The furor continues over the completely unsurprising revelations about Planned Barrenhood’s careful vivisection of innocent preborn children so as to preserve various parts of their bodies for “donation” to the ultimate human trafficking operation of them all: the ghoulish enterprise known as “organ transplantation” from supposedly “dead” human beings.
This is the sort of human trafficking that one never hears condemned by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of fellow Ultra-Montinians in the counterfeit church of conciliarism or from the collection of petty caesars and caesarettes who were invited to speak about “climate change” at the Vatican. Jorge’s supposed “experts,” which included a man named Warren Wilhelm, known more commonly by a name he manufactured, “Bill deBlasio,” support Planned Barrenhood’s agenda of evil without any qualification or reservation, thereby contributing to the spread of sin and thus the institutionalization of evil throughout the world, thereby preparing for themselves a sort of “eternal climate change” that will make their supposed “global warming” appear to be another ice age by way of comparison.
Alas, the furor over the far-from-new revelations about Planned Barrenhood’s evil practices shows yet again that many pro-life Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of concilairism have as little grasp of the political and legal reality facing us today as they have of the reality of apostasy that passes for Catholicism in their false religion sect they believe so tragically to be the Catholic Church.
To wit, Dr. Dianne Irving has detailed a factually irrefutable case for the fact that Planned Barrenhood’s harvesting of innocent preborn babies is a crime in violation of the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act. (See Dr. Irving's Planned Barrenhood and Human Harvesting and Eve’s Bite by Ian Wishart, which contains a gruesome story about the exportation of bodily members harvested from the innocent preborn by Planned Barrenhood in the United States of America for transplantation into animals in New Zealand.)
No matter Dr. Irving’s airtight arguments proving the commission of a crime in violation of Federal law, we are, however, living in what can be termed a “post-legal” world that is but the logical consequence of the Protestantism’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the institutionalization of the anti-Incarnational monster civil sate of Modernity by the interrelated forces of naturalism that such great defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King as the late Father Denis Fahey, C.SS.P., and Father Edward Cahill. S.J., termed as Judeo-Masonry (see To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part one and To Blot Out the Holy Name Forever, part two). There can be no respect for or true compliance with the dictates of civil law when the very immutable dictates of God’s laws as found in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are ignored with impunity and/or mocked.
Moreover, it was never realistic for anyone to think that those who butcher babies in their mothers’ wombs, whether for monetary profit or a “donation,” would observe the dictates of a law seeking to control their barbarous bloodlust. This is a point that I made repeatedly in The Wanderer in 1995 when the debate about ending crushed skulls abortion hinged on acceptance of a “life of the mother exception” that even the baby-killers themselves admitted was superfluous as it is never medically necessary to kill a baby by what is known as “intact dilation and extraction.”
Loads upon loads of people were howling at me from 1995 through 2007 when I pointed out time and time again that the legislation to partially ban partial-birth abortion, thrice vetoed by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and then signed into law by President George Walker Bush in 2003 before being sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, was immoral on its face in that it permitted a "life of the mother" exception and that it made it appear as though killing a baby in the later stages of pregnancy was a greater crime morally than doing so in the earlier stages, which is simply not so.
This is what I wrote at the time:
1. The direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being is equally morally heinous no matter the age at which the human being is killed. That is, the killing of six week old child in his mother's womb is the same crime morally as the direct, intentional killing of a ninety year old man.
2. The particular method by which a human being is killed does not make the act of killing any more immoral than the use of another method, admitting that it is permissible in the administration of civil justice for legislators and jurists to take into consideration such methods when legislating and meting out punishments for those adjudged guilty after due process of law of having committed acts that of their nature are in opposition to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.
3. Thus it is that the use of the baby-killing method invented by a Dr. Martin Haskell, known "medically" as "intact dilation and extraction," to provide a means of killing a baby that was less "invasive" and thus allegedly less is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means a suction vacuum machine that is twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum cleaner.
4. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of various injections, including that of potassium chloride, into the baby so as to kill it in the womb before it is passed out stillborn or taken out by means of a Caesarian section.
5. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous the the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of what is known as the "hysterotomy," a procedure by which a preborn baby is killed by the use of a procedure similar to a Caesarian section, except that the child's neck is twisted in the womb before it is removed. (The hysterotomy was made famous in the case of Dr. Kenneth Edelin.)
6. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the "dilation and evacuation" method of killing a baby by means of carving up a baby in the uterus and then extracting his remains with forceps.
7. Those, including some conciliar bishops, have said that partial birth abortion is infanticide have missed the point entirely: each and every abortion kills a living baby deader than dead. Each abortion, whether chemically induced or surgically performed, is infanticide. (See Every Abortion Kills a Baby Dead).
8. The Partial Birth Abortion bill that is now the law of the land contains an immoral "life of the mother" exception, meaning that this procedure of killing a baby will still be used. And it will be used not only in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is "endangered." Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?
9. Baby-killers will simply resort to the dilation and evacuation means of killing children if they cannot justify the use of partial birth abortion, meaning, as I have been contended since 1995, that zero babies will be saved by the law and by yesterday's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. Indeed, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy went to great lengths to remind those who challenged the law that the other procedures, which he described in great detail, would remain perfectly legal. Justice Kennedy also explained that baby-killers who "accidentally" turned a dilation and evacuation killing of a child into an intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) killing of a child would face no legal liability:
This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E. If a doctor's intent at the outset is to perform a D&E in which the fetus would not be delivered to either of the Act's anatomical landmarks, but the fetus nonetheless is delivered past one of those points, the requisite and prohibited scienter is not present. 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). When a doctor in that situation completes an abortion by performing an intact D&E, the doctor does not violate the Act. It is true that intent to cause a result may sometimes be inferred if a person "knows that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct." 1 LaFave §5.2(a), at 341. Yet abortion doctors intending at the outset to perform a standard D&E procedure will not know that a prohibited abortion "is practically certain to follow from" their conduct. Ibid. A fetus is only delivered largely intact in a small fraction of the overall number of D&E abortions. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. (Gonzales v. Carhart)
10. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, baby-killers will still be able to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy by the use of the saline solution abortion and the hysterotomy and the dilation and evacuation (and even an actual hysterectomy performed for reasons of killing a preborn child and to honor a woman's elective wishes to render herself sterile from that point forward). The belief that a "victory" was won yesterday is an illusion of the worst sort.
The whole of the "incrementalist" approach to "restoring" legal protection to the innocent preborn is based upon the lie that it is "necessary" to concede in civil law that there are some circumstances in which a baby can be directly targeted for execution. This lie is itself premised upon the false belief that baby-killers will be scrupulous in observing the "exceptions" that the incrementalists get enacted into law. As I noted consistently throughout the course of the last twenty-five years or so:
Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?
In other words, it has been and continues to be preposterous that efforts to control the harvesting of the bodily members of the innocent preborn would be enforced.
Come on, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has already said that he is not upset by Planned Barrenhood’s evil practices, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the latter-day version of Janet “See No Evil at the White House” Reno, who is a Catholic, I will remind you once again, is not going to open up any kind of criminal investigation into Planned Barrenhood’s vivisection of living human beings in their mothers’ wombs any more than she is going open an investigation into the vivisection of living human beings that take place under the aegis of the medical industry’s absolutely-for-profit manufactured myth of “brain death.” Quite the contrary, Lynch is going to open up an investigation into those who filmed the undercover video exposing Planned Barrenhood's practices, which will be the subject of yet another article on my own site if it ever gets fixed! (see Obama DOJ To Investigate Group That Busted Planned Barrenhood.)
Deny the Sovereignty of Christ the King over men and their nations, my friends, and the only thing that can result over the course of time is the triumph of lawlessness that represents itself as legal. There is no electoral, constitutional, legal or judicial escape from this reality.
Moreover, even though a lot of pro-life organizations are going to make a good deal of money from fundraising in support of Congressional efforts to defund Planned Barrenhood, the simple reality is that such a defunding will not occur now or at any time in the future. Yes, you read that correctly.
