Dianne Feinstein Leads A New Inquisition, Aided by Richard Joseph Durbin

Here we go again.

Another one of President Donald John Trump’s judicial nominees has come under fire from a Jewish member of Congress, United States Senator Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein Blum (D-People’s Republic of California), on religious grounds.

Feinstein, who is an egregiously militant supporter of baby-killing and sodomy, has a long history of Catholic-baiting, and every single bit of it is about abortion as this horrible human being, who was the Mayor of the City of San Francisco, California, between December 4, 1978, and January 8, 1998, has no problems with Catholics who support abortion and sodomy. Her problem is with Catholics who take the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law seriously, which she believes represents a threat to the “bedrock” principle of woman’s “right to choose” to kill her preborn child that was established in the completely unjust, immoral and unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973.

After all, of course, Senator Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein Blum just loves pro-abortion Catholics such as Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois). Indeed, they joined in a tag team effort of bashing Mrs. Amy Coney Barrett, when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 6, 2017, as part of the confirmation proceedings for her to serve on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (jurisdiction in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana), which is based in Chicago Illinois. Dianne Emiel Goldman Feinstein Blum and Richard Joseph Durbin forced Mrs. Barrett, who is a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana, to under an inquisition, if you will, to determine if she was the sort of the Catholic—much like Durbin, you understand—who would not pose a “threat” to what is considered to be “constitutional liberties.” They were joined in their efforts by another inquisitor, a self-proclaimed “non-practicing Buddhist,” United States Senate Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii):

The religious convictions of one of President Donald Trump’s appeals court nominees featured prominently during a Wednesday confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The two nominees evaluated during the hearing, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen and Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, are nominees to federal appeals courts based in Cincinnati, Ohio and Chicago, Ill. Barrett is a Roman Catholic who has previously written about faith in public life and spoken to Christian legal groups in her capacity as an academic.

A coalition of leftwing groups, including the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), allege that Barrett has advocated prioritizing religious views over established case law when the two conflict in her professional publications.

“Stunningly, Barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the Constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs,” AFJ claims. Legal academics have strongly disputed this characterization of her position.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel, signaled sympathy with those concerns, and referenced a law review article that Barrett wrote in 1998 entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which appeared in the Marquette Law Review. Barrett concluded that a Catholic trial judge who is a conscientious objector to the death penalty should recuse himself if asked to enter an order of execution against a convict.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Barrett emphasized that the set of circumstances considered in the article were narrow, and that she participated in death penalty cases as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, but Feinstein remained unpersuaded.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said of Barrett’s writings regarding the professional obligations of Catholic practitioners. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

“It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions, whether it derives from faith or personal conviction,” Barrett said in response to those objections.

She added that she wrote the article 20 years ago as a third year law student in conjunction with a professor, and that she was the junior partner in the project.

Other Democrats were equally forthright in their questioning.

“Ms. Barrett, I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges,” said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who shared Feinstein’s concerns.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois took issue with Barrett’s use of the term “orthodox Catholics” as it appears in her article, to the extent that it brands Catholics who do not hold certain positions on capital punishment or abortion as heretical.

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Durbin asked.

“If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge,” Barrett replied.

Durbin said that some individuals who embrace the term have criticized Pope Francis for alleged deviations from Catholic orthodoxy, prompting Barrett to express her admiration for the pontiff. (http://dailyNominee's Religious Faith Dominates Senate Judicial Confirmation Hearing.)

There are a number of salient points that I want to make, and I will do them as concisely as possible.

First, as noted four months ago when a Protestant, Russell Vought, was questioned by the atheistic United State Senator Bernard John Sanders (D-People’s Liberation State of Vermont), about his support for Wheaton College’s suspension of a professor who said that Mohammedans have a “relationship with God,” which, of course, they do not, adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” feel perfectly comfortable with ignoring the plain words of the “no religious test” clause of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America. That clause reads as follows:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 

Defenders of all things American contend that the "no religious test" clause permits Catholics, who had been disenfranchised in the United Kingdom and Ireland, to hold public office. Isn't that nice? What the "no religious test" clause of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States permits also is for atheists and deists and Freemasons and Mohammedans and Wiccans or anyone else to hold public office and thus to seek to use the civil laws as the means to enshrine their false beliefs. Once again, there is no rational, coherent basis to oppose the advances made by baby-killers and perverts when a civil government admits that there is no Divinely-instituted authority to which it must submit itself when the good of souls demands such submission. Everything contained in the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law becomes negotiable. Everything. And given the fact that the devil never rests, those who seek to defend society in a non-denominational or even secular manner against various objective evils begin to look upon "compromise" as a sign of progress, thereby institutionalizing evil more and more by means of civil law and in the nooks and crannies of popular culture, a point made very tellingly by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888:

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

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

This is not a matter of ethereal speculation having nothing to with the real lives of human beings. Not at all. The heresy of religious liberty, which is at the heart of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, devastates souls. The belief that those who belong to false religions have a "civil right" to propagate themselves and that their false beliefs can contribute to the betterment of society make it impossible to exclude those false religions from making their presence felt everywhere in society, especially in "educational" institutions, where the tender souls of the young become ready prey to false ideas that are propagandized by charismatic professors. This is true in the United States of America and elsewhere in the allegedly "free" world of "democratic republics.

Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and Hirono believe that the “no religious test” clause should forbid anyone who professes a religious belief from holding public office, especially when one holds even to a semblance of recognizable Catholicism. They are hypocrites of the highest order as they would never countenance a Catholic senator question a Jew or a Mohammedan about his ability to serve in a public office because of his commitment to either of these false religions that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (Feinstein's office put out a "clarification" on the religious test clause that was sent to the National Review after she began to take heat for her blatant anti-Catholicism: Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein Blum Attacks Amy Coney Barrett.)

Second, admitting that Richard Joseph Durbin is simply an apostate who has lived long enough to see a “pope” who shares his own socialist beliefs concerning how to create the “better” world and to “save the planet” while ignoring the plight of the innocent preborn, Senators Feinstein and Hirono prove yet again the truth of the following citations about the deeply-ingrained bias that is anti-Catholicism:

"It has been many years since the poet and essayist Peter Viereck called anti-Catholicism 'the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.'" Peter Steinfels, Catholic 'Power' a Concern for Some, MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL STAR TRIBUNE, July 5, 1997, at 8B. Viereck's actual words were that "Catholic-baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals." PETER VIERECK, SHAME AND GLORY OF THE INTELLECTUALS 45 (1953). While Viereck's words are misquoted regularly, the spirit of what he said remains true. See Joseph Gallagher, Slouching Toward Baltimore: Pope's Visit and Thoughts on the End, SUN (Baltimore), Sept. 10, 1995, at 7J ("In our own century, the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. spoke of anti-Catholicism as the deepest ingrained prejudice in American culture. And the scholar Peter Viereck described anti-Catholicism as 'the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.' ") (See Footnote 637, St. John's Law Review. Many articles on this site have documented actual instances of anti-Catholicism in the United States of America in the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.)

Third, as is the case with the Christophobic Southern Poverty Law Center, which, if you will recall, has deemed me to be the leader of a “hate group,” Dianne Emiel Goldman Feinstein Blum, who is eighty-four years of age (these people in the Senate can never give up their power, can they?), believes that the only “safe” Catholic is one who dissents from the Sacred Deposit of Faith, especially as it relates to the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments. A person who is “faithful” is said to be a “threat” to the American “way” that is in large measure responsible for the increase of violent attacks upon us all at this time (see Victims of a World Shaped By One Lie After Another).

Fourth, Richard Joseph Durbin’s problem with Amy Coney Barrett is that she stands as a rebuke to his own Catholic conscience. Durbin, who will turn seventy-three years of age on November 21, 2017, the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, must seek to harass one who, despite being part of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is not seen as a “safe” Catholic as he has sold his soul to the devil years ago to curry favor with pro-abortion voters.

In doing so, of course, Richard Joseph Durbin stands condemned by the following words of Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

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

You will have to Christ the King for betraying the innocent preborn to death at the hands of doctors and others, Senator Durbin, as God is indeed the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. You know better, Senator Durbin. You graduated from Assumption High School in 1962. Then again, perhaps you learned your moral relativism while at Georgetown Univeristy and its Law Center between 1962 and 1969.

You were taught the Catholic Faith better, Senator Durbin, before you were corrupted by the teaching at Georgetown University and by the bad example of others Catholics in public life who have been able to maintain their own "good standing" in the conciliar structures despite supporting grave moral evils under cover of the civil law. I will also append, as I have in other articles, citations that prove you and your fellow Esaus stand against all of the witness of Catholic truth and even against that of many pagans who only had access to the Natural Law.

Sixth, even though Mrs. Amy Coney Barrett came under unjust attack for her Catholic Faith, she is, after all, a product of the conciliar church, having been born in 1972. As such, therefore, her belief that she would not use her faith or personal convictions on the bench or in public life is very similar to the false view held by Durbin and other pro-abortion Catholics in public life assert that they “cannot impose” their beliefs upon others. (Obviously, Durbin and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi and Andrew Mark Cuomo and Kirsten Gillebrand and Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, et al., feel perfectly free to impose their own false beliefs upon others when it suits their purpose to do so.

Pope Leo XIII dealt with the false canard of being unable to use one’s religious convictions in public life as follows in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Moreover, Pope Saint Pius X reminded Catholics that they can never just "put aside" their Holy Faith to think, speak or act as naturalists:

3. These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. (Pope Saint Pius X, Singulari Quadam, September 24, 1912.)

