Determined Not To Accept The Truth of Truth Himself, Christ the King, part three

At this point in the trial there occurred a diversion which Pilate thought he might use to advantage. Besides those who had come to his door with the chief priests and elders demanding the blood of Jesus, there were others there who had come for an opposite purpose. For the Pasch was the festival that kept alive the memory of the people’s release from their Egyptian bondage; in keeping with that memory the custom had grown up for the Governor to release some prisoner that day at the people’s request. It was taken as symbolic; it was an empty implication that after all, in spite of the Roman domination, the Jews were their own masters, were free. The ceremony took place on this day, the eve of the Pasch; and there was always gathered round his door a group of the people, both to make the petition and to receive the released man from the Governor’s hands.

Such a group had come together while the enemies of Jesus had been away at the house of Herod. When they returned they naturally overwhelmed the former, but in the interval after Pilate’s declaration the petitioners succeeded in making themselves heard. His words had sent the accusers thinking. They were apparently final, they had been spoken as a definite decision; it would seem that in their absence the weak man had nerved himself to act with strength and do his duty. But when the new cry was raised by the second party, that the custom of the Paschal season should be observed at once, the innate fickleness of Pilate was revealed. After all he had not wholly meant what he had just said. The demand was made that a prisoner should be released, one whom the people themselves might name. Here was another opportunity. He would offer Jesus to them; though he had already said he would release Him, if he did it at their demand his reputation would be the better saved. This group seemed more humane than the other; probably in it were some of the Prisoner’s friends; he would appeal to it in opposition to the clamourers for blood. He would do more; he would give them a choice between two such as would almost compel them to decide for Jesus. There was in the prison under guard one criminal who had of late made himself specially notorious, whose execution was only too eagerly desired by the people. He was a highwayman, a dacoit; and on that account alone, in the eyes of the inhabitants of Judaea, death was only his long-merited reward. He was a convicted murder; and for those whose law was ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’, he could look for nothing else but to die. He was a sedition-monger, who had found occupation in ‘stirring up the people’; and since this was the charge, preferred but not as yet proven, against Jesus, there could be no choice between Him and the one whose guilt was notorious. Pilate’s confidence was renewed. He would ask them to choose between the two. Jesus the Nazarene might indeed be hated, but none would deny that Barabbas was indefinitely more worthy of hate.

There was another consideration, which had now became more clear in Pilate’s mind, and which further led him to hope for victory. With all of the clamour against Jesus as a maker of sedition, he knew these leaders of the Jews too well; he did not trust this new enthusiasm for the cause of Rome. If they cried out against the Kingship of Jesus, against His winning the people, it was not because of the Roman Emperor, it was because of themselves, because they saw in Him a challenge to their own jurisdiction. This had been brought home to him the more by what his Prisoner had said about Himself. He had confessed that He was indeed a King, but no enemy to Caesar for all of that. He had a kingdom, but it was not a kingdom of this world. All this coincided with what he knew already of the difficult, bigoted enthusiasts whom he had to govern; these visionaries who had little use for the comforts and luxuries of Rome, yet who could live in a wealth of luxury that would dazzle any Roman; these students who cared almost nothing for the culture of the Empire, because they had an ascetic culture of their own; who would look with contempt on the comfortable gods of Rome and Greece, worshipping instead  a hidden, intangible Being, in whom they professed to live, whose sway they recognized as that of any overlord, with whom it were wiser, even for a Roman Emperor, not to come into conflict. All this Pilate knew, as every Eastern Governor knew it; and he had been warned from headquarters to leave all questions of religion discreetly alone. But though he left it alone, it was clear that this Jesus of Nazareth did not. He had interfered; He had called Himself a King; He had called Himself Christ, the anointed King; as such He had put Himself above the elders and priests. It had begun to grow upon Pilate; whatever the word of their charge, this, he knew full well was their real cause of grievance.

Pilate was determined to use this, possibly his last, opportunity. He would see whether he could put the people, who had called for the release of a prisoner, against their leaders, who called for the death of one Man. He had before them the evident contrast Jesus and Barabbas; he would strengthen this by what he now knew of the spiritual side of the One he hoped to save. If the leaders were not to be influenced, the people might at last yield. ‘And when the multitude was come up they began to desire what he had always done to them, and Pilate answered them and said: “You have a custom that I should release one unto you at the Pasch/ Will you therefore that I release unto the King of the Jews? Whom will you that I release to you Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew through envy the priests had delivered him up.’

This was a new kind of offensive, and for a moment there was silence in the crowd. Jesus stood there in bonds before them all, the convict Barabbas beside Him: now indeed the prophecy was being fulfilled: ‘He was reputed among the wicked.’ (Isaias 53:12.)

He was being held up, before His own people, side by side with the worst of criminals, that they might make their choice between the two. Had they been left to themselves, it can scarcely be doubted which they would have chosen’ they who, a few months before, despite the efforts of the Pharisees, had decided in His favour on the witness of John the Baptist: ‘John indeed did no sign but all things whatsoever John said of this man were true and many believed in him.’ (John 10:41-42.)