That is, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, the man who has chosen not enforce and has actively violated the just laws of the United States of America to regulate immigration and whose Justice Department has refused to conduct any investigations of the cover-up of the Benghazi or Internal Revenue Service scandals (and whose “transparent” administration denies Freedom of Information requests regularly while monitoring journalists who publish leaked information that rightfully belongs in the public domain), is not going to sign any piece of legislation that is passed by both houses of the United States Congress that includes a provision to defund Planned Barrenhood, not that such legislation can muster the sixty votes necessary to secure passage in the United States Senate, that is, reality that would face a naturalist of the false opposite of the organized crime family of the “right” in the event that such a person wins the presidential election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. No political party is going to control sixty seats in the United States Senate, and that reality must be faced squarely by those who seek, quite rightly, of course, to defund the evil enterprise that is Planned Barrenhood.
None of this means anything to those who want to believe in what I have long called the “political tooth fairy.”
Oh, I can see it now.
The National-Not-So-Right-To-Life Committee’s political action committee will produce postcards and send e-mails to elected, let us say for the sake of argument, Jeb Bush in order to defund Planned Barrenhood. What a farce. What an absolute and total farce. People are supposed to support Jeb Bush to “stop” Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose own thoroughly post-legal and amoral beliefs will be explored in the next article to appear on this site, even though Bush supports “Common Core” (see Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama), which includes explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (an article that requires discretion given its graphic description of Common Core’s requirements concerning the further propagation of impurity by breaking down the natural psychological resistance that children have to matters of martial privileges can be found at (Pedophilia, Incest, and Graphic Sex: Excerpts from Common Core.)
Any other bright ideas out there? Oy!
It is important to see reality for what it is, not for what one wants it to be as it is irresponsible to believe that the situation in the world is going to get better at a time when the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are in cahoots with the likes of Obama/Soetoro, Warren Wilhelm (“Bill deBlasio”), and other ideological descendants of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Charles Darwin.
This is especially so in the United States of America as two of the Supreme Court of the United States of America’s six Catholic justices, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, a dissenter in the original ObamaCare case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, June 28, 2012, have seen fit to engage in what can be called “outcome-based” jurisprudence of the sort that renders the plain language of the Constitution of the United States of America and of the laws enacted thereunder by Congress “ambiguous” in order to save unconstitutional legislation solely because various constituencies might stand to lose benefits if the justices read the text as written, not as they want it to be.
Writing the opinion of the Court in the case of King v. Burwell, June 25, 2016, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, an appointee of President George Walker Bush (see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life Pols) argued that judges have to view a law “in context” even if it means ignoring its plain language:
Petitioners and the dissent respond that the words “established by the State” would be unnecessary if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges. Brief for Petitioners 20; post, at 4–5. But “our preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute.” Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 536 (2004); see also Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 13) (“The canon against surplusage is not an absolute rule”). And specifically with respect to this Act, rigorous application of the canon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair construction of the statute.
The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through “the traditional legislative process.” Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013). And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as “reconciliation,” which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. Id., at 159–167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation. Cf. Frankfurter, come Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 545 (1947) (describing a cartoon “in which a senator tells his colleagues ‘I admit this new bill is too complicated to understand. We’ll just have to pass it to find out what it means.’”).
Anyway, we “must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]” is unambiguous.
B Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible mean-ings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v.Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988). Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid. See New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419–420 (1973) (“We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.”). (Chief Justice John Roberts, Opinion of the Court, King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015, pp. 14-15.)
John Glover Roberts was the deciding vote to save the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, June 28, 2012, by ruling that a penalty is not a tax. He did so as Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States specifies that all bills to raise revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. Roberts that made what is called in legal terms an “ipse dixit,” that is, a statement that is true because one has been asserted as such without any support or documentation. Another way to describe what Roberts has been doing is legal positivism, the belief that whatever is asserted as legal is legal in fact regardless of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and even of civil laws themselves judges want to find to the contrary.
Here is an excerpt of what Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, a Catholic who was appointed to the Court by President Ronald Wilson Reagan and who has been a firm supporter of baby-killing and perversity (see Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part one, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part two, Arguing About Who Decides That Which Is Beyond Humans To Decide, part three, and Arguing Who Decides That Which is Beyond Humans To Decide, part four), wrote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, June 28, 2012:
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretationas judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is,does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.
