And again he failed. Once more the reminder of the truth did but aggravate them; the will not to believe is hard to convince, the determination not to accept what is known to be true is invincible. Indeed to attempt to convince is to rouse the most violent kind of enmity. Hitherto the accusers had only clamoured for the condemnation of Jesus. They had asked that somehow He should be put to death, apparently it mattered not how; how, since they had been taught with His being their Christ, their anointed King, they went to a further extreme. He must not only die; he must die the most shameful death that even the Roman world knew. He must die the death of a guilty slave, of a convicted criminal; though to be a Roman citizen would save even a criminal from such a fate. Their Anointed? Let Him be crucified. Then it would be known what they thought of Him, then even such men as Pilate would check their sarcastic tongues: ‘But they all cried out, Crucify him, crucify him, let him be crucified.’
This was indeed a climax of hatred, so that more than ever Pilate was amazed. He had seen passion roused to blind fury before; in his own city it was cultivated as an amusement. He had seen, in Rome, eyes glittering and faces taut, as women round the arena turned down their thumbs demanding a gladiator’s death. He had seen his own soldiers, brutalized and hardened till they were scarcely human any longer, laughing and turning to sport the slaughter of the helpless. He had watched an Asiatic mob, more deliberate and merciless than any European, show its white teeth and express dread purpose in its eyes as it pursued some deed of callous cruelty. He had himself a heart hardened enough to pass suffering by, to inflict it if need be, and to be moved no more than if he plucked a lily. But this sight before him was different from all these. It was not fury, it was not blind; it was cold, deliberate, determined. There was too much hatred now even for mockery or laughter. Never before had a Jew, or a Jewish mob, demanded that a Jew should be crucified, no matter what might have been his crime.
Pilate himself feared; if he persisted, he himself might incur their vengeance, for this was a hatred that would not be baulked, that would not count the cost of its deeds. Weakly he repeated what he had said before. The Man was innocent; He had done nothing in any way deserving of death; if He were chastised it would be punishment enough: ‘And Pilate said to them the third time, Why? What evil hath he done?’ I find no cause of death in him. I will chastise him, therefore, and let him go.’
The words, the repeated sentence, the unjust concession, the yet feebler opening question, only confirmed to the enemy that their cause was won. They had only to persist in their demand and all would be secured according to their will. Legality was now thrown to the winds; its very forms could be set aside. They had a found a formula which admirably suited their purpose, and they needed but to repeat it till the very sound would seem its vindication. ‘But they were the more instant with loud voices, Crucify him, let him be crucified. And their voices prevailed.’
‘Their voices prevailed!’ Pilate had gone through many phases before he had come to this. Never before in his life had he been so utterly tried and found wanting. He was Roman Governor of Palestine; he had held the office for years; in the eyes, then, of the authorities of Rome he was suited for the purpose. Judaea was province not easy to rule, yet with all his mistakes Pilate had succeeded in ruling it. On other occasions he had done as he would with this people and they had submitted; he had learnt to despise them, as he had deemed a strong Roman should. When that morning they had brought Jesus before him he had treated them with that same contempt; when they had urged their demand, he had sent them to another, a more petty judge, to settle their claim for them. Yet all the time he had wavered; something had told him from the first that this was no ordinary mob affair. He had seen Jesus alone, and the interview had convinced him that he was dealing with a just and innocent Man. Then his contempt had begun to change to fear. Then he knew that this was a case, not of justice, but of hatred; and hatred is always unjust and merciless, and cruel.
During all this time Jesus had stood before them all, submissive till submission became weird, saying not a word on His own behalf, making no sign that showed indignation, or protest, or insult, or weakness, scarcely even concern; He stood there, the only one calm and self-possessed in that gathering. By His manner alone a keen judge would have known Him to be guiltless; it seemed to prove more, that there was within Him a power which He could use if He would, but which, for some reason that Pilate could not understand, He refused to exercise. Pilate feared the mob howling in the street beneath him; he feared too this silent Being standing on the steps beside him, the like of whom he had never had to judge in all his experience of men. He dared not yet pass the final sentence; before he yielded he must save himself from the consequences of an unjust act, whether from Caesar in Rome, or from this mysterious King whose kingdom was not of this world. Like all unbelievers, Pilate was superstitious; brave it as he might, in his heart he feared he knew not what.
