Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris: Epic Haters of Catholicism

The spirit of Herod the Great is alive and well here in the United States of America.

So are the spirits of Nero, Caligula, Trajan, Valerian and the infamous Diocletian.

Not to be outdone in the hatred of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church are the spirits of Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer, Richard Topcliffe, Elizabeth I, John Calvin, Oliver and Richard Cromwell, Maximilian Robespierre, Karl Marx, Vladimir I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel and Raul Castro and a whole variety of tinpot despots, dictators, murderers and thugs, each of whom have tried to supplant the true Faith with their own empty beliefs and cults of personality.

Indeed, anti-Catholicism is part and parcel of the fabric of the United States of America dating back to colonial days in the Sixteenth Century, something that I explained in Conversion in Reverse, and it was a determinative factor that prompted some leading colonists to convene the First Continental Congress in 1774.

Alexander Hamilton and other “heroes” of the American founding were very alarmed that Quebec Act granted toleration to Catholics in what had been a French colony prior to 1763. It was the fear of men such as Hamilton that such “toleration” might be extended to the American colonies, and it was this fear that was a principle motivating factor in the formation of the First Continental Congress, which ran from September 5, 1774, to October 26, 1884. It was this hatred of Catholics that caused colonists to consider the Quebec Act as “intolerable” as it was a sign, at least to them, that the British were beginning to slacken in their resolve against “popery” when the truth of the matter was that British simply used pragmatism in the face of a populace more numerous and prosperous than were the Acadians who were dispersed in Nova Scotia.

Robert Leckie described the flames of hatred that were fanned by anti-Catholic propagandists in the colonies in the immediate aftermath of the Quebec Act:

This piece of legislation had not only confirmed the French in the free exercise of their religion and the practice of their native language, it had also granted the Quebec government those lands in the west which the English colonies claimed. Now, the colonists fancied themselves surrounded by French-speaking Catholics, the old enemy of former years, and their rage was so unbounded that on October 21, 1774, the [First] Continental Congress addressed a letter to the British people admonishing them for tolerating in America a religion which “has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.”

One again, it was popular to quote Samuel Adams, who had said six years earlier [that is, in 1768]: “I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights. . . .” Once again, the popular press picked up the old anti-Catholic cudgels, and one journal went so far as to predict: “We may live to see our churches converted into mass houses and our lands plundered by tythes for the support of the Popish clergy. The Inquisition may erect her standard in Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia may yet experience the carnage of St. Bartholomew’s Day.” Others, misrepresenting the truth of the Quebec Act, insisted that it actually established Romanism as an official religion, and warned: ‘If Gallic Papists have a right To worship their own way Then farewell to the liberties Of poor America.’

Ministers, of course, were in full voice once more, but so also were John Adams, apparently recovered from his momentary lapse into tolerance, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, the inevitable Samuel Adams, and none other than Washington’s protégé and confidante, Alexander Hamilton, who thundered: “If [Parliament] had any regard to the freedom and happiness of mankind they would not have done it. If they had been friends to the Protestant cause, they would never have provided such a nursery for its greatest enemy . . . They may as well establish Popery in New York and the other colonies as they did in Canada!”

More than the Stamp Act, perhaps more than any other act by Parliament or any British minister, the Quebec Act was a direct cause of the American Revolution. It so inflamed colonial hatred of the mother country that even that staunch and solid Protestant, King George III, was accused of being a Jesuit in disguise, and his statues, from which the rebels later were to melt so many serviceable bullets, were adorned with mocking rosaries. Meanwhile, patriots such as Paul Revere did a brisk business in scurrilous engravings which depicted His Majesty and his Ministers clothed in the livery of the Pope of Rome. To the Catholics of colonial America–who actually represented no more than 1 per cent of the total population of three million persons–it appeared that it was time to pull tight the shutters again, and it was this furor of anti-Catholic sentiment that rose about the ears of Father John Carroll when he returned to his native Maryland in 1774. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 45-47.)

Look at those names. John Adams. Samuel Adams. Alexander Hamilton. Paul Revere. These are not men to admire. They hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church, she that is the one and only means of personal salvation and social order.

They had little to fear, however.