The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court tote a ch otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.
For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent. (Minority Opinion, at pages 64-65 of opinion, page 190-191 of the full .pdf.)
Ah, that was then, nearly thirty-seven months ago now. Anthony McLeod Kennedy joined with John Glover Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to rewrite ObamaCare, which has been rewritten endless by President Barack Husein Obama/Barry Soetoro, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion Catholic who took blood money from George “The Killer” Tiller (see Public Life Is Stained With Crime), and her successor Sylvia Burwell, because he did not want to see those who had obtained health insurance, replete with its provisions in support of the killing of innocent human beings (by chemical and surgical means in the womb, “hospice” and “palliative” care, and by “end of life services” that are nothing other than the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings whose only “crime” is to be disabled or ill).
Such outcome-based legal reasoning in our post-legal world calls to mind something that I wrote about forty years ago now in my doctoral dissertation, which examined efforts on the part of a citizens’ organization on the North Shore of Long Island the City of Rye, New York, to stop construction of a bridge across Long Island Sound from Bayville, New York, to Rye.
Authorization to construct what would have been called the “Long Island Sound Crossing,” a long-held dream of New York’s late master-builder Robert Moses, was transferred in 1967 from Moses’s last stronghold of power, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), which was a public corporation authorized to issue bonds, to a new agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which has since undergone several mutations.
Although the political machinations of how Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller’s secretary, the equivalent of a presidential chief of staff, Alton Marshall got Moses to relinquish control of the TBTA is a long and detailed story (I got Marshall, then the head of Rockefeller Center, to admit that a deal had been made, being the first one to confirm the long-circulated rumor to that effect, after I asked him a point-blank question in his offices in February of 1976), the TBTA was subsumed by the MTA, which had been created by the 1967 Omnibus Transportation Act of the State of New York along with four other regional transportation authorities in the state. There was only one itsy-bitsy little problem with that, however: the Constitution of the State of New York required each public authority that had the power to issue bonds on the credit of the State of New York to be created by separate and distinct acts of the New York State Legislature. The MTA and the other four regional transportation authorities had been created by an omnibus act.
A case brought in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, which is, believe it or not, a simple trial court and not what its name applies, resulted in a ruling that the state constitution meant what it said, meaning that the MTA and the other four regional transportation authorities had been created unconstitutionally. The initial ruling also meant that the MTA had no authority to construct the Long Island Sound Crossing as it had not been created properly.
Governor Rockefeller was not pleased with the decision, and that is a mild understatement. Also included in the 1967 Omnibus Transportation Act of the State of New York had included a $1.5 billion bond issue to fund transportation projects throughout the state. The bond issue was approved by the voters on November 8, 1967. The state had issued hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds, each of which would have had to have been repaid if the initial decision was upheld by the New York State Court of Appeals, which is the court of last resort in the State of New York.
According to attorney Edward Costikyan, who worked in the powerhouse law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, Rockefeller had an aide personally telephone each of the seven judges of the New York State Court of Appeals to urge them to overturn the New York State Supreme Court’s decision. This was the equivalent of a president of the United States of America telephoning (or, in today’s terms, texting or e-mailing) each of the nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to lobby them to support his position in a particular case. In other words, it is a violation of the principles of separation of powers.
The Court of Appeals overturned the decision rendered by the New York State Supreme Court by a vote of four to three in April of 1969. The majority could not say that the language of the state constitution was unclear or ambiguous. Prophesying the same argument that was used by John Roberts in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, June 28, 2012, and in King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015, the Court of Appeals ruled that the 1967 Omnibus Transportation Act of the State of New York was constitutional as the five regional transportation authorities created therein constituted separate provisions within the act. In other words, separate and distinct acts did not mean separate and distinct acts if the State of New York would have been forced to repay bonds it had no ability to repay.
