Fallen Men Will Choose to be Willing Servants of Evil Absent the Social Reign of Christ the King

The entirety of the work that I have done on this website for the past eighteen years, nine months and, quite indeed, of my thirty-plus year college teaching career that coexisted with my career as a writer for various Catholic publications has been devoted to emphasizing the simple fact that there is no secular, religiously indifferentist, ecumenical, constitutional, political, legal, or ideological means to retard the advance of evil in the world. Even so many fully believing Catholics have refused to accept this fact that I have found myself at wit’s end to know how to say anything more than I have so many hundreds upon hundreds of times previously.

As I have noted, Catholics continue to believe in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy even though the scions of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” continue to betray the cause of both natural and supernatural truth while serving as agents of evil in the service of the adversary, who uses naturalist sentimentality to advance and then institutionalize moral evils, many of which are no longer opposed by large numbers of people on the natural level. The long-held and much defended “lesser of the two evils” doctrine has done everything to embolden the adversary, who scoffs and mocks at the people who try to use his own naturalistic tools to fight evils that can be retarded only by supernatural means.

Most of this site’s readers are probably aware of the fact that a dozen hapless agents of evil in the Republican Party, led in this instance by the follower of a false religion, the so-called “Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints,” Willard Mitt Romney, voted on November 16, 2022, the Feast of Saint Gertrude the Great, to advance debate on a bill to codify the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, the Feast of Saints John and Paul, and it was just yesterday, Monday, November 28, 2022, the non-universal Feast of Saint Catherine Laboure, that the same dirty dozen voted to advance the diabolically misnamed “Respect for Marriage Act” once again, which means it will be on the way to Chief Grifter Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s., desk to be signed into law later this week:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – Democrats’ bill to codify same-sex “marriage” passed another procedural vote in the Senate on Monday, backed by a handful Republicans who continue to side against the party’s base.

The Senate voted 61-35 to end debate on an amendment to the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) ostensibly meant to address religious freedom concerns, the Hill reported.

But the amendment, drafted by a coalition of Democrat and liberal Republican senators, has faced widespread, scathing criticism from conservatives for failing to include meaningful protections for organizations that oppose same-sex “marriage.”

Monday’s vote paves the way for a final vote in the Senate, which is scheduled for tomorrow.

The RFMA would make the redefinition of marriage the law of the land, even in the event that the Supreme Court overturns its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that mandates legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which federally recognized marriage as a union between one man and one woman and the guaranteed the right of states to uphold traditional marriage, and instead would require the federal government and all 50 states to recognize homosexual “marriages” and any other marriages lawfully performed in any state.

It also poses grave threats to religious freedom, as numerous social conservative and religious liberty groups have repeatedly warned.

The Senate will vote tomorrow on amendments offered by Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, James Lankford of Oklahoma, and Marco Rubio of Utah designed to blunt the bill’s impact on religious freedom.

The Lankford and Rubio Amendments each require a majority vote. The Lee Amendment, the most comprehensive of the three, requires 60 votes, effectively dooming its passage in the evenly-divided Senate.

12 Republicans again join Democrats to betray marriage

As LifeSiteNews reported, the Senate voted two weeks ago to begin formal debate on the RFMA, with 12 Republicans joining all Democrats to clear the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Those Republicans include: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Rob Portman of Ohio, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana.

The same 12 Republicans joined Democrats on Monday to advance the bill once again.

So far two Republican senators who voted to move forward on the RFMA – Sens. Sullivan and Lummis – have announced their support of the Lee Amendment.

The House already passed the bill in July with an unexpected 47 Republican votes and the blessing of Republican House leaders, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. It would have to pass the House again after being amended in the Senate.

The White House has enthusiastically endorsed the RFMA, which would be Joe Biden’s first major legislative victory on LGBT issues.

Polling has consistently shown broad disapproval of the legislation among Republican voters, however.

A recent Heritage Foundation survey of likely voters in Indiana, Iowa, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming found that 47 percent oppose the RFMA and just 41 percent support it.

Seventy percent of GOP voters in the five states oppose the bill, according to the poll. (UPDATED: Democrats' same-sex 'marriage' bill advances again in the Senate.)

I do not care about public opinion polls.