Meanwhile the clamour in the street grew louder. It had risen so as to the threatening, and must needs be appeased. It was true he could have turned his soldiers on the crowd and dispersed it, but he hesitated. He had done something of the king before, and had been made to repent his indiscretion; these Asiatics were a people that not forgive and forget. Somehow he must humour them; at the same time he must justify himself in his own mind. So far as he could he would free himself from all responsibility. This he had endeavoured to do during all the morning; since there now seemed to be no escape, since in the end it seemed inevitable that he must speak the final word, he would throw the responsibility for the word on others. He argued with himself. These violent disturbers of the peace insisted. It was his duty to keep the peace, especially at such a time as this, when Jerusalem was full of strangers from everywhere, and was not the public peace of far greater importance than the life any single man? Let Jesus go free, and many lives might be lost in the disturbance; almost certainly the life of Jesus Himself, in any case. Let Him die, and many would be saved, peace would be restored and the Paschal season would be pass off tranquility. He would yield, it would be better in the end; thus did Pilate, by another route, arrive at the conclusion of Caiaphas: ‘It were better that one man should die for the people.’
But this yielding should be all with the formality that become one in his position. A Roman judge, whatever he might decree, must not be accused of injustice; a Roman judge could do no wrong. So he went through an empty form. As Caiphas long ago had settled the scruples of the priests by the invention of a formula, so would Pilate settle the scruples of his own worldly conscience by the invention of a form. He would wash his hands of the whole affair; he little dreamt that his act would establish a metaphor for all time to come. He called an attendant boy; he bade him bring water and a basin, as if for some ablution which would have seemed nothing strange. As he put his hands into the water, he spoke words which made his action symbolic. He had already declared his Prisoner innocent; now he would absolve himself also from all guilt. If guilt rested on anyone, it lay on those who were driving him to do what he abhorred.
‘And Pilate, seeing that he prevailed nothing, but seeing that a tumult was made, having taking water, washed his hands before the people saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just man. Look you to it.’
Pilate the poor worldling, keeping up appearances at any cost before the eyes of men! The coward affecting to be brave, the anxious affecting to be careless, the grossly cruel affecting to be just, the brutally cruel affecting to be humane, the guilty affecting to be honest, the self-seeking affecting to eaten up with zeal for law and order; whatever he may be in his own heart and conscience, outwardly his hands must be clean, he must sand well and be approved before the tribunal of men. We cannot hate Pilate, he is too weak and worldly-wise for hatred. But it is hard not to despise him for a cunning self-deceiver, one who in the end might persuade himself that any deed was good. Yet when we condemn him, how many of us at the same time pronounce in some degree our own condemnation? The world is a liar and a deceiver; in nothing more contemptible than in its constant affectation of truth and honesty, and the service of men. Of all the characters in the Passion, Pilate has always had most imitators.
Yet even when Pilate little suspected the response his self-exculpation would evoke. He had declared himself innocent in the eyes of men; his victorious adversaries in the street below had no such scruples. Let men them of them what they liked; they would have this Man’s blood at any cost, though it were to be upon them for all time. If that were all Pilate wanted that he might pass the final sentence, let him have it. He had shifted the guilt upon their shoulders; they had understood the travesty he had gone through well enough. They would willingly accept the burthen. The cry they poured out is one of those terrible prophecies which cannot have been invented; its significance is too deep for any man to have dared, its fulfillment too manifest for anyone to doubt. ‘And all the people answering said, His blood be upon us and upon our children.’
The worlds were the closing of another act in the drama. For a moment there was a dread silence, as if the crowd itself were appalled at the self-condemnation it had uttered: ‘What has thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth.’