We are indeed living in a post-legal world, a world of such absurdity that even those judges who recognize tortured reasoning and denounce it as such never come to realize that a written document that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words is as susceptible to deconstructionism (that is, being emptied of their true meaning and filled with false meanings to suit various perceived utilitarian"needs) in the hands of judicial positivists (those who believe the law is what they say it is regardless of moral truth and/or the plain meaning of words) as Sacred Scripture is in the hands of Protestants of any variety and of Modernist Catholics, many of whom, such as Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis have made advertence to philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned propositions claiming that dogmatic pronouncements are conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. Nothing based upon these slender threads can hold up over the weight of time. Fabric sewn together with slender threads must come apart and disintegrate into bits of useless rags.
Although, I have long noted in my academic work and my writing on this site that a Constitution that admits of no higher authority than its own text is as malleable in the hands of legal positivists as Sacred Scripture is in the hands of Protestants and Modernists, we have reached a post-legal state of things now that it can be said constitutional and statutory interpretation in United States of America is based almost exclusively on affectivity, which is exactly what Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of spiritual robber barons are doing with their veritable blitzkrieg upon any recognizable vestiges of Catholicism in their false religious sect. Some of Jorge’s “bishops” have denied the existence of the Natural Law itself, which even the “strict constructionist” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia says is irrelevant to judicial decision-making as he believes it to be “extraneous” to the text of the Constitution.
Scalia’s superb dissection of John Glover Roberts’s fallacious reasoning in the case of King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015, is thus vitiated by the fact that a constitution that admits of no higher authority than the words of its own text is going to be as meaningless as the plain language of Holy Writ or the documents issued by Holy Mother Church’s twenty authentic general councils:
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so. . . .
The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).
Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress “meant [it] to operate.” Ante, at 17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress “meant” tax credits to be available everywhere? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges. More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. “If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.” Lamie, supra, at 542. In the meantime, this Court “has no roving license . . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.” Bay Mills, 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).
Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” Ante, at 14–15. It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.
Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. If Congress values above everything else the Act’s applicability across the country, it could make tax credits available in every Exchange. If it prizes state involvement in the Act’s implementation, it could continue to limit tax credits to state Exchanges while taking other steps to mitigate the economic consequences predicted by the Court. If Congress wants to accommodate both goals, it could make tax credits available everywhere while offering new incentives for States to set up their own Exchanges. And if Congress thinks that the present design of the Act works well enough, it could do nothing. Congress could also do something else altogether, entirely abandoning the structure of the Affordable Care Act. The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.
Just ponder the significance of the Court’s decision to take matters into its own hands. The Court’s revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Act’s individual mandate, whose scope depends in part on the availability of credits. What a parody today’s decision makes of Hamilton’s assurances to the people of New York: “The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
* * *
Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to ccept an expansion of its Medi
caid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent. (Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015, p. 1, pp.18-21.)
As good as Scalia’s opinion is on the demerits of John Glover Roberts’s opinion in the case of King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015--and it is very, very good, he simply does not realize that most American judges are little different than those who served in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union—or even those who served in England at the time of Protestant Revolution. Once a civil state rejects the right of the Catholic Church as having ordained by God Himself to be the ultimate authority on all that pertains to the good of souls, those who wield power will rule as they please, up to and including the enacting of "racial purity" and "eugenics" laws such as existed in Nazi Germany. Who could stop them? They had the legal "authority" under the Constitution of the Weimar Republic to enact "emergency laws." Constitutions that admit of no higher authority than the words of their own text are like silly putty in the hands of a child: instruments that can be manipulated for whatever ends those who hold the reins of power desire. Nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are governed according to the dictates of those who exercise civil power, men who care not for His Sacred Rights or who fear not the moment of their own Particular Judgments.
As Bishop Clemens von Galens noted in one of his sermons against the Nazi eugenics laws on Sunday, August 3, 1941:
For some months we have been heating reports that inmates of establishments for the care of the mentally ill who have been ill for a long period and perhaps appear incurable have been forcibly removed from these establishments on orders from Berlin. Regularly the relatives receive soon afterwards an intimation that the patient is dead, that the patient's body has been cremated and that they can collect the ashes. There is a general suspicion, verging on certainty. that these numerous unexpected deaths of the mentally ill do not occur naturally but are intentionally brought about in accordance with the doctrine that it is legitimate to destroy a so-called “worthless life”” in other words to kill innocent men and women, if it is thought that their lives are of no further value to the people and the state. A terrible doctrine which seeks to justify the murder of innocent people, which legitimises the violent killing of disabled persons who are no longer capable of work, of cripples, the incurably ill and the aged and infirm!