I do not care about how many Republican voters are opposed to this or that evil.

I care about the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

I care about the civil state’s pursuing the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

I care about the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law over men in all circumstances, whether acting individually on their own or in concert with others in civil institutions of government.

I care about the fact that mere mortals, who did not create themselves and whose bodies are one day destined for the corruption of the grave, have any moral authority to vitiate those binding precepts as they seek to equate degrading practices with the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.

I care about the following words found in the Book of Genesis:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30.)

I care about the fact about the following words of Sacred Scripture that condemn in uncertain terms what is being codified by the United States Senate:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

The modern civil state, including the United States of America, is the product of Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry, a situation that leaves men who know better helpless in the face of the “Who are you to tell me what to do?” canard that furthers the descent of men and their societies in the depths of the abyss. The religiously indifferentist state must become an instrument of evil as it is powerless to stop its advance, and it is also powerless to stop the rise of the totalitarianism that is upon us even as most people are distracted by their bread and circuses.

Protestantism was founded on the pursuit of lust and divorce.

Judeo-Masonry has sought to break down the family with the liberalization of divorce laws and thus the stability of families, something that Pope Leo XIII noted in Arcanum, February 10, 1890.

Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages which had been sanctioned by imperial law.

Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship, certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada, Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire. Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also, hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."

Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon -- the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

It is worth highlighting the text in bold above to illustrate just how prophetic Pope Leo XIII’s words were one hundred thirty-two years ago as there is no human means to retard the advance of outright bigamy, polygamy, pederasty and even bestiality. How long will it be until someone claims to have the “right” to “marry” an animal or even a robot? Not long. Not long at all. Thus, I ask of you to re-read the following passage and to consider that there is no legal, constitutional, political, cultural, educational, secular, humanistic, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist or interdenominational way to stop the spread of any evil, especially those evils associate with man’s lower passions that become so easily ingrained and so hard to break:

There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

In like manner, of course, divorce led to contraception, which led to a rise in adultery, divorce, civil remarriages, broken families, the feminization of poverty, the rise of the welfare state and its agenda of alienating children from their parents. Contraception also led to the surgical execution of children in the womb, which has made the killing of anyone after birth by means of “brain death” and “palliative care” legal, accessible and a daily occurrence in American life.

Pope Pius XI explained how the rise of divorce and contraception had led to the call for “new species of unions” contrary to the laws of God and thus to the good of men and their societies:

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.  

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions ninety years ago as “hateful abominations.” American jurists of both the naturalist “left” and their false opposite in the naturalist “right” believe that the civil law can recognize “new species of unions” if their elected representatives pass legislation or they themselves pass a referendum to so.

None of the twelve Republicans who have voted to advance the so-called “Respect for Maerriage” bill that will result in the proliferation of evils and the persecution of those who oppose them as banks and other businesses uses invisible social credit ratings to curb access of recusant Americans to their services because they are deemed to be “haters” believe any of the following:

1. Human beings choose to engage in the sin of Sodom and/or its related vices of perversity.
2. Human beings choose to mutilate their bodies by surgical and chemical means in the furtive attempt to become that which they can never be, a member of the opposite gender.
3. Such volitional decisions can never receive the recognition of the civil law as legitimate categories of self-identification and legal protection.
4. Each human being should enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the civil law because they are human beings who, whether or not they know it or accept it as such, have been made in the image and likeness of God in that they have an immortal soul endowed with a rational intellect and will capable of choosing between right and wrong, and because they have been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ whether they or not they know or accept it.
5. That is, we are to treat all people with kindness and to do our best to exhort publicly unrepentant sinners who are “proud” to tell others about their sins as they demand approval upon penalty terming anyone who disagrees with them as a “hater,” which is nothing other than exercise in infantile behavior (how many times has a parent heard a child exclaim “You don’t me, well, I hate you” because he has not gotten his way?), to reform their lives lest they die in their sins without even having any kind of sorrow for them.

Naturalistic means are worthless to oppose the sentimentality its spirit engenders.