Eager to be accepted by their fellow colonists, the leading Catholics of the colonies did not want to convert them to Catholicism. They simply desired the “freedom” to practice their Faith without persecution which is the only thing that the Quebec Act had guaranteed French Catholics in Quebec. Indeed, one could say that the Quebec Act was an incubator of the heresy of “religious liberty” just as much as had been the approach taken by the first Catholics who had arrived in Maryland in 1634 and the pragmatic tack taken by William Penn, who was no friend of Catholicism, in the Colony of Pennsylvania.

Archbishop John Carroll, who certainly wanted to advance the best interests of the 25,000 or so Catholics who were in the United States of America in the first twenty years of its existence, believed that the religious “liberty” found in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America would assure the life of the faithful without persecution as had been case in England and Ireland in the two hundred fifty years following the English Protestant Revolution that had been started by King Henry VIII in 1534. Although he was very sincere in this regard, he did not understand that a trap had been set by the adversary to accustom Catholics the ability to practice their Faith while they become “evangelized,” if you will, by the American ways of democracy and egalitarianism:

If any man can be regarded as the Father of the American Church, it is John Carroll of Maryland. Bearer of a respected American name, ordained in a Society which had planted the faith on the shores of the Chesapeake, he took charge of the infant Church as naturally and firmly as a man bringing order to his own household. To the handful of ex-Jesuits demoralized by the suppression of their order he brought inspiration and direction, while guiding the Church from the Penal Age and into the sunlight of religious freedom. John Carroll organized the American Church. Under him, its diverse and disparate elements were unified, and by his establishment of a seminary and schools, its future was assured.

Although his administrative ability was indeed great, coming at a time when it was most needed, his insights into the American character may have been even of more value to the Church. He realized that in the matter of religion the genius of the new American political system was the separation of church and state. His writings and his speeches are full of encomiums not on behalf of toleration, for that presumes an established church, but for complete religious freedom. It may be that, like the Calverts before him, this attitude was born of expediency; that Catholicism had more to gain from religious freedom than any other American creed. True enough, but so also did the Founding Fathers of the United States have the most to gain from independence.

So it was John Carroll who gave the American Church, this congeries of European races forever in conflict over tastes and customs, yet joined together in the unity of the One Faith, its peculiar American stamp. Most astonishing, he foresaw its future, "To dissipate justice," he said in 1785, "time will be our best aid, as also will divine Providence and the experience of our fellow citizens in our devotion to our country and its independence." (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday and Company, pp. 88-89.)

There is a lot of truth contained in the three paragraphs cited above from the late Robert Leckie's American and Catholic, but not that intended by Mr. Leckie or by the man he praised so much, Archbishop John Carroll, who became the first bishop of the United States of America when he was consecrated on August 15, 1790, by Bishop Charles Walmseley, O.S.B., in Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England. There is, I should say (apologies to the late Ralph McPherson Kiner for using this phrase that he repeated so much in the early days of broadcasting games for the New York Mets in the 1960s), a lot of unintended truth in the three paragraphs cited above.

Archbishop John Carroll did assure the future of the Catholic Church in the United States of America by his embrace of "religious freedom." Carroll's embrace of "religious freedom" in the belief that the civil rights of individual Catholics and the institutional rights of Holy Mother Church was erroneous as "religious freedom" for one is "religious freedom" for all. Lacking an ultimate arbiter ordained by God to resolve disputes between Church and State that were bound to emerge over the course of time as such disputes occurred frequently even during the period of Christendom itself.

Carroll, presaging the giddy optimism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII concerning the need for an "opening to the world" (Roncalli/John XXIII's much vaunted "updating" or, in Italian, aggiornamento), could not foresee areas of conflict between Church and State in the framework of the "genius" of Constitution of the United States of America. Archbishop Carroll truly believed that the Catholic Church, though she might have to suffer persecution from individual Protestants and unbelievers and in states where the roots of "religious liberty" had not yet taken root, would be respected by officials of the Federal government to carry out her apostolic duties without interference.

Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution of Catholic immigrants from Ireland in the 1820s, although he had died on December 3, 1815, and thus never saw this persecution. Carroll's naive trust and full-throated endorsement of these twin errors came despite the fact that it was within his own lifetime that the first two papal condemnations of them were pronounced. Those pronouncements did not matter to him. The United States of America was "different." It was "special." It was "exceptional." The "good" and "tolerant" Protestants and Freemasons and others who just wanted to "live together" as Americans would never seek to the double-edged sword of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" against the Catholic Church, right?