I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Munster, in the course of this week.
German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death”. No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the patient had in fact been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Conti, no secret is made of the fact that indeed a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue.
Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the life of any person . . . and fails to inform the authorities or the person whose life is threatened in due time . . . commits a punishable offence”. When I learned of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of Munster Provincial Court and to the Munster chief of police by registered letter, in the following terms:
“According to information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital at Marienthal, classified as ‘unproductive members of the national community’, to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken".
I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police.
I had already written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. The first transport of the innocent victims under sentence of death has left Marienthal. And I am now told that 800 patients have already been removed from the hospital at Warstein.
We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate selfdefence to meet violence with violence. In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.
No: these unfortunate patients are to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”.
The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow?
I will not pursue the comparison to the end so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.
But we are not here concerned with pieces of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this function.
No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?
If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!
Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.
Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!
This is the path that the Western world, including, of course, the so-called "civilized" United States of America, has been on as a direct, inevitable consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized thereafter in the structures of the anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.
Nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are sometimes formed by the shedding of innocent blood. As all nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are founded on false, naturalistic principles, however, each will wind up shedding innocent blood, sooner or later, as there is no external constraint upon those who exercise power as existed during the era of Christendom in the Catholic Middle Ages. Over fifty-three million babies have been butchered in the United States of America under cover of law by surgical abortion alone since 1967, countless millions more as a result of abortifacient contraceptives. This unchecked shedding of blood creates a blood lust that is insatiable.
Indeed, it is the very same insatiable blood lust of the Roman pagans, who put over thirteen million Catholics to death between the time of Emperor Nero in 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. (with outbreaks here and there afterward, especially under Julian the Apostate), and that of the barbarians who brought down the Roman Empire in the West and the Mohammedans and the Protestant Revolutionaries and the French Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks and the Red Chinese and the North Vietnamese and the Cuban Communists and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the butchers of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, whose murderous ways were made possible, proximately speaking, by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church in the 1870s and by the amoral eugenics of the Weimar Republic from 1919-1933. There is no difference. We deceive ourselves if we think that all of the sophisticated technology and changes in living conditions can mask the reality that Western "civilization" today is a den of barbarism where one false idol after another is worshiped and as open season has been declared on mankind by the medical industry and by those "ethicists" who are nothing more than the ideological ministers of Modernity.
Everyone is at risk in the modern civil state. A simple trip to the hospital for a case of pneumonia might result in one's being declared "brain death" and thus a candidate to be dissected alive The standards by which the absolute fiction of "brain death" are said to exist have been lowered and lowered over the years, something that several recent articles on this site have detailed (Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way?, Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies--And Souls and ObamaDeathCare). Why should not the de facto and, in The Netherlands, de jure practice of killing babies after birth and adolescents be sanctioned under cover of law?
Thus it is that the leaders of Planned Barrenhood know that they are immune from political retribution in this land where law is whatever it is decreed to be, whether by a majority of the “people” in a referendum or by the majority vote in legislative or judicial bodies or by the mere fiats issued by petty tyrants such as President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and his underlings of statists, whose nefarious work to regulate more and more of private property and the lives of ordinary citizens while suborning violations of just laws in the name of “social justice” and “income equality” and “racial equality” is supported fully by the pantheists in the Vatican, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself.
A world that rejects Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the authority of his true Church must create a reality of its own. But it is only the true Faith that guides us to see reality clearly by fixing our gaze always upon the wood of the Holy Cross, upon which our Divine Redeemer saved us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood. We must never waver in our insistence that the world and everyone in it must be converted to the true Faith. For the clarity of vision given us by the Church is the means by which we can see the plain reality that the tendency of human beings to equate themselves with God is what leads to all of the crime and horror and bloodshed and dehumanization that are the fruits of all forms of relativism.