But they were not left long to decide for themselves; this was a vital moment, and their leaders dared not let it slip by. Pilate had weakened his sentence; in spite of his decision he had opened the question again. At once they were busy among the crowd, whispering here, boasting there, cajoling some threatening others; in every way imposing their authority, their superior knowledge, their science, their art, on a poor, ignorant mob that knew no better, that stood in awe of these keepers of the Temple. Jesus had been found guilty by their own high priest; was not that not evidence enough? He had been treated with contempt and put to shame, and had been unable to speak a word or preform one act to witness in His own defence; did not that prove that, in spite of all He had said and done before, He was a deceiver? Herod had shewn Him up as a fool; Pilate the Roman was evidence in His favour; did not this show that there was collusion between them? That this Jesus, breaker of the law of the Moses as He had always been, scorner of the true sons of Abraham, was secretly too an ally of the Romans? And as for Barabbas, culprit as he was, was he not also a victim of Roman tyranny? What loyal Jew would hesitate to choose between them? With all his crimes, let the good Jew Barabbas be preferred; with all His seeming innocence, let the dangerous, magnestising Jesus be sent to death.

Pilate waited while the decision was being made; he sat on his seat of judgment hoping against hope. Meanwhile as he waited a strange thing occurred. The wife of Pilate was within, in the seclusion of the women’s quarters; but she well knew what was going on outside. She had known overnight what was impending that day; not unlikely she had heard it from Pilate himself. And the knowledge made her restless; she feared what evil might come of it for Pilate her husband. She had heard enough of Jesus to believe Him true; she knew enough of the Jewish elders to suspect them; her woman’s instinct did the rest. All the night she had been unhappy; the trouble had brought weird dreams’ she woke in the morning determined, if she could, to draw Pilate out of the whole affair. She cared for Pilate, which is not the least thing in his favour; she had influence over him, which is more; she had the courage and confidence to use this influence even in the midst of a judicial trial. As Pilate sat waiting for the answer of the people, a tablet was put in his hands on which were written these words: ‘Have thou nothing to do with just man for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.’

From first to last, from the Garden to Calvary, this was the only voice raised in the defence of Jesus. We do not wonder the evangelist Matthew records it; we do not wonder that tradition has wished to honour the wife of Pilate.

At length it was time for an answer to Pilate’s question. While had waited, the chief priests had done their work, and this time there was no one to check them. In the Temple courts Jesus had always opposed their malice, and always some had stood by Him; here the enemy had it all their own way; it was their hour and the power of darkness. They had argued from presumption, which the ignorant could not deny; presumption grew into assertion, and the sorry sight of Jesus before them seem to confirm it. What the elders said might be true; probably it was true; there were good reasons why it should be true; it was safe and wiser to say that it was true; then surely it was true. Common opinion became a common voice; if any still hesitated, their resistance was broken the louder cries of the more reckless multitudes. After due time Pilate stood once more and renewed his question: ‘Which will you have of the two released to you?’

There was only one answer to be heard; violence is always louder-mouthed than meekness, and the loud mouth speaks with a tongue infallible, which will brook no opposition: ‘But the whole multitude cried out at once saying, Away with this man and released unto us Barabbas.’

It was a momentous choice. It was the turning-point of the whole tragedy. Now the die was cast; even for the people who had joined in the cry there was now no looking back. Pilate had opened a fresh sluice, and it only remained for him to be overwhelmed by the torrent.

Still like a drowning man he would catch at any straw; common justice compelled him not yet to yield. As he had himself declared, he had seen enough to know that the Man before him was not guilty. He had spoken with Him and had learnt to respect Him, almost to revere Him. Behind Him, too, there was a strength, moreover, in something which Pilate could not fathom, which was not of this world, which gave Jesus a peace beyond the reach of men’s abuse. For other reasons, therefore, more than for those of common justice, Pilate would save Jesus if he could; he did not know what god he might be offending, whose wrath he might incur, if he injured that god’s favourite. If Herod was made a coward from fear of a ghost, Pilate the Roman had no less the fear common among his fellow country-men.

He must yet make another attempt. He would appeal to those deeper things which had made so great an impression on himself, and which, he knew, meant so much more to the Jewish people. He could affect contempt in what he said; he could pretend it was not his concern; yet in his heart he knew it was not all contempt. Jesus ‘the Christ’, ‘the Anointed’—the word clearly had a meaning to the Jew, for the chief priests and elders had flung it at Jesus with exceeding bitterness. Jesus ‘the King of the Jews’—whatever it might signify, he was sure by now that the title was no empty name. The accusers had been enraged because their Victim had claimed these titles for Himself; if they meant nothing, neither could the charge they contained have any meaning. No man could be put to death for claiming a title that meant nothing; no man could rouse against himself such bitter hatred by the mere adoption of a foolish, empty name. He would press these titles home; if the elders and the priests rejected them, nevertheless the people might yet be moved, He would imply that, as judge, not only did he declare Jesus innocent of any crime, but also he believed Him to be what He claimed to be. If still they would have His life, then, in the final judgment of the independent Roman court, it would not only be because Jesus claimed to be ‘Christ the King’, but because He was ‘Christ the King’ in very truth: ‘And Pilate spoke to them again desiring to release Jesus. What will you then that I do with Jesus Who is called Christ the King of the Jews?’

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.' (Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Authorized American Edition published by the Daughters of Saint Paul, pp. 262-268.)