It was misery indeed, cold and clammy, that enshrouded their hearts. It must be killed; the drama must go on; by noise, if by no other means, the cry in the heart must be stifled in the crowd. Men talked loudly to one another, boasting, careless, losing themselves in ribaldry; what mattered any consequence, they had gained their end. Up above, around the seat of judgment, officials moved up to and fro; documents were produced and duly signed. Barabbas was brought out and handed over to the crowd, wondering that this confusion meant, how he came to be the hero of this heated moment. He knew himself to be a convicted murderer, and therefore the hand of every man should be against him. He knew himself to have been condemned as a provoker of sedition, and therefore could expect no mercy from the Roman Governor. He had been cast into prison, tried, proved guilty, and condemned, and could only await the hour of his execution, probably that very day. Yet now on a sudden he was told that his people had demanded his release, and that the Roman Governor had consented. What had happened? Had the Roman been made to yield before the threats of Jewry? Had the kingdom come? But even it had, what could have made his people choose him for its favour? Murderers were never forgiven, highwaymen were always feared. Such kindness could be nothing but a mockery. Barabbas: the son of the Father! Was there no one who noticed the significance of that name?
Barabbas, the highwayman and murderer, and promoter of sedition and revolt, was set at liberty, and Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life, who had done all things well, whom no man could convict of an sin, of whom His enemies had said for His good works they accused Him not, was delivered over to the servants of the law. There was nothing now left to be done but for the preliminaries of the execution to begin. (Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 268-274.)
Barabbas always wins in our world of naturalism, aided and abetted by eager enthusiasm of many Catholics no matter where they fall across the valst expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal, and most naturalists who adhere to the organized crime family of the false opposite known as “the right,” the Republican Party, are in full retreat on anything touching what has become the “third rail” of American politics with nothing less than lighting speed, namely, the disgusting concept of “marriage” between persons of the same gender engaged in unnatural vice, something that was pointed a lot in recent commentaries on this site, including in part three of this series, which focused on the abject sentimentality of the Catholic-Mormon named United States Senator Marco Rubio.
Well, Rubio is at it again, demonstrating his utter ignorance by claiming with certainty that those engaged in unspeakably perverse acts against the binding precepts of Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are “born” with the tendency to commit sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance while at the same time stating that he is not against “marriage” between persons of the same gender, although at “right” to do so is to be found in the Constitution of the United States of America, thus leaving it up to the “states” to “decide” the matter:
Marco Rubio said he believes that sexual preference is decided at birth, but still believes that states should be able to decide if they want to define marriage as anything other than involving a man and a woman.
"It's not that I'm against gay marriage. I believe the definition of the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman," Rubio said in an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation." "States have always regulated marriage. And if a state wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate. I don't think courts should be making that decision."
"I don't believe same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right," Rubio added. "I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact...I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with."
Rubio sparked a debate on the issue last week after he said in an interview with Fusion's Jorge Ramos that he would attend the same-sex wedding of a gay family member or staffer even if he would "disagree with a choice they've made." (Big Brain Maro Rubio Babbles.)
Wow, what a brain.
Ah, this is what passes for “deep and profound” thoughts in a land shaped by the naturalist ethos of sentimentality, irrationality and illogic that is the inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution, institutionalized by the combined, inter-related and multifaceted forces of Judeo-Masonry and celebrated by the “popes” and “bishops” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Pope Pius IX explained what must happen when men either reject or are bereft of how to see the world through the eyes of the true Faith as a result of the ethos of naturalism:
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.)
Behold a society whose nation’s very founding had been severed by the bonds of religion and true peace,” a severance that has indeed a country filled with injurious babblers who believe that there is no other purpose to human existence than the “obtaining and amassing” of wealth and have no other law except that of “the unchastened desire of ministering” to their “own pleasures and interests.
