very much deceased Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” (Obama hopes to replace Souter by October – More politics-

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

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

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s invocation of the legal positivist named Oliver Wendell Holmes (I always preferred Oliver Wendell Douglas of Green Acres), is quite a telling commentary as Holmes believed the majority had the "right" to enforce its "will" upon the minority by "force" if necessary. He made this abundantly clear in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, in which he wrote a thoroughly utilitarian opinion justifying a compulsory sterilization law that has been passed by the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia:

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

Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of law was indeed based on "experience" and not "logic." He used the discredited, diabolical precepts of utilitarianism (public policy must be based upon the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" even if "traditional" concepts of morality are violated in the process) and the sort of Social Darwinism that was near and dear to the heart of the woman who started the Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger (whose motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief issue of birth control"), as the foundation for his decision in the case of Buck v. Bell.

Indeed, Holmes's overt rejection of the Natural Law as the foundation of jurisprudence (legal reasoning) and the civil law in favor of legal positivism extended quite explicitly to a rejection of the inviolability of innocent human life under of cover of the civil law, as Holmes made clear in a 1918 essay against the Natural Law in the Harvard Law Review:

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

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

One of the many paradoxes found in a system where a nation's constitution and civil laws, whether passed at the Federal or state levels, do not explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is that it spawns competing teams of naturalists and positivists to vie with each other as to whether they will be bound by a "strict constructionist" approach to the interpretation of the words of the United States Constitution or bound only by a general, Rousseauean sense of "experience," referred to quite specifically by the legal positivist Barack Hussein Obama, that was described as follows by the late Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

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

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

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

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

The Rousseauean/Masonic view of the world was one of the many currents, starting with Georg Friedrich Hegel’s dialectical (evolutionary) view of history and thought, of naturalism that produced a crop of philosophical, legal, and theological evolutionists/positivists.

Associate Justice William Brennan, who served on the Supreme Court of the United States of America from October 15, 1956, to July 29, 1990, wrote an apologia in behalf of the concept of a “living”/evolving Constitution:

To remain faithful to the content of the Constitution, therefore, an approach to interpreting the text must account for the existence of these substantive value choices, and must accept the ambiguity inherent in the effort to apply them to modern circumstances. The Framers discerned fundamental principles through struggles against particular malefactions of the Crown; the struggle shapes the particular contours of the articulated principles. But our acceptance of the fundamental principles has not and should not bind us to those precise, at times anachronistic, contours. Successive generations of Americans have continued to respect these fundamental choices and adopt them as their own guide to evaluating quite different historical practices. Each generation has the choice to overrule or add to the fundamental principles enunciated by the Framers; the Constitution can be amended or it can be ignored. Yet with respect to its fundamental principles, the text has suffered neither fate. Thus, if I may borrow the words of an esteemed predecessor, Justice Robert Jackson, the burden of judicial interpretation is to translate "the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century." Board of Education v. Barnette, [319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943),] We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be the measure to the vision of their time. This realization is not, I assure you, a novel one of my own creation. Permit me to quote from one of the opinions of our Court, Weems v. United States, [217 U.S. 349,] written nearly a century ago:

"Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, 'designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.' The future is their care and provision or events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophesy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be."

Interpretation must account for the transformative purpose of the text. Our Constitution was not intended to preserve a preexisting society but to make a new one, to put in place new principles that the prior political community had not sufficiently recognized. Thus, for example, when we interpret the Civil War Amendments to the charter—abolishing slavery, guaranteeing blacks equality under law, and guaranteeing blacks the right to vote—we must remember that those who put them in place had no desire to enshrine the status quo. Their goal was to make over their world, to eliminate all vestige of slave caste. ("Constitutional Interpretation" by Justice William J. Brennan.)

William Brennan, a Catholic who cast one of the seven votes in favor of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, believed what Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed. He believed what Associate Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonya Sotomayor believe today. Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., is simply a political jurist who lets expediency guide him according to his own arbitrary reasoning.