Most sadly, the cry of the Jews, who were, of course, acting in our behalves as the sins of all men from the beginning to the end of time cried out in unison with them for Barabbas, is echoed throughout the world today as Catholics and non-Catholics alike choose in favor of sentimentality and emotionalism rather than for  Christ the King. Indeed, each of us mocks Christ the King when we sin by pride, when we make ourselves the arbiters of moral right and moral wrong, when we think that we do not need the graces that He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to grow in virtue in this life and to persevere at all times in a state of Sanctifying Grace so as to be ready to meet Him as Our Divine Judge after we have died.

The anti-Incarnational world of Modernity has long mocked Christ the King, doing so as early as the hideous Martin Luther himself, whose bloody revolution against the Divine Plan that Our Lord Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church is the proximate source of our social problems today, including the rise of the monster civil state that is the devil's perverse replacement His Social Kingship over men and their nations:

The rending of the Mystical Body by the so-called Reformation movement has resulted in the pendulum swinging from the extreme error of Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism to the opposite extreme error of the Judaeo-Masonic-Communism of Karl Marx.

The uprise of individualism rapidly led to unbridled self-seeking. Law-makers who were arbiters of morality, as heads of the Churches, did not hesitate to favour their own enterprising spirit. The nobles and rich merchants in England, for example, who got possession of the monastery lands, which had maintained the poor, voted the poor laws in order to make the poor a charge on the nation at large. The enclosure of common lands in England and the development of the industrial system are a proof of what private judgment can do when transplanted into the realm of production and distribution. The Lutheran separation of Church from the Ruler and the Citizen shows the decay in the true idea of membership of our Lord's Mystical Body.

"Assuredly," said Luther, "a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion." (As quoted in Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

Modernism embraced Martin Luther's heresy of the separation of Church and State upon which which the modern civil state is founded and which has helped to realize the triumph of Antichrist's tool, Judeo-Masonry, in every aspect of our law and popular culture. Pope Saint Pius X recognized this fact as he gave a frank assessment of the heresies and errors of Modernism in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. [According to the Modernists] The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Conciliarism's embrace of "religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and State" places its adherents on the side of Martin Luther and Judeo-Masory, which in its turn spawned each of the various modern social revolutionaries. Modernism itself is a mocking rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

The twin cornerstones of conciliarism's world view--"religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State"-- were condemned repeatedly on numerous occasions by true pope after true pope prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. This means nothing, of course, to those who have endorsed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's "living tradition" and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned view of dogmatic teaching and past papal pronouncements as being "conditioned" by the historical circumstances that produced them and are thus in need of "modification" and "reinterpretation" as the conditions in which men themselves change over time. This means nothing, of course, to the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose chaotic manner of speaking and acting, which is nothing other than pure emotionalism born of diabolic illogic, has led a German philosopher in the conciliar structures to conclude correctly that Bergoglio is unconcerned about theology and doctrine (see Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

Thus it is that Catholics around the world, including here in the United States of America, believe that there is some kind of naturalistic or inter-denominational or non-denominational way to "solve" social problems that have as their remote root cause Original Sin and as their proximate root causes the Actual Sins of us all. Catholics choose "Barabbas, "whether of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" or of the naturalist "left," to lead them into the "promised land" of national security and economic prosperity at home.

No thought is given to how much naturalism is responsible for the rise of a social structures and a "popular culture" that is oriented to the "here and now" without any regard for man's First Cause and Last End.

No thought is given to the simple fact that our social conditions worsen no matter who gets elected in the biennial and quadrennial farce of partisan politics.

No thought is given to the simple fact that social conditions must continue to worsen and the power of the civil state will continue to grow the more that men sin unrepentantly.

No thought is given to the simple fact that nations whose civil laws enshrine and glorify  the commission of grievous sins under cover of law and whose popular culture glorifies such sins must be punished by God for their wanton violations of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that mock His Sovereignty over the whole of creation, including, yes, believe it or not, the United States of America, the supposed land of the "free" that has engaged in war after war to spread the American way of sin and idolatry around the globe.

As happens during every presidential election cycle, ordinary human beings get caught up in the utter irrationality of campaigns, closing their eyes to harsh realities, especially the hash reality that the each of the Republican Barabbases lining up for a chance to face former First Lady/United States Senator/United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is likely to be the presidential nominee of the organized crime family of the naturalist "left" lnext year. Indeed, some of the the Republican Barabbases are striving to show how "reasonable" they are on the "moral issues" and in not being too "confrontational" with our currently reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, over such matters as his illegal and unconstitutional presidential directive to permit illegal immigrants to avoid deportation while being accorded the full panoply of social services, including direct and indirect access to baby-killing and other “family planning services.” As noted a few weeks ago on this site, it is only when the reigning caesar decides to do anything that is opposed by the Zionist State of Israel that most Republican Barabbases decide to stand on their hind legs and tell caesar that he has gone too far. The laws of God? Even the clear words of the Constitution of the United States of America and the various laws contained within the United States Code that caesar breaks with such impunity? As the saying goes today, “not a problem” for the Republican Barabasses, who serve as his enablers and his hapless foils all at the same time.

Never mind manipulated unemployment statistics.