There is never a time, no matter the urgency, that requires anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic alike, to set aside a commitment to what they know to be the objectively true moral order to pretend that he can be indifferent about the truth in order to yield to, no less to enforce, "settled law" in violation of the truth.

Alas, it is one of the sad legacies of the Americanist heresy, which is one of the fundamental building blocks of the conciliar view of Church and State, is the ready acceptance of the "separation of Church and State" that has long been used as the means to convince Catholics to set their "personal beliefs" aside in order to pursue the common temporal good without unnecessarily "dividing" those of "good will" who support grave moral evils and want them enshrined in public law and promoted in the popular culture. The twin, inter-related Americanist heresies of "separation of Church and State" and "religious liberty," however, have been responsible for producing generation after generation of Catholics who view the Church through the filters of "democracy" and "egalitarianism" and "majoritarianism" rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith.

Pope Leo XIII explained to the American bishops in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, that the Church in the United States of America had grown because of the the grace of God, not because of "separation of Church and State." Indeed, Pope Leo XIII said that the Church int his country would grow more rapidly and would be able to influence the course of public affairs better if it enjoyed the favor and the protecion of the laws.

After praising what he could of the natural virtues of George Washington and of a constitution that was understood at the time to permit Catholics the “freedom” to practice their Faith without state hindrance, Pope Leo XIII reminded the American bishops that the growth of the Faith in the United States of America was not the result of the country’s constitutional structures but of the very fecundity of God’s graces, which could produce even more abundant fruits if the Catholic Church was accorded the favor and protection of the civil state:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

As has been examined this site endlessly, the conciliar revolutionaries, following the example of the American bishops of yore, most of whom ignored the Catholic truth of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letters, continue to draw what His Holiness called the erroneous “conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.”

Seventh, it is in this regard, therefore, that Amy Coney Barrett shares common ground with Richard Joseph Durbin as both believe, albeit for different reasons (Mrs. Barrett’s Scalia-like “respect” for the words of the Constitution that admit of no higher authority for their interpretation; Durbin’s desire to keep baby-killing “safe and legal” and to provide special “rights” for those who commit the sin of Sodom and practice its related vices unrepentantly), that they cannot use their religious faith or personal conviction in public life. Americanism produces all manner of ironies, and this is one of them.

Finally, Pope Leo XIII, writing in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, explained that Catholics have a positive duty to seek overturn laws that are unjust and thus pose a danger to souls and to the good of the state itself:

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Let's face facts: Democrats are more consistent and more doggedly determined in their unequivocal, unrestricted support for the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs and in their equally determined and uncompromising support for the agenda of the homosexual collective than most Republicans have ever been by conditionally opposing moral evils. Republicans, for example, have never demanded that their presidents choose only those individuals for key positions in their administrations to be pro-life and pro-family.

No, the Republicans have always bent over backwards to do everything possible to demonstrate that they are "open" to "diversity" within their ranks in order to have a "big tent" on those things on which men of "good will" can disagree. The Democrats thus have more raw political courage in their support for moral evils, thus placing “conservative” nominees on the on the defensive by having to state that it is forbidden to do in public life what is God’s Holy Will for them: to defend the truths of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law without any qualm, hesitation, reservation or compromise.

While Mrs. Barrett, who, by the way, is wrong about the death penalty, which is a Natural Law right of the civil state to impose upon heinous malefactors after the administration of due process of the law, did an admirable job of parrying with her pro-abortion inquisitors, her belief that she must put aside her “private” beliefs is simply wrong. She must conform her public actions with what is objectively true. Period.

Mind you, I do give President Trump great credit for nominating candidates such as Mrs. Barrett to the Federal bench.

The point that I am making here is that the rotten fruit of Americanism and of conciliarism has been such that that even well-meaning, pro-life Catholics have been convinced that they cannot use their Faith in public life despite their own unquestioned desire to please God at all times. 

There is more to say about Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein Blum’s pro-abortion record. However, that will have to wait until another day, at which time I will also reprise my commentary, written ten years ago, on Governor Alfred Emanuel Smith’s ghostwritten effort ninety years ago to refute a Protestant attorney, Charles Marshall, about the binding nature of Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, on Catholics in the United States of America. Marshall understood that Quas Primas did bind Catholics. Smith believed in no such thing. This proves yet again that the “spirit of Vatican II” was incubated in large part, although certainly not exclusively, right here in the religious indifferentist United States of America.