Sodomy Used to Carry a Justified Social Stigma

It used to be the case in the not too distant past that those who know to commit sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance carried with them a fully justified stigma as men used to have a horror and detestation of such sins when the world was ordered properly according to the right principles of Catholic teaching. This is why famous actors such as Raymond Burr and Rock Hudson and entertainers such as Wladyslaw Liberace never confirmed their perverse ways as they knew that their careers would be ended by the shame that they would have to carry with them for the rest of their lives unless they repented and converted. They knew that they could lose their employment and that most people would not have had pity for them as they had chosen their own plight. Public sins must carry public stigmas.

Instead, however, today’s world glorifies, celebrates, and protects what should be stigmatized as believing Catholics pray for the conversion of those so stigmatized and seek to make reparation for their own sins.

While we are called to treat all people with dignity and respect, it is not unjust for an employer to refuse to hire or to fire someone who is so intent on identifying himself by that which is opposed to the law of God and thus opposed to his own temporal good and that of those around him.

We are faced at present with an aggressive, in-your-face “accept what I do or I will take you to the Supreme Court” mentality that has forced bakers, photographers/videographers and others to go out of business and has caused those who criticize what is considered to be “normal” expressions of “love” to be stigmatized as “haters” by the “mainslime” media, academics galore and the Christophobic likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Those who “identify” themselves on the basis of their perverse behavior are not entitled to any legal recognition or protection because of their own freely chosen decisions to succumb to the temptations of the adversary to live indecent and perverse lives that let loose the gates of hell upon themselves and their nations. Sodomy confers no right before the law. None.

While we must pray for the conversion of those steeped in unrepentant sins and for those who support them while we pray every day for the graces we need to work on our own daily conversion away from our sins, our selfishness, our disordered love of self and spiritual tepidity, we can never do anything—either by omission or commission—that reaffirms anyone a life of grievous sin as to do so may very well send us to perdition in the process.

Pope Saint Pius V explained the just penalty due clerics caught in the act of unnatural vice:'

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the  to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.)

Death, not “brotherhood” and “mainstreaming” for the sake of “inclusivity,” was what Pope Saint Pius V, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Roman cited above, believed should be imposed on the clergy as well as the laity who were caught in “such an execrable crime” that caused him “such better sorrow” and shocked his papal mind as he sought to “repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.”

Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Alas, everything must “be up for grabs” when the souls of men are not taught, sanctified, and governed by Holy Mother Church. Unrepentant sins of the most vile manner imaginable must abound, resulting ultimate in entire races of walking "blank slates," human beings who must decide "for themselves" that which has been ordained by God Himself in the Order of Nature (Creation) and the Order of Redemption (Grace.) Men come to think that they are demigods, beings who have the ability “to decide” what to think in matters to pertaining to Faith and Morals without assenting their intellects completely and without any reservation at all to what Holy Mother Church teaches infallibly.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, specifically and categorically rejected the diabolical falsehood of the “sovereignty of the people”:

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

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) 

The lowest common denominator in American politics and jurisprudence is practical atheism's rotten fruit of law by sentimentality, which is the same thing as mobocracy.

Careerist Republicans Fashion Themselves “Broadminded”

Yet it is, of course, that many careerist Republicans are perfectly at peace as they sit back, let the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America remove issues that they, the careerist Republicans, consider to be “controversial” “moral issues” which can cost them votes, and then, when the time seems propitious, seek to codify evils to which they had once opposed during electoral cycles. Although they use to “cluck, cluck” about some Supreme Court decisions, such is the case no longer. These careerists breathe a collective sigh of relief when the Supreme Court helps them by taking a “hot potato” political issue off the stove for them.

Consider the reactions of a few careerist Republicans to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020, that applied Title VII nondiscrimination in employment protections of the United States Civil Right of Act of 1964 to sodomites and those who have undergone various surgeries and used various chemicals to “transform” themselves into something that is an ontological impossibility, namely to change their gender:

(CNN) Republican senators were mostly upbeat about the landmark Supreme Court decision Monday to ban workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender Americans, and they defended conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch's role in writing for the 6-3 majority.

"They interpreted our statute and I'm OK with it," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, who added that Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first pick for the high court, "is a good judge."

Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking GOP leader argued the decision "demonstrated Gorsuch's independence."