Brennan’s “living Constitution” belongs to the genre of Hegelian, evolutionary legal theory just as much as Modernism’s support for the evolution of dogma belongs to the genre of Hegelian, evolutionary theology. One will see identical lines of reason between Brennan’s support for a “living Constitution” and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity

“Saint John Paul II” masqueraded the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolutionism by referring to it as “living tradition,” meaning that everything in Sacred Deposit of Faith was open to reinterpretation and “adaptation” as the circumstances require:

5. Today the Church rejoices at the renewed confirmation of the prophet Joel's words which we have just heard: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). You, present here, are the tangible proof of this "outpouring" of the Spirit. Each movement is different from the others, but they are all united in the same communion and for the same mission. Some charisms given by the Spirit burst in like an impetuous wind, which seizes people and carries them to new ways of missionary commitment to the radical service of the Gospel, by ceaselessly proclaiming the truths of faith, accepting the living stream of tradition as a gift and instilling in each person an ardent desire for holiness.

Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St Peter's Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church.  (Meeting with ecclesial movements and new communities.)

This is not therefore a matter of inventing a "new programme". The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfilment in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a programme which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication. This programme for all times is our programme for the Third Millennium.

But it must be translated into pastoral initiatives adapted to the circumstances of each community. The Jubilee has given us the extraordinary opportunity to travel together for a number of years on a journey common to the whole Church, a catechetical journey on the theme of the Trinity, accompanied by precise pastoral undertakings designed to ensure that the Jubilee would be a fruitful event. I am grateful for the sincere and widespread acceptance of what I proposed in my Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. But now it is no longer an immediate goal that we face, but the larger and more demanding challenge of normal pastoral activity. With its universal and indispensable provisions, the programme of the Gospel must continue to take root, as it has always done, in the life of the Church everywhere. It is in the local churches that the specific features of a detailed pastoral plan can be identified — goals and methods, formation and enrichment of the people involved, the search for the necessary resources — which will enable the proclamation of Christ to reach people, mould communities, and have a deep and incisive influence in bringing Gospel values to bear in society and culture.

I therefore earnestly exhort the Pastors of the particular Churches, with the help of all sectors of God's People, confidently to plan the stages of the journey ahead, harmonizing the choices of each diocesan community with those of neighbouring Churches and of the universal Church. (Apostolic LetteNovo Millennio Ineunte.)

It should be noted furthermore that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II note dspecifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the  Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that has been reviewed many times on this website, including in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.

It is really not necessary to discuss Ratzinger/Benedict’s lifelong commitment to Hegelian evolutionary thought as this has been done so a gazillion times on this website, but it might be useful to point out that using “experience” as the foundation of personal morality, public policy, jurisprudence, and of theology, apart from being condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1910, was being championed long before the “Second” Vatican Council by “progressives” within the Society  of Jesus, which is why Pope Pius XII warned the Jesuits about this tendency to base moral theology upon what people actually do rather than on what they ought to do when he address the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus on September 14, 1957:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D., The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. This is why there is such a bond between the pro-abort Catholic lords of Modernity and Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of revolutionaries. Those who reject objective truth on the supernatural and/or natural levels will wind up deifying having “experience” as the only “qualification” that matters to hold public office in the civil realm or to be a “bishop” in the ecclesiastical realm as each set of lords believe that “life as it is” is the only “magisterium” that must be followed.

Well, we can be assured that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., will nominate a complete pro abort who has as much regard for the Constitution as she has for the binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Laws and, in time even though the Biden nominee to replace Stephen Breyer will be a case of “like replacing like,” what appears to be a solid so-called “conservative” majority (whatever that means) on the Supreme Court of the United States America will be eroded over time if those who have such a care for “democracy” continue to rig the farce known as elections to secure “just” outcomes based on their continuing to hold the White House.