Never mind the threats to legitimate liberties as the power, size and scope of the Federal government have increased in the past three years.

Never mind the attacks on the Catholic Faith that have been waged by the current administration.

Never mind the bowing and scraping to foreign leaders and the continued surrender of American national sovereignty.

Never mind the refusal to enforce immigration laws and to defend the borders of the United States of America.

Never mind the politics of demagoguery and race-baiting that Caesar Barackus Obamas Ignoramus has waged relentlessly.

Never mind the nearly five billion dollar increase in the size of the national debt and annual budget deficits of over a trillion dollars for Fiscal Year 2012 after a record high $1.4 trillion budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2009 had shattered all previous deficits. Even the current budget deficit of nearly $500 billion adds exponentially to the national debt, which stands now at an astounding $18.1 trillion (for a real time computation of Federal spending, the gross domestic product and, among other statistics, the Federal trade deficit, see U.S. National Debt Clock.

Never mind the worldwide promotion of the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children.

Never mind Attorney General Eric Holder's stonewalling on the Fast and Furious gun-running program, his complicity in the cover-up of Obama/Soetoro's administration use of the Internal Revenue Service to target opponents of the regime's policies and his refusal to examine the lies told to indemnify the administration's ongoing crimes associated with the refusal to defend Americans under fire in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2001, or to tell the truth about what happened to the American public or to committees of the United States Congress.

Never mind Barack Hussein Obama's demonizing of his opponents.

Never mind the usurpation of powers belonging to the Congress of the United States of America that flagrantly violate the Constitution of the United States of America and arrogate unto unelected bureaucrats control over the lives of ordinary citizens.

Never mind the welter of lies told by Obama and his administration's officials and, of course, the Clintons' legendary, pathological use of lies as a standard means of conducting affairs of state and campaigning for public office.

No, never mind any of this.

The "safe path" is said to be the only means to get elected in order rule as "trustworthy" conservatives, and this means accepting "gay marriage" and, at the very least, making it clear that the most "reasonable" way to stradde the "middle" on the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs by boasting of their support for "exceptions" to the inviolability of innocent human or to seek to throw the spotlight on those who support abortion without exception at any stage of a baby's development in his mother's womb, making it appear that a baby's life in the latter stages of pregnancy is somehow more inviolable than that of babies who are only several weeks old.

As has been noted on this site before, careerists in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” long desiring to distance themselves from the supposedly “divisive” “social issues” that they keep blaming for losing one election after another after nominating ciphers who stand for nothing other than what is supported by focus groups and is thus most expedient for their own career success, have latched onto Jorge’s “Who I am to judge?” slogan and his “openness” to “discussing matters of Faith and Morals that are not open for discussion (abortion, contraception, what purports to be Holy Communion for those who are divorced and civilly remarried without even the cover of a conciliar decree of nullity, perversity, “new types of families,” etc.) to jettison those “divisive” issues once and for all.

Case-in-point: the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio), who clearly wants his hapless party, most of whose members are the sycophants of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC--

With the presidential campaign taking shape, Mr. Boehner was asked on Tuesday what role congressional Republicans — at least the ones not yet running for president — can play in improving the party’s White House chances. His response could be boiled down to this: Don’t screw up.

“We have to show people we can govern,” Mr. Boehner said, “and that means finding common ground where we can find it.”

Mr. Boehner said that recent bipartisan accord on Medicare legislation showed that Democrats and Republicans could reach at least occasional agreement in the middle. He was optimistic about measures on cybersecurity, terrorism surveillance and perhaps trade. And to his way of thinking, if the Republican-controlled Congress can have some success, it might just rub off on the presidential nominee. (Boehner Outlines Suggestions for G.O.P. to Retake the White House.)

Mr. Boehner apparently believes that showing people “we can govern” means letting immoral, unjust and unconstitutional acts stand mostly unchallenged as his group of careerists who care only about “electability” hand off such “divisive” matters to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Indeed, men such as John Boehner as hoping that the high court takes the issue of “gay marriage” out of elections altogether by recognizing it as a constitutionally-guaranteed “right,” something that was discussed in part two of this continuing series of articles.

Indeed, Speaker Boehner went to great lengths last year to prove how committed he was to “diversity” and “tolerance” within the Republican Party as he campaigned to raise money for candidates who were avowed practitioners of the sin of Sodom, one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance:

Speaker John Boehner vowed last year that he’d back gay GOP candidates. Now, he’s making good on his word.

The Ohio Republican is heading to California this week, where he’ll raise cash for openly gay Republican candidate Carl DeMaio in defiance of several conservative groups.

Boehner’s trip to the Golden State marks the second leg of his fall tour to expand House Republicans’ 17-seat majority. The GOP’s efforts to broaden the playing field include races in blue states New York, New England and California, and support for gay candidates DeMaio and Massachusetts’s Richard Tisei.

“I’m disappointed but not terribly surprised that some extreme far right groups would rather lose elections than win elections, and have been very destructive for so many years within the Republican Party,” DeMaio said in a phone interview. “I’m glad so many people are finally realizing that and standing up to that, saying we may not agree on all issues but we agree on the vast majority of issues.”