Today is the Feast of Saint Bruno, whose holy life teaches us about the virtue of silence in the pursuit of Heavenly joys:

Bruno, the Founder of the Charterhouse Monks, was born at Cologne, (about the year of our Lord 1030.) From his earliest years he was a very grave child, turning away from childish things, and that so manifestly, that by the grace of God the tokens of holiness already pointed him out as a Father of monks, and a restorer of the life of hermits. His parents, who were eminent for rank and goodness, sent him to Paris, where he studied so well in Philosophy and Theology, that he took the degree of Doctor in both faculties; and a short while after, for his famous graces, he was made a Canon of Rheims.

After some years, he, and six comrades, forsook the world and betook themselves to Hew, the holy Bishop of Grenoble, who, when he learned the reason of their coming, and believing them to have been figured by seven stars which he had seen that night in a dream falling at his feet, gave them a grant of land in some very wild mountains in his Dioecese, which are called the Chartreuses. Thither Bruno and his companions, together with Hew, withdrew themselves, (in the year 1084,) and led for some years the life of hermits. Pope Urban II., who had formerly been his disciple at Rheims, commanded him to come to Rome, in 1089, and amid the afflictions which then scourged the Church, held him for some time as his counsellor. But at last Bruno, who had refused the Archbishoprick of Reggio, got his leave to go away.

In his love of the wilderness, he betook himself to a certain desert place in the Diocese of Squillaci, in the uttermost coasts of Calabria, (whither he went in 1090.) He was praying there one day in a cave, when the hounds of Roger, Sovereign Earl of Sicily and Calabria, who was out a-hunting, came and bayed at the door of it. Thus was he found by this Prince, who was moved by his holiness, and began to cherish him and his comrades, and treat them very kindly. The Earl's goodness was rewarded, for when he was one time laying siege to Capua, and one Sergius, who was first groom of his bedchamber, had made a plot to betray him, Bruno, who was still living in the desert above mentioned, appeared to him in a dream, and delivered him from the danger which was hanging over him. At length Bruno, full of graces and good works, and famous for godliness not less than for learning, fell asleep in the Lord, (upon the 6th day of October, in the year 1101,) and was buried in the monastery of St Stephen, founded by the same Earl Roger, where he is still held in great honour. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Bruno.)

We must redouble our own efforts in prayer, sacrifice, penance, fasting and, mortification to plant the seeds as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for the restoration of Christendom, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit in reparation for our many sins, each of which has wounded Our Lord once in time and wounds His Church Militant on earth today, and those of the whole world:

Francisco Marto spent long hours in church to console the "good God." So must we:

With his sister Jacinta and his cousin Lucia, he had been blessed with three appearances by an Angel, and six by Our Lady.

At his third appearance, the Angel said to these three young shepherd children: "Console your God". These words impressed Francisco very deeply, and guided his whole life. He wanted to be the "Consoler of Jesus". He felt most hurt when he saw Jesus offended, and his ideal was to give Him consolation. He wanted to avoid sin, and others to avoid it, to save his Saviour sadness. He made very sacrifice he could to give consolation to Jesus. To do this he would stay along for long hours in church, or hide himself in some lonely place. Shortly before he died, he said "In haven I'm going to console Our Lord and Our Lady very much." (Holy Card of Francisco Marto.) 

Anyone who thinks that he is "consoling" Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while he remains "neutral" about or supportive of any of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is deceiving himself quite possibly to the point of his own eternal perdition, Such a person is in need of our prayers, to be sure. However, such a person is a proximate source of social chaos, not an instrument of justice founded in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Sloganeering and sentimentality do not secure one's salvation. Indeed, they are instruments of the devil to lead sloganeers and sentimentalists into Hell as they take many others with them.

Pray very hard for the conversions of apostate Catholics such as Richard Joseph Durbin and for non-Catholics such as Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein Blum and Mazie Hirono. Pray also for Amy Coney Barrett and her husband to come to reject the conciliar church and to study the authentic Social Teaching of the Catholic Church.

Conscious of making reparation for our own sins, which, although forgiven and thus no longer exist, are in need of our making satisfaction here in this passing, mortal vale of tears before we die, may our Rosaries each day help lift the scales from the likes of the confused Catholics and non-Catholics in public life, thereby hastening their return or conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true or lasting social order.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Bruno, pray for us.

Appendix

The Catholic Church's Consistent Opposition to Abortion

(Citations found on the Priests for Life website and included in my own Fact and Fiction)

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

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

On therapeutic abortion:

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

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

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

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

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

[Thomas A. Droleskey interjection at this point: One can see in this previous quote, which comes from Saint Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, the same language that many, including yours truly, have used for decades now to describe abortion as attack mystically upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn child. I digress. Back to the sources quoted on the Priests for Life website:]

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

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

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

To Anfilochius, Bishop of Iconia:

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

Canon II.

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

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

That the unborn child is alive:

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

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

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

Council of Elvira (c. 305)

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

Council of Ancyra (314)

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

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

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

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

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

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

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

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

Juvenal (c.57/67-127)

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