Marco Rubio, of course, has never even heard of Quanta Cura. He has been steeped in the lies of old-fashioned American religious indifferentism and political ecumenism from his childhood, the same lies that corrupted so many Catholic immigrants to the United States of America in the Nineteenth Century and that the adversary used to corrupt a lot, although, far, far from all, of those who came here from Fidel Castro’s totalitarian Marxist rule in Cuba after his takeover there on January 1, 1959. These same lies are corrupting many of those who have immigrated, whether legally or illegally, into the United States of America from Mexico and Central America in the past three decades after having been exported to their native lands courtesy of the inroads made by American Freemasonry there in the Nineteenth Century.
Mario Rubio has also never heard of Quanta Cura because it is rejected entirely by the lords of conciliarism, figures of Antichrist that they are, in its entirety. The spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism specialize in the promotion of injurious babbling within their own false religious sect as they celebrate it in the world-at-large. These spiritual robber barons think and speak in purely naturalistic terms, thus reinforcing the naturalism that is part of the ethos of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity.
Marco Rubio, it appears, also has never heard of the work done by such trained psychologists as Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who had written to me in 1993 after an article of mine appeared in The Wanderer dealing with a conciliar “monsignor’s” criticism of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, July 23, 1992 (the document was, of course, couched in conciliarspeak even though it made some very valid points). That article was a follow-up to a piece that had been published about then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy started to make the entirety of the command leadership of the United States Department of Defense and of the military services a preserve of the Homosexual Collective.
I had made the point in the commentary about the conciliar “monsignor’s” criticism of his false religious sect’s doctrinal congregation’s 2002 document that homosexual behavior is acquired, not innate, and it was this that prompted Dr. Nicolosi to write to me to affirm this view and to inform me of his own work of curing practicing homosexuals. (For an overview of Dr. Nicolosi’s work, please see http://josephnicolosi.com/)
Here is just a short excerpt of a study done by a colleague of Dr. Nicolosi’s at the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” (Born That Way?)
What does this mean?
It means that Marco Rubio is a dunderhead, thank you, very much, a man who spouts off whatever sounds good to him. In other words, he is a lot like Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself.
Not to be outdone, the great “thinker” who is the neoconservative war hawk Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, a man who is an acceptable second choice to the members of the Warfare Party whose first choice is Jeb Bush (see The Winner of the 2016 Republican Nomination Will Be . . . . A Naturalist, Gee What A Surprise), who is giving some consideration now to his sons’ recommendation that the government just get out of defining or regulating marriage. Walker also admitted that he has attended a reception for a “couple” engaged in perversely sinful behavior following their supposed “nuptials”:
NASHUA, N.H. – Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a likely Republican presidential candidate, addressed an issue on Saturday night that has been roiling his party in recent years: gay marriage. Asked by a reporter if he would attend a gay wedding, Mr. Walker, a conservative and a son of a preacher who prays regularly for guidance, said he had attended a reception for a gay relative who had been married.
“That’s certainly a personal issue,” Mr. Walker said at a brief news conference after addressing a gathering of New Hampshire Republicans here. Referring to his wife, he continued, “Tonette and I and our family already had a family member who’s had a reception. I haven’t been to a wedding. That’s true even though my position on marriage is still that’s defined between a man and a woman, and I support the Constitution of the state. But for someone I love, we’ve been at a reception.” The governor was away on business when the wedding occurred, but he later attended a reception for the newlyweds.
Last June, a cousin of Mrs. Walker, Shelli Marquardt, was married to her partner at Waukesha County Courthouse outside Milwaukee, according to media reports. The Walkers’ then-19-year-old son, Alex, served as a witness and signed his name to the marriage certificate. The marriage occurred after a federal judge struck down the state’s ban on gay marriages; soon after, the judge put a halt to those marriages while the ruling was appealed.
In 2013, Mr. Walker told Buzzfeed that his two sons had tried to convince him that government should stop involving itself in marriage issues and leave them up to churches and other institutions to define marriage for themselves.
“That’s a solid argument,” Mr. Walker said at the time. “I personally may not embrace that yet. But that, to me, is a bigger question.” He added, “I get their concerns.” (At Candidate Forum, Walker Discusses Same-Sex Marriage of a Relative.)
Please see Irreversible By Means Merely Human, which will proabably have to be dusted off again two months from now when the Supreme Court of the United States of America does the inevitable and declares sodomy to be a constitutionally-guaranteed "right."