Asked specifically whether Boehner’s help sends an important political message, DeMaio did not mention the Speaker by name: “We welcome all support from wherever it comes from. … We’re all coming together in a broad-based campaign not only to win a seat but send a national message that the Republican Party can be more inclusive and positive.”

Conservative groups including the Family Research Council and National Organization for Marriage fired off a letter last week to Boehner, National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Greg Walden (Ore.) and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) chiding them for backing DeMaio and Tisei, as well as Senate hopeful Monica Wehby (Ore.), who supports gay marriage.

“Carl DeMaio, Richard Tisei and Monica Wehby are antithetical to the Republican platform,” the conservative groups wrote. “Mr. DeMaio supports and aggressively advocates for the redefinition of marriage, and welcomed the judicial activism of the federal courts which stripped the people of California of their votes in support of maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Last December, Boehner shot down calls for the NRCC to abandon gay GOP candidates, arguing the party needed to make better inroads with gays, women and minorities following the party’s poor showing in the 2012 election.

Through his various fundraising committees, Boehner has donated the maximum $14,000 to both DeMaio and Tisei this cycle, records show. The NRCC also is spending big in those races, pouring $2.3 million to help DeMaio in his bid to unseat freshman Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). It’s spending another $1 million to prop up Tisei’s campaign against Democratic nominee Seth Moulton, who ousted Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) in the primary.

“Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation, but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats,” NRCC spokesman Ian Prior said.

DeMaio, 40, a former San Diego City councilor who was defeated by Democrat Bob Filner in the 2012 mayor’s race, hasn’t shied away from his sexual orientation or support for gay marriage: a campaign ad featured him and his partner, Jonathan Hale, holding hands during a San Diego LGBT parade.

The GOP’s 100-page “autopsy report,” published in the wake of the 2012 election, did not endorse gay marriage but urged the party to be more “welcoming and inclusive” of people with different viewpoints to avoid alienating young voters.

Team Boehner isn’t making DeMaio’s sexual orientation the focus of its support.

“Carl DeMaio is a reformer and a champion of fiscal responsibility,” said Cory Fritz, a spokesman for Boehner’s political operation. “He’ll be a strong voice for efficient and accountable government in our House majority.”

Boehner begins his California tour on Monday, headlining a $1,000-per-plate luncheon for former congressman Doug Ose, who’s challenging Democratic Rep. Ami Bera in California's 7th District, just east of Sacramento. Boehner will appear with Ose in Loomis at the home of Theresa and Tom Kandris, who founded a packaging manufacturing company. Lunch plus a photo with the Speaker runs $2,600, while co-hosting the event will set you back $10,000, according to a fundraiser flier.

Later, Boehner will make fundraising stops for two GOP state assemblymen: Jeff Gorrell, a Navy Reserve commander who’s taking on Democratic Rep. Julia Brownley for her seat in coastal Ventura County; and Brian Nestande, a former top aide to then-Reps. Sonny Bono and Mary Bono. Nestande is battling Democratic Rep. Raul Ruiz for his eastern Riverside County-based seat. Then on Saturday, Boehner will headline an event for DeMaio at a private residence in San Diego.

Boehner’s swing through the Golden State, where Democrats control 38 of 53 House seats and both Senate seats, follows his recent sprint through the North East, where he raked in cash for a slew of GOP candidates, including Lee Zeldin, John Katko and Elise Stefanik of New York; Marilinda Garcia and Rep. Frank Guinta of New Hampshire; and Bruce Poliquin of Maine.

Boehner tapped Stefanik, 30, to deliver the weekly GOP address on Saturday.

The Speaker's forays into traditionally Democratic strongholds comes amid a favorable political climate for the GOP. Earlier this year, the NRCC launched its “Drive to 245” campaign, which would be a net gain of 12 seats in the midterms, though party officials have acknowledged that would be a best-case scenario.

“If we are going to get to 245, that road goes through New York, the Northeast and California,” said the NRCC’s Prior. “We’re on offense, they’re on defense.”

But when it comes to gay candidates, DeMaio may be the last, best hope for the GOP, Democrats said. Openly gay Republican Dan Innis didn’t make it out of his primary in New Hampshire. And Tisei has a much harder slog against Moulton, a Marine Corps veteran who doesn’t carry the same political baggage as Tierney, the defeated congressman from the northeastern Massachusetts district.

“Republicans won’t be able to credibly say that they’re an inclusive party until they start embracing equality and stop blocking laws that would prevent discrimination based on who you love,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner said.

Although Boehner hasn’t held a fundraiser for Tisei, his campaign has been pleased that socially conservative groups haven’t driven the Speaker and the NRCC out of the race.

“It’s extremely encouraging to see someone like Richard have the opportunity to present his Republican vision for the country, and that there is a place in the party for people who are pro-marriage equality,” Tisei spokesman Charlie Szold said.

“It’s encouraging that he’s able to be a change agent within the Republican Party, and hopefully within Washington.” (Boehner Rakes In Cash For Open Practitioners of Perversity.)

There is no need for anyone who is “pro-life” and “pro-life” activist within the ranks of the “big tent” to be surprised. Documentation of the sellout of careerist Republicans has been offered hundreds upon hundreds of times on this site, and a Calvinist, Chuck Baldwin, took note in early-2005 of the fact that only a relative handful of writers had dared to point out the simple truth that then President George Walker Bush was a complete “pro-life” fraud from beginning to end, (see Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naive, or Willingly Ignorant?)