Thune said he had not had a chance to study the details of the case but said, "The country has obviously changed a lot on that issue. I assume he looked at the facts and the law and he came to that conclusion. When we nominated and confirmed him, that's what we wanted him to do."

"It's a big deal," said Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who has worked -- unsuccessfully so far -- to pass a law banning workplace discrimination against gay and transgender people.

"I don't think people should be discriminated against, specifically, I don't think someone should lose his or her job because they're gay. So I like the result," said Portman, adding that he would need to study whether Congress still needs to change the law now that there is a "Supreme Court case that speaks to the civil rights acts applying to employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday that he's "OK" with the Supreme Court's decision.

"That's the ruling of the court. I accept it," the Republican from South Carolina said in a brief interview.

One critic of both the decision and Gorsuch was Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican of Missouri, who complained the majority was legislating from the bench.

"My big issue with the majority opinion was that substitutes a contemporary understanding of a legal textual term for one that was written in 1964. To me, the principle of textualism, which is rooted in the separation of powers, is that the courts are bound by the meaning of the words at the time they are written, and any updating ought to be done Congress. This amounts to a form of legislation," he told reporters in the Capitol.

Hawley was asked if he is disappointed with Gorsuch.

"I was surprised at his method of reaching a conclusion. You can tell he's sensitive about it because he goes to some length to say, 'No, I really am a textualist and this is a textualist approach,'" Hawley said.

Sen. Mitt Romney seemed to share Hawley's concern that it was Congress' role to update the law, not the Supreme Court. The Utah Republican told reporters that while he was supportive of protecting LGBTQ people's rights not to be fired because of their sexual orientation, "I wish that decision would have been reached by Congress rather than the court."

Some GOP senators declined to comment since they had not studied the decision.

"I haven't seen the rulings," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a member of the GOP leadership.

"I haven't read the opinion," said Sen. Todd Young on Indiana, who chairs the Senate Republican reelection committee. "I like to read major opinions before commenting on them."

Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican of Nebraska, said she was "fine" with both the decision and Gorsuch.

"I think it's important that we recognize that all Americans have equal rights under our Constitution," she said. "I want to have justices who look at these cases and make decisions based on their review of the case and look at the constitution and apply it equally." (GOP Seantors react to  Bostock ruling.)

There are several things worthy of reiteration when considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, as indicative of what is happening right now within the United States Senate with the “Respect for Marriage Act”:

1. No senator dared to say the truth: That the free will choice in engage in the sin of Sodom and its perverted vices and/or to identify oneself on the basis of his predilection to do so is unnatural, abhorrent, indecent and ruinous for those who self-identify and for the nations whose laws indemnify their descent into the moral abyss to the harm of all.
2. Several of these Republicans (John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, Deb Fischer and Robert Portman were in favor of the ruling and had no problem with how Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch legislated from the bench.
3. Two other senators, John Barrasso and Todd Young, refused any comment before they had read the text of the Court’s decision, meaning that they do not want offend their core supporters on the one hand while appearing to be “open minded” about an issue about which there is nothing to debate.
4. The treacherous Willard Mitt Romney would have preferred for Congress to have amended Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, meaning that he believes that self-identification as a practitioner of perverse vices constitutes a legitimate category that is deserving of legal protection and cultural acceptance.
5. Senator Joshua Hawley (R-Missouri), confined his comments to the way in which Justice Gorsuch arrived at his decision and said nothing—as in absolutely nothing—about the fact that human beings are not free to “identify” themselves on the basis of any sinful tendencies, natural or unnatural.

In other words, moral relativism and moral cowardice rule the day in the Capitol of the United States of American among the do-nothing and good-for-nothing political gang of the false opposite of the naturalist right.

Except for Senators Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) and Deb Fisher (R-Nebraska), each of the Republicans who either refused to comment about and/or supported the Court’s decision in the Bostock case were the same ones who voted to advance debate on the bill to defend “marriage between two persons” as deconstructed by the Court seven years ago and thus spit on the very institution created by God Himself so that a man and woman could cooperate with the biological means He gave unto them to produce children to give him honor and glory in this life as members of His true Church and thus be ever ready to become citizens of Heaven whenever it is He calls them back home to Himself at their death.