Memo to Scott Walker: true love is an act of the will. It is impossible to say that one has true love for another human being while reaffirming him in that which is injurious to the salvation of his immortal soul. Such reaffirmation is not love, it is the sort of sappy sentimentality that characterizes Protestantism and of a man who is Protestant in all but name, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Emotion governs the day for such people, not truth.
The hapless naturalists in the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” individuals who are tripping all over themselves to demonstrate that being “anti-gay” is just as terrible as being anti-Semitic, which to them means being opposed to anything desired by the Zionist State of Israel.
Remarkably enough, even the aforementioned 1992 document issued during the future “Pope Benedict XVI’s” tenure as the prefect of the misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith predicted something very similar would happen over the course of time:
13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law. (See Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, July 23, 1992.)
As we know, paragraph fourteen may have been accurate in 1992. It is no longer accurate now, of course.
Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aping naturalists such as Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, men who are supposedly “conservative,” uses the very revolutionary language that the Homosexual Collective has manipulated dunderheads and injurious babblers to make their very own. Bergoglio uses the term “gay,” a perfectly good word in the English language to describe a light, joyful feeling, that has been coopted by practitioners of unnatural vice that cries out to Heaven to vengeance, thus giving more and more free license to others in his false religious sect to do so, admitting that many conciliar “cardinals,” “bishops,” priests/presbyters have done so for decades.
Additionally, Bergoglio, driven by raw sentimentality as he is, has no use for such “insensitive” “considerations” as those issued under the supervision of his predecessor at the behest of his predecessor, Karol Josef Wojtyla (aka “Saint John Paul II). Jorge is all about showing his affective “concern” for others to curry favor with them just as much as naturalists in the political realm want to show that they are “sensitive” and “caring,” not “haters” who condemn and, Heavens to Murgatroid (it’s always good to a Snagglepus quote in an article now and again as it helps to keep the slumbering awake), dare to judge.
The whole business of why “gay marriage” is even on the “table,” though, is yet another manifestation of what happens to a society when as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was wrought by the Protestant Revolution and exploited by the combined, interrelated forces of naturalism that can be termed as Judeo-Masonry.
As Pope Leo XIII reminded us in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, it matters now who does or not belong to Freemasonic lodges as it is the spirit of Freemasonry that pervades supposedly “free” societies today in order to make all mention of Christ the King and His Social Reign over men and their nations to be appear unreasonable, imprudent and impractically divisive:
For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view -- namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism.
What We have said, and are about to say, must be understood of the sect of the Freemasons taken generically, and in so far as it comprises the associations kindred to it and confederated with it, but not of the individual members of them. There may be persons amongst these, and not a few who, although not free from the guilt of having entangled themselves in such associations, yet are neither themselves partners in their criminal acts nor aware of the ultimate object which they are endeavoring to attain. In the same way, some of the affiliated societies, perhaps, by no means approve of the extreme conclusions which they would, if consistent, embrace as necessarily following from their common principles, did not their very foulness strike them with horror. Some of these, again, are led by circumstances of times and places either to aim at smaller things than the others usually attempt or than they themselves would wish to attempt. They are not, however, for this reason, to be reckoned as alien to the masonic federation; for the masonic federation is to be judged not so much by the things which it has done, or brought to completion, as by the sum of its pronounced opinions. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)
Yes, it is the sum of the "pronounced opinions" of Judeo-Masonry that matters, not any specific program or line of action, although there have been programs and lines of action (the establish of public schools and the mandating of curricula of study, legislation liberalizing divorce, attempts at imposing laws forbidding the wearing of clerical garb in public and of the operation of parochial schools, the promotion of contraception and abortion and licentious perversity in civil law and public culture) that members of the lodges have undertaken over the course of this nation's history that were meant to be detrimental to the Faith. The Judeo-Masonic spirit convinces even believing Catholics that the social encyclical letters of our true popes don't apply to the United States of America, and that simple statements of Catholic truth, including the one below from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, have been made "obsolete" over the course of time:
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.)