The conciliar “archbishop” of Cincinnati, Dennis Schnurr, who was installed as a presbyter for the Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, on July 20, 1974, never once rebuked John Boehner for campaigning for open practitioners of the sin of Sodom.

Of course not.

The American “bishops” have long been “tolerant” of Catholics in public life who support each of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a practice that has merely echoed in North America what Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself made his very own throughout his thirty-six years of presbyteral work in Argentina prior to his “election” on March 13, 2013, as the successor to Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as the universal public face of apostasy.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has, as “Pope Francis,” made this “tolerance” a touchstone of his “Petrine Ministey,” as he boasts of “smelling the scent of the people” and of being “merciful” to those who have been “victimized” by clerics who put “rules” and “doctrine” ahead of the “needs” of the “people.” Jorge’s false faith is one that founded upon accepting what the people do in their own lives as the standard by which they are to welcomed and “loved” just as they are without demanding that they quit their sins as, of course, he believes that it is not possible “to change” the people. They just have to be “loved.” 

Similarly, nothing is going to happen to United States Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), who announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday, April 13, 2015, declaring that he would have no problem attending the "marriage" of a friend or a relative who is a practitioner of the sort of unnatural vice that caused God to rain down fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha:

Although he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio says he would attend a same-sex wedding of a family member or friend to show his support for someone he cares about.

If there's somebody that I love that's in my life, I don't necessarily have to agree with their decisions, or the decisions they've made, to continue to love them and participate in important events," Rubio answered.

The situation would be much like attending the wedding of a person who was previously divorced, which also is prohibited by his Catholic faith, he explained.

"If it's somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would" attend their wedding, Rubio said. "I'm not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they've made or because I disagree with a decision they've made, or whatever it may be."
(Rubio Would Attend "Wedding" of Those Engaged in Acts of Unspeakable Perversity.)

Marco Rubio, who was born on May 28, 1971, and is thus only forty-three years of age until late next month, knows little better than that this as he is a creature of conciliarism's falsehoods, which eminently in no small measure from the sentimentality and emotionalism of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry.  It is arguably the case that United States Senator Marco Rubio has never heard that the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy or the Nine Ways by Which One Can be an Accessory to the Sins of Others. Which "pope" or "bishop" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism has spoken of such truths in the last five decades? Admitting that there might be a conciliar "bishop" who did so now and again, now even the conciliar "pope" who spoke out on moral issues, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II referred to the Spritual Works of Mercy or the ways that Catholics can be accessories to the sins of others.

Catholics believe in the Spiritual Works of Mercy, Senator Rubio. Here is a little review for you:

  1. To counsel the doubtful.
  2. To admonish sinners.
  3. To bear wrongs patiently;
  4. To forgive offences willingly;
  5. To comfort the afflicted;
  6. To instruct the ignorant.
  7. To pray for the living and the dead.

Catholics, Senator Rubio, also believe that there are nine ways that they can be accessories to the sins of others:

  1. 1. By counsel.
  2. 2. By command.
  3. 3. By consent.
  4. 4. By provocation.
  5. 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
  6. 6. By silence.
  7. 7. By connivance.
  8. 8. By partaking.
  9. 9. By defense of the ill done.

Those who attend the "marriages" of people engaged in perversely sinful acts upon which they base their very indentity prove themselves to be enemies of their alleged friends' salvation as no one can enter Heaven by persisting in perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It is the duty of a Catholic to admonish such people with a true love for the salvation of their souls, a love that is an act of the will to seek to effect their conversion out of behavior that makes slave to the devil by means of their disordered and perverted passions. A Catholic who does not exercise the Spiritual Works of Mercy by giving the appearance of praise or flatter of the evil done and by remaining silent about that evil so as not to "offend" others is no friend to anyone, including to his own immoral soul.

The nature of marriage as a union between a man and woman to procreate and educate as many children as God sees fit to send to them does not depend upon personal beliefs as it is a matter of God's law rooted in the very nature of things. Rubio has no understanding of this because conciliarism is by its very false nature uncharitable by making an utter mockery of the authentic, immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, teaching the world that it is somehow opposed to tenderness and mercy to follow these words that Saint Paul wrote in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

A physician does not "judge" anyone if he warns him what might happen if he does not stop engaging in a certain course of behavior that is deleterious to his bodily health.

Similarly, one who warns another about the state of his soul as he persists in a life of unrepentant sin is simply performing a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy, and those who are inclined to and/or steeped in perverse sins against nature are not to be left without being remonstrated as this is a duty of a Catholic before God and to the eternal and temporal good of the sinner.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Moreover, "the tendency" to the commission of the sin of Sodom is indeed disordered and indicative of grave problems.


Because it is against nature itself. It is a rebellion against the very purposes for which God has created men and women. No one is to be "accepted" for being "gay" as God does not make "gay people." To be attracted in a sinful manner to others of the same gender is a disorder that is learned. It is acquired. It is not inherent in the nature of man. It is that simple. It is exponentially worse to say that those who are engaged in such perverse sins have “elements of true love” for those with whom they are sinning.