Pope Leo XIII put the matter this way in Tametsi Futura Propiscientibus, November 1, 1900:
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.)
Public life has been stained with crime in the United States of America from its very inception upon one false principle of naturalism after another, the logical issue of the revolution begun by Martin Luther on October 31, 1517, against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him by the means of His Catholic Church that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.
It is thus very late. We are clearly in the era of the Great Apostasy, a time of a general falling away from the Faith. Anyone who thinks that something short of Catholicism can retard any of the evils we are facing at present, including the statist monstrosity known as ObamaCare and evil organizations that it enables, such as Planned Barrenhood, is simply deluding himself as not one of the naturalist commentators who believe that they can do so understands these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, and in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, that those who search for merely "natural' solutions to the problems of man search in vain:
The Church, it is certain, at no time and in no particular is deserted by God; hence, there is no reason why she should be alarmed at the wickedness of men; but in the case of nations falling away from Christian virtue there is not a like ground of assurance, "for sin maketh nations miserable." If every bygone age has experienced the force of this truth, wherefore should not our own? There are, in truth, very many signs which proclaim that just punishments are already menacing, and the condition of modern States tends to confirm this belief, since we perceive many of them in sad plight from intestine disorders, and not one entirely exempt. But, should those leagued together in wickedness hurry onward in the road they have boldly chosen, should they increase in influence and power in proportion as they make headway in their evil purposes and crafty schemes, there will be ground to fear lest the very foundations nature has laid for States to rest upon be utterly destroyed. Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
We do not organize nations around the false principles of naturalism.
We do not restore "order" in nations by the false principles of naturalism.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Annum Sacram, May 25, 1899, explained that Our King is indeed King of all men and nations even if they do not understand or accept his His Kinship over them:
This world-wide and solemn testimony of allegiance and piety is especially appropriate to Jesus Christ, who is the Head and Supreme Lord of the race. His empire extends not only over Catholic nations and those who, having been duly washed in the waters of holy baptism, belong of right to the Church, although erroneous opinions keep them astray, or dissent from her teaching cuts them off from her care; it comprises also all those who are deprived of the Christian faith, so that the whole human race is most truly under the power of Jesus Christ. For He who is the Only-begotten Son of God the Father, having the same substance with Him and being the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance (Hebrews i., 3) necessarily has everything in common with the Father, and therefore sovereign power over all things. This is why the Son of God thus speaks of Himself through the Prophet: "But I am appointed king by him over Sion, his holy mountain. . . The Lord said to me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Psalm, ii.). By these words He declares that He has power from God over the whole Church, which is signified by Mount Sion, and also over the rest of the world to its uttermost ends. On what foundation this sovereign power rests is made sufficiently plain by the words, "Thou art My Son." For by the very fact that He is the Son of the King of all, He is also the heir of all His Father's power: hence the words - "I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance," which are similar to those used by Paul the Apostle, "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews i., 2).
But we should now give most special consideration to the declarations made by Jesus Christ, not through the Apostles or the Prophets but by His own words. To the Roman Governor who asked Him, "Art thou a king then?" He answered unhesitatingly, "Thou sayest that I am a king" John xviii. 37).And the greatness of this power and the boundlessness of His kingdom is still more clearly declared in these words to the Apostles: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew xxviii., 18). If then all power has been given to Christ it follows of necessity that His empire must be supreme, absolute and independent of the will of any other, so that none is either equal or like unto it: and since it has been given in heaven and on earth it ought to have heaven and earth obedient to it. And verily he has acted on this extraordinary and peculiar right when He commanded His Apostles to preach His doctrine over the earth, to gather all men together into the one body of the Church by the baptism of salvation, and to bind them by laws, which no one could reject without risking his eternal salvation.