Our hope is not to be found in any of the political machinations of the naturalists, and in this regard, it is important to remember these prophetic words of Pope Pius XI contained in his first encyclical latter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio:

27. There is over and above the absence of peace and the evils attendant on this absence, another deeper and more profound cause for present-day conditions. This cause was even beginning to show its head before the War and the terrible calamities consequent on that cataclysm should have proven a remedy for them if mankind had only taken the trouble to understand the real meaning of those terrible events. In the Holy Scriptures we read: "They that have forsaken the Lord, shall be consumed." (Isaias i, 28) No less well known are the words of the Divine Teacher, Jesus Christ, Who said: "Without me you can do nothing" (John xv, 5) and again, "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Luke xi, 23)

28. These words of the Holy Bible have been fulfilled and are now at this very moment being fulfilled before our very eyes. Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruinIt was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Paragraph number twenty-eight above says it all:

They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Yet is that even believing Catholics, especially many younger Catholics who know nothing of American political history, permit themselves to be distracted by the bread and circuses and the dog and pony shows of naturalism in the belief that they can change a process that is corrupt to its core because it is based on the anti-Incarnational sin of religious indifferentism, which itself has led to the triumph of practical atheism as the lowest common social denominator.

Today is the Feast of Saint Romuald, a Benedict abbot who lived one hundred twenty years and who had learned who early in his life to be detached from the things, people, and places of this passing, mortal vale of tears in which we have not a permanent dwelling nor a lasting city.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., wrote the following hagiography of his fellow Benedictine, Saint Romuald, who used his extraordinarily long live to glorify God and to live penitentially to win souls for Him through His true Church:

The Calendar’s list of Martyrs is interrupted for two days; the first of these is the Feast of Romuald, the hero of penance, the Saint of the forests of Camaldoli. He is a son of the great Patriarch St. Benedict, and, like him, is the father of many children. The Benedictine family has a direct line from the commencement, even to this present time; but, from the trunk of this venerable tree there have issued four vigorous branches, to each of which the Holy Spirit has imparted the life and fruitfulness of the parent stem. These collateral branches of the Benedict Order are: Camaldoli, by Romuald; Cluny, by Odo; Yallombrosa, by John Gualbert; and Citeaux, by Robert of Molesmes.

The saint of this seventh day of February is Romuald. The martyrs whom we meet with on our way to Lent give us an important lesson by the contempt they had for this short life. But the teaching offered us by such holy penitents as the great abbot of Camaldoli is even more practical than that of the martyrs. “They that are Christ’s,” says the apostle, “have crucified their flesh, with its vices and concupiscences;” and in these words he tells us what is the distinguishing character of every true Christian. We repeat it: what a powerful encouragement we have in these models of mortification, who have sanctified the deserts by their lives of heroic penance! How they make us ashamed of our own cowardice, which can scarcely bring itself to do the little that must be done to satisfy God’s justice and merit His grace! Let us take the lesson to heart, cheerfully offer our offended Lord the tribute of our repentance, and purify our souls by works of mortification. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Romuald, February 7.)

The Divine Office contains the following summary of Saint Romuald’s long life and his truly heroic labors in the vineyard  of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church:

The holy Abbot Romuald was the son of one Sergius, of a noble family of Ravenna. While he was still very young, he went to a neighbouring monastery at Classis to do penance. While he was there he heard a discourse by a monk, which stirred him up strongly to aim at godliness of living; and he had afterwards in the Church by night two visions in which the blessed servant of God Apollinaris foretold to him that he should become a monk himself. He accordingly did so; and soon afterwards betook himself to one Marinus, whose holy life and strict discipline were then much noised about in all the coasts of the Venetians, that he might by his teaching and guidance attain towards the hard and lofty point of perfection.

The more he was assailed by the wiles of Satan and the unkindness of men, the more did he exercise himself in lowliness, with continual fasting and prayer, and rejoice in thinking of heavenly things, with abundance of tears. And all the while he bore so bright a face as gladdened all who looked on him. He was held in great honour by princes and kings, and his counsel moved many to leave the blandishments of the world and withdraw to the desert. He had such a burning desire to obtain the crown of martyrdom that he set out for Pannonia on purpose to seek it, but, falling into sickness whenever he went forward though growing strong again whenever he drew back, he behoved to return home.