Then again, poor Marco Rubio, though he considers himself a Catholic, albeit one attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, has never disavowed his "baptism" in the "Church of Latter Day Saints," a "baptism" that even then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger said on June 5, 2001, was invalid when he was the prefect of his false church's misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (see Response on the validity of baptism conferred by Mormons.) This has prompted The Washington Post to state that Rubio could be both the first Mormon president and the second Catholic president at the same time. Ah, the joys of Americanism and ecumenism:

Three years after Mitt Romney tried and failed, Marco Rubio could become our first Mormon president — at least, if you want to get really technical about it.

No, Rubio doesn't consider himself Mormon anymore, but he was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when his family lived in Las Vegas and he was 8 years old. The church considers people to be members if they have been baptized, regardless of how active they are, unless they formally ask for their name to be removed from church records. Church spokesman Eric Hawkins told the Fix they "are deferring to Sen. Rubio to respond to questions about his faith." The Rubio campaign did not respond to a question from The Fix about whether Rubio has done this, but as of a 2012 BuzzFeed story about Rubio's time as a Mormon, he had not.

The Post's Manuel Roig Franzia also wrote about this in his 2012 book about Rubio, "The Rise of Marco Rubio":

And the Mormon faith may have retained a kind of technical hold on them regardless of their conversion: Rubio and his family members never asked for their names to be removed from LDS rolls, meaning they may still be counted as Mormons by the church.

Rubio wrote in his 2013 book, "An American Son," that he studied church literature and "immersed" himself in LDS theology when he was young. During a 2012 interview with ABC News, he said that he and his sister and cousins had their own version of the Osmonds, called "the Sunshine Cousins."

His family began attending the Catholic Church when he was in sixth grade, and he today considers himself Catholic. So if Rubio wins, he would not only be the first Mormon president (with that important asterisk), but the second Catholic president (after JFK) and first Republican Catholic president.

Then-Michigan Gov. George Romney (R) was the first Mormon to run for president for a major party in 1968, and in 2012 his son, Mitt, became the first to win a major party nomination. Other Mormons who have run for president include then-Rep. Mo Udall (D-Ariz.) in 1974, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in 2000, and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. (R-Utah) in 2012. (Marco Rubio could be our first Mormon president, kind of. Washington Post writer Hunter Schwarz, however, misstated the year that Representative Morris K. Udall ran for president (it was 1976, not 1974, which was when midterm Congressional elections were held less than three months after the resignation of President Richard Milhous Nixon became effective at noon, Eastern Daylight Saving Time, on August 9, 1974.)

Even former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), who is contemplating running for the Republican presidential nomination this time even though there is no demand among his "base" of support that he do so and no clear path for him to win the nomination, demonstrated the degree to which he is influenced by the sappy sentimentality of Modernity and Modernism by claiming that he could not go to a so-called "gay wedding" even though he would "support" them without defining what kind of "support" he meant to give to unrepentant public sinners:

Sen. Marco Rubio may be willing to attend a same-sex marriage, but former Sen. Rick Santorum says that's something he would not do.

"I would love and support them, but I would not participate in that ceremony," Santorum, a staunch Catholic, told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Thursday, noting that attending such a wedding would go against his religious beliefs.

Santorum, the runner-up for the 2012 GOP nomination, made his comments in response to statements made by Florida Republican Rubio, who said that although he opposes same-sex marriage, he'd still attend a ceremony.

"If it's somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would," Rubio, who announced his candidacy for the White House earlier this week, said Wednesday. "Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them."

Rubio, also a Catholic, said the situation would be much like attending a wedding for a person who was previously divorced, a situation also prohibited by his faith.

Earlier this week, Rubio said that he has never supported a national constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, reports MSNBC, even though he opposes such unions and prefers letting states make the decision on the issue.

Santorum is mulling another run in 2016 but has not officially announced his campaign, but still told Hewitt that he believes that he or any other potential nominee should hold groups like the Islamic State responsible and accountable for their actions against homosexuals.

"If I were to run for president and get elected, that's what I would do," Santorum said.
(Santorum Tweaks Rubio: I Would Not Attend a Gay Wedding.)

Santorum even misses the point that the faithful, believing Mohammedans of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) who are intent on killing any Christian, Catholic or Orthodox, they can get their bloody hands on while desecrating the tombs of their ancestors and desecrating and destroying their churches and shrines also take the sin of Sodom rather seriously, considering it be hideous and in need of immediate punishment without any chance of repentance or seeking a conversion of their souls. Santorum, ever the ecumenist, believes that the murderous rampages of ISIS are aberrant and not what they are, namely, faithful acts of complete obedience to the doctrines and praxis of Mohammed himself (Mohammed,  the First Radical Muslim).

Santorum believes that there is such a thing as "radical Islam." There is not. This false religion, far from being a "religion of peace," as was claimed by former President George Walker Bush and his successor, current President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, has been a religion of violence and bloodsheed from its very inception at the beginning of the Seventh Century. Santorum just had to use the straw man of ISIS's barbarous killing of others, including homosexuals, to prove that he, too, "cares" for those engaged in perversity even though he does not approve their behavior and could not go to one of their "wedding" ceremonies. Such "caring" is gratutious and shows how even a "pro-family" Republican must "show" his concern for a group that demands nothing less than total acceptance, and is getting it from almost every politician in the world, whether that person be of the false opposite of the "naturalist" right or that of the "left."