But this is not all. Christ reigns not only by natural right as the Son of God, but also by a right that He has acquired. For He it was who snatched us "from the power of darkness" (Colossians i., 13), and "gave Himself for the redemption of all" (I Timothy ii., 6). Therefore not only Catholics, and those who have duly received Christian baptism, but also all men, individually and collectively, have become to Him "a purchased people" (I Peter ii., 9). St. Augustine's words are therefore to the point when he says: "You ask what price He paid? See what He gave and you will understand how much He paid. The price was the blood of Christ. What could cost so much but the whole world, and all its people? The great price He paid was paid for all" (T. 120 on St. John).
How it comes about that infidels themselves are subject to the power and dominion of Jesus Christ is clearly shown by St. Thomas, who gives us the reason and its explanation. For having put the question whether His judicial power extends to all men, and having stated that judicial authority flows naturally from royal authority, he concludes decisively as follows: "All things are subject to Christ as far as His power is concerned, although they are not all subject to Him in the exercise of that power" (3a., p., q. 59, a. 4). This sovereign power of Christ over men is exercised by truth, justice, and above all, by charity.
To this twofold ground of His power and domination He graciously allows us, if we think fit, to add voluntary consecration. Jesus Christ, our God and our Redeemer, is rich in the fullest and perfect possession of all things: we, on the other hand, are so poor and needy that we have nothing of our own to offer Him as a gift. But yet, in His infinite goodness and love, He in no way objects to our giving and consecrating to Him what is already His, as if it were really our own; nay, far from refusing such an offering, He positively desires it and asks for it: "My son, give me thy heart." We are, therefore, able to be pleasing to Him by the good will and the affection of our soul. For by consecrating ourselves to Him we not only declare our open and free acknowledgment and acceptance of His authority over us, but we also testify that if what we offer as a gift were really our own, we would still offer it with our whole heart. We also beg of Him that He would vouchsafe to receive it from us, though clearly His own. Such is the efficacy of the act of which We speak, such is the meaning underlying Our words.
And since there is in the Sacred Heart a symbol and a sensible image of the infinite love of Jesus Christ which moves us to love one another, therefore is it fit and proper that we should consecrate ourselves to His most Sacred Heart - an act which is nothing else than an offering and a binding of oneself to Jesus Christ, seeing that whatever honor, veneration and love is given to this divine Heart is really and truly given to Christ Himself. (Pope Leo XIII, Annam Sacrum, May 25, 1899.)
Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, put the matter this way:
The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right."
The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over eleven millions of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith.
Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that?
Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith?
Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?
Yes, of course, we beseech Our Lord's Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for mercy for ourselves and for our fellow citizens. Of course. God did, however, send the Black Death as a punishment for sins in the Fourteenth Century. We ought to reckon with the fact that while, yes, God is indeed merciful, He is also most just. Naturalism in and of itself is indeed a chastisement that leaves so many people in the darkness of a forest with seemingly no escape, a chastisement compounded with the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the very revolutionary principles of 1787 and 1789 about which Pope Leo XIII warned us as follows in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:
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.)
This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times. Will we let her? Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?
These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae and quoted above, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:
Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
What can be a better description of the Judeo-Masonic Constitution of the United States of America and the public crimes committed thereunder?
Our goal is not to "restore" that which caused our problems to begin with, it is to restore the Catholic City:
We know well that they flatter themselves with the idea of raising human dignity and the discredited condition of the working class. We know that they wish to render just and perfect the labor laws and the relations between employers and employees, thus causing a more complete justice and a greater measure of charity to prevail upon earth, and causing also a profound and fruitful transformation in society by which mankind would make an undreamed-of progress. Certainly, We do not blame these efforts; they would be excellent in every respect if the Sillonist did not forget that a person’s progress consists in developing his natural abilities by fresh motivations; that it consists also in permitting these motivations to operate within the frame of, and in conformity with, the laws of human nature. But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
With full confidence in Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, may we rise above the histrionics, the silliness, the emotionalism and the apoplexy engendered by naturalism to pray and to work for the restoration of the Catholic City as the fruit of the triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.
We may not see the results with our own earthly eyes. Please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace, may it be our privilege to see the results from eternity, where those who have won the only election that matters, God's favor for all eternity, will praise and glorify Christ the King forever in Heaven.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
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 James the Greater, 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 Christopher, pray for us.