]Some Americanist Catholics are even so bold as to assert that the Church has no business at all in pronouncing that she has universal principles for the governance of men and their nations that are binding upon the consciences of all men at all times, thus showing themselves to defect from the Faith by refusing to accept these plain words of Pope Pius XII in Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958:
Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions -- such as those which concern social and economic matters -- in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.
This opinion -- it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence -- is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:
"The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so-called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.
"By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end."
This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: "All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad -- that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law -- fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church." (Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958.)
Pope Pius XII was condemning the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association's (the rump "church" created by the Red Chinese government that was more or less recognized in a de facto manner by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's letter to Chinese Catholics in 2007 that was reiterated in 2009; see Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology) rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church in matters of social and economic matters. His condemnation applies just as much to anyone else, including Americanist Catholics, who reject the Social Reign of Christ the King and the authority of the Catholic Church to enunciate the moral principles that must guide governance and economics. No naturalist philosophy or program takes place of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church that He Himself created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.
Alas, the Modern world is founded in a rejection of this simple truth. "Hope" is then to be placed in all manner of naturalists, whether they be of the "Enlightenment" or of the American founding or the French Revolution or Marxism-Leninism or any of the dozens of others of ideologies and "philosophies" claiming the ability to "improve" the world by means of the naturalistic formulae of Judeo-Masonry, many of which are embraced by various false religions, including that of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as worthy of at least some respect in the practicalities of the "real" world. This is precisely the goal of the Judeo-Masonic spirit that Pope Leo XIII explicated in Humanum Genus:
But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are -- the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.
When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall -- namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.
When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.
If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.
Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.
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.
What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract -- that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite.
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.
Then come their doctrines of politics, in which the naturalists lay down that all men have the same right, and are in every respect of equal and like condition; that each one is naturally free; that no one has the right to command another; that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. According to this, therefore, all things belong to the free people; power is held by the command or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers may lawfully be deposed and the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines. It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place.
That these doctrines are equally acceptable to the Freemasons, and that they would wish to constitute States according to this example and model, is too well known to require proof. For some time past they have openly endeavored to bring this about with all their strength and resources; and in this they prepare the way for not a few bolder men who are hurrying on even to worse things, in their endeavor to obtain equality and community of all goods by the destruction of every distinction of rank and property.
What, therefore, sect of the Freemasons is, and what course it pursues, appears sufficiently from the summary We have briefly given. Their chief dogmas are so greatly and manifestly at variance with reason that nothing can be more perverse. To wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established, and whose perpetuity He insures by His protection, and to bring back after a lapse of eighteen centuries the manners and customs of the pagans, is signal folly and audacious impiety. Neither is it less horrible nor more tolerable that they should repudiate the benefits which Jesus Christ so mercifully obtained, not only for individuals, but also for the family and for civil society, benefits which, even according to the judgment and testimony of enemies of Christianity, are very great. In this insane and wicked endeavor we may almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ. -- So also the studious endeavor of the Freemasons to destroy the chief foundations of justice and honesty, and to co-operate with those who would wish, as if they were mere animals, to do what they please, tends only to the ignominious and disgraceful ruin of the human race.
The evil, too, is increased by the dangers which threaten both domestic and civil society. As We have elsewhere shown, in marriage, according to the belief of almost every nation, there is something sacred and religious; and the law of God has determined that marriages shall not be dissolved. If they are deprived of their sacred character, and made dissoluble, trouble and confusion in the family will be the result, the wife being deprived of her dignity and the children left without protection as to their interests and well being. -- To have in public matters no care for religion, and in the arrangement and administration of civil affairs to have no more regard for God than if He did not exist, is a rashness unknown to the very pagans; for in their heart and soul the notion of a divinity and the need of public religion were so firmly fixed that they would have thought it easier to have city without foundation than a city without God. Human society, indeed for which by nature we are formed, has been constituted by God the Author of nature; and from Him, as from their principle and source, flow in all their strength and permanence the countless benefits with which society abounds. As we are each of us admonished by the very voice of nature to worship God in piety and holiness, as the Giver unto us of life and of all that is good therein, so also and for the same reason, nations and States are bound to worship Him; and therefore it is clear that those who would absolve society from all religious duty act not only unjustly but also with ignorance and folly. . . .