Pope Leo XIII explained in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that the reduction of public policy to the natural level alone results in public life being stained with crime. While we can and must take measures to protect the common temporal welfare and to punish malefactors, it is simply insufficient to take these measures absent a subordination to the Deposit of Faith as It has been entrusted by Our Lord Himself exclusively to the Catholic Church and absent any consideration of how public policy assists or hinders man in the pursuit of his Last End:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! 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.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Anyone who says that public life is not stained with crime is as delusional as those who think that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the "pope." And the electoral process is closed. Closed. Chiusa. Naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" have made their "peace" with "gay marriage." They have heard "the people" sing. So have the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. So have twelve Senate Republicans. So have forty-seven Republicans in the United States House of Representatives. So have many "conservative" commentators. 

"Stopgap" measures based on the "lowest common" naturalistic denominator will always collapse as they are built on the quicksand of naturalism. The Church Militant on earth can be battered. She will never suffer a final defeat. "Stopgap" measures based on the "lowest common" naturalistic denominator must, because they are based on naturalism, consist of internal contradictions and inconsistencies that render its objectives merely symbolic and rhetorical in nature.

Silvio Cardinal Antoniano explained over four hundred fifty years ago that things repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity can never be the foundation of temporal order:

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, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.) 

It is indeed impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquility by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. Attempting to base opposition to the "marriage" of individuals steeped in unnatural vice in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments on the existence of a legal "recognition" of that vice that is short of "marriage" but contains many of the same legal "benefits" as marriage is indeed repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity. Live by the "will of the people," my friends, and you will die by the "will of the people." We must live and die by the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church.

In a Catholic world, good readers, there would be no need for all manner of laws and ballot propositions to "inform" the citizenry as to what was considered permissible as they, the citizenry, would know what was permissible according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church. That such disjointed laws and ballot propositions are considered necessary to combat the very social evils that have grown precisely because of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry is proof yet again of the utter madness and insanity of a world where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign as King over men and their nations as they recognize the authority He has entrusted to His Catholic Church.

The false premises of the Modern civil state have led to angry men singing various songs to secure the approve of a majority of their fellow men. Each of those songs are, however, simply a variation of the naturalist theme that it is not absolutely necessary for each human being and for each nation on this earth to profess the true Faith and to be governed thereby at every moment of human existence. These songs of the angry men of naturalism produce cacophony in a society, not the symphony that produced by the harmonizing of everyday life with the truths of the Holy Faith.

Catholicism is the one and only way out of this mess. Arguments and propositions based on naturalism will fail sooner or later as the demographics of the various states change and as the influence wrought by the evils taught in the public and conciliar schools continues to make itself manifest over the years.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has played its own role in helping to worsen the situation caused by the false premises of Modernity. It has made its "reconciliation" with the principles of 1787 as millions upon millions of young Catholics detained in conciliar schools have had their souls spiritually aborted (see Cardinal Newman Society Survey and my own Apostasy Has Consequences):

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.) 

Pope Leo XIII warned solemnly in  Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, that there can be no "reconciliation" with the principles of the Revolution:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

The work of Modernity and Modernism is to promote “universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio Rides to the Rescue of Pro-Abortion Politicians Once Again

To make matters worse, the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has argued against raising the issue of the surgical assassination of innocent preborn children because it results in the “polarization” of society, something he claims is opposed to Catholicism!

Gloria Purvis: Holy Father, abortion is a heavily politicized issue in the United States. We know it is wrong. And the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that there is no constitutional right to abortion. However, it still seems to plague the church in the sense that it separates us. Should the bishops prioritize abortion in relation to other social justice issues?

On abortion, I can tell you these things, which I’ve said before. In any book of embryology it is said that shortly before one month after conception the organs and the DNA are already delineated in the tiny fetus, before the mother even becomes aware. Therefore, there is a living human being. I do not say a person, because this is debated, but a living human being. And I raise two questions: Is it right to get rid of a human being to resolve a problem? Second question: Is it right to hire a “hit man” to resolve a problem? The problem arises when this reality of killing a human being is transformed into a political question, or when a pastor of the church uses political categories.