God worked miracles by him both during his life and after his death, and likewise gave him the gift of prophecy. Like the Patriarch Jacob, he saw a ladder reaching from earth to heaven, and men in white garments ascending and descending upon it, in whom he marvellously knew were represented the monks of the Camaldolese Institute, of which he was the founder. At the age of 120 years, of which he had spent 100 in serving God in great hardness, he passed into His Presence, in the year of Salvation 1027. Five years after his death his body was found incorrupt, and laid in a magnificent grave in the Church of his order at Fabriano. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Romuald.)

Most of us are not going to have Saint Romuald's length of years, but we can pray to Our Lady to send us the graces to love penance, including those of being brought low in the sight of men by enduring humiliation and calumny with serene acceptance of the path by which God may seek to chastise and purify us, so as to be able desire to die to self for love of her Divine Son and His true Church, yes, up to and including the point of actual martyrdom for the Holy Faith, making the following prayer to Saint Romuald composed by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Prosper Gueranger:

Faithful servant and friend of God! how different was thy life from ours! We love the world and its distractions. We think we do wonders if we give, each day, a passing thought to our Creator, and make him, at long intervals, the sole end of some one of our occupations. Yet we know, how each hour is bringing us nearer to that moment, when we must stand before the divine tribunal, with our good and our evil works, to receive the irrevocable sentence we shall have merited. Thou, Romuald, didst not thus waste life away. It seemed to thee as though there were but one thought and one interest worth living for: how best to serve thy God. Lest anything should distract thee from this infinitely dear object, thou didst flee into the desert. There, under the Rule of the great Patriarch, St. Benedict, thou wagedst war against the flesh and the devil; thy tears washed away thy sins, though so light if compared with what we have committed; thy soul, invigorated by penance, was inflamed with the love of Jesus, for whose sake thou wouldst fain have shed thy blood. We love to recount these thy merits, for they belong to us in virtue of that Communion which our Lord has so mercifully established between Saints and Sinners. Assist us, therefore, during the penitential Season, which is soon to be upon us; Divine Justice will not despise our feeble efforts, for he will see them beautified by the union he allows them to have with such glorious works as thine. When thou wast living in the Eden of Camaldoli, thy amiable and sweet charity for men was such, that all who came near thee, were filled with joy and consolation: what may we not expect from thee, now that thou art face to face with the God of Love? Remember, too, the Order thou hast founded; protect it, give it increase, and ever make it, to those who become its children, a Ladder to lead them up to heaven. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Romuald, February 7.)

Well, we are yet another three weeks, two days before the beginning of Lent, although the season of Septuagesima begins this Saturday evening, February 12, 2022, with the praying of First Vespers for Septuagesima Sunday. Our Alleulias will cease and purple vestments will be worn by priests on Sundays and ferial days from Sunday, February 13, 2022, through the readings for the Easter Vigil on Saturday, April 16, 2022, noting that the color black is used for the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, April 15, 2022. A Catholic understands that this is the time to begin thinking about the penances he will take upon himself in addition to those mandated by Holy Mother Church, and the example of Saint Romuald provides us with a perfect opportunity today to detach ourselves more and more from the world, especially from the raging conflicts between the opposing organizing crimes of naturalism who are, despite all their differences, are united as one in rejecting the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus of the necessity of men and their nations submitting themselves to Him in all humility and docility in everything that pertains to the good of souls.

May our prayers to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, convert the hearts of men to unite themselves to the sweet yoke of her Divine Son and thus to recognize that the only true standard of human liberty is His Holy Cross, beneath which she stood so valiantly as our sins m having transcended time, cause Our Divine King to suffer in His Sacred Humanity and to pierce her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart through and through with the Fourth through Seventh Swords of Sorrow.

May her Divine Son, Christ the King, have mercy on us all.

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 Balthazar, pray for us.


Saint Romuald, pray for us.