Would that all men would judge of the tree by its fruit, and would acknowledge the seed and origin of the evils which press upon us, and of the dangers that are impending! We have to deal with a deceitful and crafty enemy, who, gratifying the ears of people and of princes, has ensnared them by smooth speeches and by adulation. Ingratiating themselves with rulers under a pretense of friendship, the Freemasons have endeavored to make them their allies and powerful helpers for the destruction of the Christian name; and that they might more strongly urge them on, they have, with determined calumny, accused the Church of invidiously contending with rulers in matters that affect their authority and sovereign power. Having, by these artifices, insured their own safety and audacity, they have begun to exercise great weight in the government of States: but nevertheless they are prepared to shake the foundations of empires, to harass the rulers of the State, to accuse, and to cast them out, as often as they appear to govern otherwise than they themselves could have wished. In like manner, they have by flattery deluded the people. Proclaiming with a loud voice liberty and public prosperity, and saying that it was owing to the Church and to sovereigns that the multitude were not drawn out of their unjust servitude and poverty, they have imposed upon the people, and, exciting them by a thirst for novelty, they have urged them to assail both the Church and the civil power. Nevertheless, the expectation of the benefits which was hoped for is greater than the reality; indeed, the common people, more oppressed than they were before, are deprived in their misery of that solace which, if things had been arranged in a Christian manner, they would have had with ease and in abundance. But, whoever strive against the order which Divine Providence has constituted pay usually the penalty of their pride, and meet with affliction and misery where they rashly hoped to find all things prosperous and in conformity with their desires. (Pope Leo XIII Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)
It is thus important not to get lost in the "trees" to find specific presidents who Masons as each, as noted above, has been possessed of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism, a spirit that does the devil's bidding as even believing Catholics are convinced that it is "good enough" for a president to have sincere intentions and to invoke the name of God, at least generically, now and again in his public utterances, no matter the fact that his policies may be inimical to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law and thus injurious to souls, thereby undermining the pursuit of the common temporal good even though these presidents have had "good" and "sincere" intentions. "Good" and "sincere" intentions do not redeem false premises. "Good" and "sincere" intentions can never make morally licit that which is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. No amount of generic references to God can replace a fealty to the Catholic Faith, something that Pope Pius XI warned about very specifically in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:
Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God, the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God.
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community -- however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things -- whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)
It is with all of this in mind that one must read the references to God or "Supreme Being" when listening to the naturalists of the false opposite of the “right” babble on incessantly as they stumble and bumble their ways to get more votes without offending any particular constituency while offending the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, in the process. Efforts to project Catholicism into the minds of these naturalists will be as futile and self-delusional as those efforts to project Catholicism into the minds of the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We must understand that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is mean to be King of each man and each nation, including the United States of America, and that it is a work of true patriotism to plant the seeds for the conversion of this land in which we were born (or, for those naturalized as citizens, have taken up residence) to the true Faith so that she can enjoy a true measure of temporal prosperity undertaken in light of 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 in Heaven.
Today is the Feast of Saint Anselm, a son of the Order of Saint Benedict who, despite his protestations of unworthiness, proved to be a most capable Archbishop of Canterbury and a defender of liberties of the Catholic Church against the English King, William II, less than one hundred years before the martyrdom of one of his successors, Saint Thomas a Becket, for defending them against King Henry II.