Within ten years of Archbishop John Carroll’s death, the persecution of Irish immigrants, who were very eager to prove their Americanism, was in fever pitch, and it was endorsed by many politicians.

Protestants and Freemasons used all of the levers of power available to them to make sure that the “unwashed” Irish immigrants, beholden to a foreign potentate, the pope, were not able to influence politics and policy in this country.

Within ten years of his death, the persecution of Irish immigrants, who were very eager to prove their Americanism, was in fever pitch, and it was endorsed by many politicians, which puts the lie to the contention made by Spadaro and Figueroa that it has been only in more recent decades that “religion” has sought to play a role in politics and public policy decision-making. Nonsense. A particular “religion,” Protestantism, used all of the levers of power available to them to make sure that the “unwashed” Irish immigrants, beholden to a foreign potentate, the pope, were not able to influence politics and policy in this country.

The first means used by Protestants and, it should be noted, Freemasons to blunt the influence of the new immigrants was the standardize public schools into systems of Protestant propaganda and the inculcation of American values sentiments, starting with religious indifferentism itself. 

Massachusetts became the first state to mandate curricular standards on a statewide basis, creating in 1837 the first state Department of Education (thought control) in the United States of America, principally to Americanize the children of Irish immigrants to this country. Horace Mann, who had no initial interest in the subject of education, was recruited to head the new agency. He warmed to to this task with ready abandon, establishing the following guideline over the course of seven years:

(1) Fifth Annual Report (1841). Mann argued successfully that economic wealth would increase through an educated public. It was therefore in the self interest of business to pay the taxation for public education.

(2) Seventh Annual Report (1843). Horace Mann inspected and appraised favorably the Prussian school system. This report led to widespread improvement .of education through the educational theories of Pestalozzi, Herbart and eventually Froebel.

(3) Tenth Annual Report (1846). Mann asserted that education was a natural right for every child. It is a necessary responsibility of the State to insure that education was provided for every child. This report led to the adoption of the first State law requiring compulsory attendance in school in 1852.

(4) Twelfth Annual Report (1848). He presented a rationale for the support of public education through taxation. Society improves as a result of an educated p public. He argued for non-sectarian schools, so the taxpayer would not be in the position of supporting any established religion with which he might disagree in conscience. (Educational Contributions of Horace Mann)

The development of Horace Mann's thought was influenced heavily by the "Prussian Education System" that had its origins in the Eighteenth Century and whose own "evolution" over the course of the decades thereafter convinced him to use it as a model for Massachusetts, which, in turn, could be a model to "standardize" his brainwashing standards for the rest of the nation. Indeed, Mann, who belonged to the extinct species of naturalist organized crime known as the Whig Party, convinced his fellow party adherents to become "true believers" in the "Prussian Education System." Mann even traveled to Prussia in 1843 to see the system for himself. The People's Republic of New York was one of the first to follow the model that Mann established in the neighbor statist stronghold of Massachusetts, and it is absolutely no accident at al that these two states remain two of the most hostile states to home schooling parents in the United States of America at this time (Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont round out the ranks of the states whose regulations are designed to make home schooling very difficult as parents are monitored at every turn).

One of the keys to the "Prussian Education System" was the passage of laws to compel the attendance of children in state-run institutions of thought-control. The Prussians of the Eighteenth Century, however, were simply implementing the idea of a former Augustinian monk, a man named Martin Luther, who believed that it was necessary to require children to go to school in order that they learn how to read the Protestant version of the Bible  to make sure that all remnants of Catholicism could be eradicated from the German states influenced by his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church and to organize society under the Social Reign of Christ the King, which, of course, Luther, much like another German, a priest from Bavaria who was ordained on June 29, 1951 (Father Joseph Ratzinger), rejected out of hand and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes was wrong both in theory and in fact.

By the way, the likes of Horace Mann, much like Luther three hundreds years before him, desired compulsory so that those children of Catholic immigrants would be exposed to the "truth" in the blasphemous "King James" version of the Bible. We must remember that each and every Protestant "bible" is worthless it contains false translations and omit Sacred Books contained in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, thereby blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration each word contained in Holy Writ was written. Do not permit yourselves into believing one of naturalism's greatest lies: that it doesn't matter what version of the Bible one reads. This belief is from the devil himself.