Each time a problem loses the pastoral dimension (pastoralidad), that problem becomes a political problem and becomes more political than pastoral. I mean, let no one hijack this truth, which is universal. It does not belong to one party or another. It is universal. When I see a problem like this one, which is a crime, become strongly, intensely political, there is a failure of pastoral care in approaching this problem. Whether in this question of abortion, or in other problems, one cannot lose sight of the pastoral dimension: A bishop is a pastor, a diocese is the holy people of God with their pastor. We cannot deal with [abortion] as if it is only a civil matter. (Exclusive: Francis denounces polarization, talks women’s ordination, the U.S. bishops and more.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it quite of pope his entire antipapal governance, which is going on ten years in length now, to disparage opposition to the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in the realm of civil politics. His claim that the Catholic Church is opposed to “polarization” flies in the face of the fact that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s very own Person is polarizing to those who opposed Him during His Life and those who have opposed His Holy Church thereafter.

Our Lord told us that His very teaching would divide men once against the other, including within his own household:  

[32] Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. [33] But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[36] And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. [37] He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. [38] And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. [39] He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. [40] He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10: 32-39.)

Pope Saint Pius X summarized how Our Lord never feared to proclaim the truth, which of its very nature would either be received with joy by some yet be a source of scandal and division to others:

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910).

Conciliarism is the devil’s playground of Judeo-Masonic sentimentality.

Catholicism is the means to overcome sentimentality, and Pope Leo XIII made it clear that, yes, Catholics have a positive duty resist and actively oppose evils when they are being advanced by the civil government:

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.)

Catholics are called to oppose evil, and one of the reasons that the chemical/surgical execution of innocent preborn babies (as well as the attacks on innocent life after birth by means of “brain death”/human organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged patients, “hospice”/palliative care, and the whole “quality of life” standard of the global healthcare industry) and sodomy and its adjunct panoply of errors keep being advanced in such measures as the “Respect for Marriage Act” is precisely because the lords of conciliarism believe in a false sense of “peace” that is nothing other than trick of the devil to ruin men and their nations and send countless millions of souls to hell for him to torture for all eternity.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio rarely speaks about abortion as a violation of the Fifth Commandment because He is a friend of the “religiously neutral” government that make no recourse to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Such governments, however, however, must end up awash in a sewer of evil as men, especially today given the paucity of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Grace caused by the sacramentally barren liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, govern themselves and their nations by means of sentimentality or raw majoritarian impulses. Such governmental systems must place jurists who might know better into making one legal argument after another, no matter how constitutionally or statutorily sound, on a purely naturalistic basis, thus placing into straitjackets from which it is impossible to extricate themselves. One cannot fight naturalism/secularism/humanism with naturalism/secularism/humanism. One can only fight naturalism/secularism/humanism with Catholicism, Nothing else.

Insofar as the personhood of the preborn child, suffice it to say that it is sophistic to claim that just because Holy Mother Church has never dogmatically pronounced on such personhood per se, the doctrine of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ teaches us that His hypostatic union effected by the working of God the Holy Ghost upon Our Lady at her Annunciation was the beginning of His Divine Personhood as true God and true Man. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches us all we need to know about the personhood of unborn babies, and Pope Pius XII himself referred to innocent unborn babies as persons in an allocution He delivered on November 26, 1951, in an Address to the Association of Large Families.

If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.

We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)

Pope Pius XII referred to the unborn child as an innocent person. While this is not a dogmatic pronouncement as such, it is a statement of simple truth, a truth about which the ideologue from Argentina, who is never willing to alienate those who believe in Catholic tradition or who disagree with his ideological crusades in favor of “climate control” and open borders, can never admit as to do so would be to make it appear he favors American “conservatives” over his own beloved “progressives.”

How can anyone in his right mind say that such a man is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter?

We must always remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever crosses—personal, social, and ecclesiastical—that we are asked to carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Although the month of November, the month of the Poor Souls, will end tomorrow, November 30, 2022, the Feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, we must always remember to pray to as well as for those who cannot help themselves but can help us by means of their prayers as members of the Church Suffering. Our  Lady of Deliverance intercedes for the Poor Souls, and we ask her to intercede for us so that we will always remember them in our  prayers and as we rely ever firmly upon her own help to deliver us from the evils of the present moment, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, 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.