Here is an account of this learned scholar, priest, archbishop and doctor of the Church whose use of Scholaticism would be refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century:
Anselm was born of noble and Catholic parents, named Gundulph and Hermenberga, at Aosta, in Piedmont, about the year of our Lord 1033. From his tenderest years his diligence in study, and his aspirations to a more perfect state of life, gave no indistinct foreshadowing of the holiness and learning to which he afterwards attained. The heat of youth drew him for a while into the snares of the world, but he soon returned to his first courses, and, forsaking his country and his goods, betook himself in 1060. to the monastery of Bee, under the rule of St Benedict. There he made his profession as a monk, and under the rigid discipline of Herluin, the Abbat, and the learned instruction of the profound Lanfranc, with great zeal of spirit and eager obedience to the Rule, he made such progress in learning and godliness, that he shone before all others as an example of holiness of life, and power of doctrine.
Certification and purity were his marked characteristics, and by constant fasting all taste for food seemed to have died in him. He spent the day in the monastic work, in teaching, and in answering hard questions upon religion, and he took away from sleep during what remained to him of the night, that he might refresh his soul by thoughts of God, wherein he was alway comforted by an unceasing flow of tears. When he was chosen Prior of the monastery, he so won over, by his charity, lowliness, and wisdom, some brethren who looked ill upon him, that from enviers, as he had found them, he turned them into lovers of God and of himself likewise, with exceeding gain to the strictness of observance in that Abbey. After the death of the Abbat, in 1078, Anselm, though against his own will, was chosen to succeed him. In this high place the light of his learning and holiness so shone all round about, that he was reverenced not only by Kings and Bishops, but was taken up by the holy Pope Gregory VII., who, amid the great persecutions which were then trying him, wrote with words of great love to Anselm to recommend himself and the Catholic Church to his prayers.
After the death of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1089, Anselm, whose teacher Lanfranc had formerly been, was driven by William II., King of England, supported by the entreaties of the clergy and people, though sorely against his own wishes to take upon him the government of that Church. Raised to that See upon the 4th day of December in the year 1093, he straightway set himself to reform the corrupt manners of the people, and, first by his word and example, and then by his writings and the Councils which he held, succeeded in restoring the ancient godliness and discipline of the Church. But when the aforesaid King William tried by force and threats to seize on the rights of the Church, Anselm withstood him as beseemed a Priest, and after that he had suffered the plundering of all his goods and been sent into banishment, he betook himself to Rome to Urban II. There he was received with great worship, and won high praise for that in the Council of Bari, in 1098, hee maintained by countless proofs from Scripture and the holy Fathers, against the error of the Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son also. When William lived no more, his brother Henry I., King of England, in the year 1100, called back Anselm thither, and there he fell asleep in the Lord, upon the 21st day of April, 1109. His is a name illustrious not for miracles only, nor for holiness, and indeed he had a wondrous love for his Lord Who had suffered for him, and for the blessed Maiden Mother of the Same our Lord, but also for the deep learning which he used for the defence of the Christian Religion and the good of souls. That wonderful knowledge of theology which he had, and which is shown in all the books which he wrote, seemeth to have been given him from heaven for the teaching of all writers on the same subject, who have used what is called the Scholastic method. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Anselm, April 21.)
May Saint Anselm pray us today to know the Faith in all of Its holy integrity in order to defend It ably against the ravenous wolves who hold offices in the false conciliar religious sect and against the ravings of injurious babblers within the world-at-large as both sets of enemies of Christ the King are united at the hip in believing that the Catholic Faith is not the sole means of order within individual souls or within the world.
No shortcuts, ladies and gentlemen. Catholicism. Nothing else. Nothing else at all.
Most of the people in the United States of America have accepted the devil’s incremental advances, whether by the supposedly “greater evils” within the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” or by those made by the supposedly “lesser evils” within the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right.” It is always the same with these tools of the adversary and, even sadder, it is always the same as Catholics wait with baited breath from some semblance of relief from those every-illusory secular saviors.
May Our Lady, to whom Saint Anselm was so completely devoted, help us in these troubling times to speak the truth always with determination and never look to Barbbases of the “left” or the “right” to take the place of Christ the King and His true Church.
Every Rosary we pray will help us to plant seeds for the restoration of Holy Mother Church and the vanquishing the conciliar revolutionaries and their partners in crimes against God and man in the world.
Isn’t it truly 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 Anselm, pray for us,