If people are willing to scratch below the surface and avoid superficial conclusions about events in a world that has been thrown upside down by the mutually reinforcing errors of Modernity and Modernism, they would find that the naturalists of the "left" have taken true concepts and inverted them for their own nefarious purposes.

That is, most of the naturalists of the "left" believe that their ideology must be accepted without question. Those who serve as administrators of universities and colleges or as judges or as legislators or as elected executives or political appointees (such as the approximately 3700 people who serve in a president's Cabinet or in the White House) or career bureaucrats (civil servants) believe that in their policies dogmatically. Most of these naturalists believe that "the government" is true secular "church," outside of which no one is free to govern his own life. They believe that those who dissent from their political dogmas are, in essence, "heretics," if you will, who must be burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Most of these people believe that the citizens are indeed the "mere creatures of the state" who must obey them, who have been given the necessity tools to order social and economic life to achieve what they consider to be "justice."

Although it is considered incendiary to call such people Marxists, this is indeed what they all. They admire the likes of Fidel Castro in Communist Cuba and the late Hugo Chavez's authoritarian regime in Venezuela. Some of them were open admirers of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the El Salvadoran rebels during the 1980s. (The Sandinistas are, of course, back in power in Nicaragua, having won at polls on November 5, 2006, what they lost there on February 25, 1990, after ten and one-half years of brutal, murderous Communist rule in this central American country. Ah, yes, the voice of the "people."

Our "leftists" believe in all of the shibboleths of egalitarianism, except, of course, that they believe themselves to be more "equal" than anyone else, and feminism and environmentalism and evolutionism and redistributionism. They believe that they have the right to dictate to the citizens how much of their money they can keep, what they can do with it, what they should eat, at what temperatures they may heat or cool their houses. Some would like to control how much gasoline that the "people" could purchase in a given money to "save" the environment.

Such people are not prone to compromise. They believe in their false dogmas with religious fervor. Some of them truly hate anyone who dares to disagree with them,  whether that disagreement stem from an objective presentation of facts on the merely natural level attesting to their lies and misrepresentations or from those who user deeper, supernatural arguments to demonstrate that they, the leftists, are enemies of Christ the King and thus of all legitimate social order. The naturalists of the false opposite of the "left" will cling tenaciously, yes, even to the point of their political deaths, to whatever policy gains they have achieved by their fraudulent assertions and/or the use of raw political power.

Yes, the "left" is committed to statism.

The "left" is committed to surgical abortion-on-demand without any restrictions whatsoever.

The "right," on the other hand, chooses Barabbas every day, committed as they are to one thing: getting elected for the sake of getting elected.


The most pressing moral issue of our day, the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, has disappeared from the agenda of the "right" because the "people" are concerned about King Money.

Republican careerists are concerned only about the "money," oblivious to the fact that that God is never going to allow a nation that kills over four thousand innocent babies a day by surgical means, not even counting the thousands more who are killed by means of chemical abortifacients, under cover of the civil law and which promotes and protects the sin of Sodom to know long term economic prosperity. 

Most of these Republican careerists on the national level do not abtion abortion whatsoever when campaigning for office. Indeed, some, like the aforementioned Marco Rubio, the Catholic-turned Mormon-turned Catholic, would not even address the issue five years ago when debating his chief opponent, the slimy chameleon known by the name of Charlie Christ.

When, my few and once again vanishing readers, when are we going to learn? Republicans have repeatedly backed off of the single most important moral issue of the day in order to themselves more "marketable" in the eyes of the "moderates" who are concerned about "King Money," "Queen Money," "Prince Money, "Princess Money," and just plain "Citizen Money." No country is great if it is reduced merely to the level of being concerned about material prosperity. Orestes Brownson pointed this out in "National Greatness" in 1845. So did Pope Leo XIII, writing in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:

Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

We have lost all sense of what Silvio Cardinal Antoniano wrote in the Sixteenth Century?

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.)

Although the proximate antecedent roots to the chastisement that faces us today date back to certain elements of the Renaissance and, as mentioned earlier, the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and triumph of naturalism, the rapid promotion of evil under cover of the civil law has occurred in the past fifty years in no small measure as a result of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the principles of Modernity and as a result of its sacramentally barren liturgical rites that have predisposed so many millions of Catholics to embrace the "secular magisterium" of the world and to scoff at any residue of Catholic teaching that remains in that conciliar church.

Men, whether acting individually or collectively, deceive themselves if they think that they can make the world a "better" place absent a profound devotion to Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady told us in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, ninety-three years ago that we must pray the Rosary to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins as we pray for the conversion of poor sinners and for the faithful fulfillment of her Fatima Message. This is a work of the mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Who is giving us every chance to repent and convert. Why do men still persist in their obstinate refusal to take Our Lady's Fatima Message seriously and to organize Rosary processions and rallies to counter the naturalism of the day and to serve as valiant champions of Christ the King?

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

Let us not choose Barabbas, whether in our own lives or by being deceived by the secular saviours of the moment.

Let us choose always for Christ the King and for Our Lady, our Immaculate Queen with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to Our King's Sacred Heart through His Queen's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

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.