Compulsory attendance in state-run institutions of thought-control was essential to American "educational reformers" such as Horace Mann for many of the same reasons, although the Prussian system that they admired so much had made explicit what was implicit in Luther's call for "compulsory education:" the belief that the civil state has the "right" and thus the "duty" to educate children, not parents, thereby violating the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and denying the graces inherent in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that equip every father and mother with the graces necessary to fulfill the primary end of their wedded union in Christ the King: the procreation and education of children.

Alarmed that the efforts to “educate” the children of Catholic immigrants might not be enough, many influential Protestants in the 1840s and 1850s sought to blunt their growing political influence. So much for the false, self-serving narrative spun by Spadaro and Figueroa that “religion” has had more of an influence on politics and public policy in recent decades than in the past here in the United States of America.

Indeed, an entire political party, the Know-Nothing Party, arose after the election of 1852, to oppose the political influence of Catholic immigrants, and police in several cities simply looked the other way as riots against Irish Catholics broke out in such places as Boston, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island, and Louisville, Kentucky:

The Know-Nothings, a new society, began to be organized about 1852. Theirs was a secret order, which bound its members by a solemn oath. It was formed, ostensibly, to defend the rights of the poor against European invasion. “America is for Americans” was its slogan. With this object in view, they endeavored to have severe naturalization laws enacted against the new arrivals from Europe, and exclude citizens born of foreign parents from holding public offices. In reality, these fanatics combated no so much the foreign immigration as the fidelity of Europeans, especially the Irish, to the Church of Rome. To base calumnies they added murder, pillage, incendiarism, and, before long, found an occasion for opening the campaign. In the spring of 1853 the Papal Nuncio to Brazil, Archbishop Bedini, arrived in New York, bringing the Sovereign Pontiff’s blessing to the faithful in the United States. He was charged, moreover, to investigate the conditions of Catholicism in the great Republic.

The Know-Nothings saw in this mission a grave attack upon American liberties. Their newspapers denounced the perfidious and ambitious intrigues of Rome. The apostate priest Gavazzi came from London and placed his eloquence at the service of his follow-socialists and friends. For several months he followed the Envoy form one city to the other, vomiting forth lies, threatening him with dire reprisals, and through fiery denunciation endeavored to stir up the masses against the “Papists.”

From vituperation and abuse there was but one step to action. On Christmas day in Cincinnati a band of assassins attempted to do away with the Nuncio. Driven off by the police, they revenged themselves by burning him in effigy. This odious scene was enacted in several towns. Conditions pointing to renewed attacks, Archbishop Bedini was forced to depart after a short sojourn in the United States. But the hostilities did not cease with the departure of the Nuncio. The campaign lasted for three years, attended by violent outrages and attacks, and armed forces had presently to interfere to defend life and property. A witness of these disorders, Father [Pierre Jean] De Smet draws a gloomy picture of existing conditions in his letters. “The times are becoming terrible for Catholics in these unhappy States. Nowhere in the world do honest men enjoy less liberty.”

“European demagogues, followers of Kossuth, Mazzini, etc., have sworn to exterminate us. Seven Catholic churches have been sacked and burned; those courageous enough to defend them have been assassinated.” “The future grows darker, and we are menaced from every side. If our enemies succeed in electing a President from ranks–until now the chances have been in their favor–Catholics will be debarred from practicing their religion; our churches and schools will be burned and pillaged, and murder will result from these brawls. During this present time [1854] over twenty thousand Catholics have fled to other countries seeking refuge from persecution, and many more talk of following them. The right to defame and exile is the order of the day in this great Republic, now the rendezvous of the demagogues and outlaws of every country.”

No laws were enacted for the protection of Catholics, and in some States the authorities were openly hostile. “The legislators of New York and Pennsylvania are now busy with the temporal affairs of the Church, which they wish take out of the hands of the Bishops. These States have taken the initiative, and others will soon follow. In Massachusetts, a mischief-making inquisition has just been instituted, with the object of investigating affairs in religious houses. In Boston, a committee of twenty-four rascals, chosen from among the legislators, of which sixty are Protestant ministers, searched and inspected a convent of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.”

While making a tour of the Jesuit houses with the Provincial, Father De Smet more than once braved the fury of the fanatics. In Cincinnati, a priest could not show himself in the street without being insulted by renegade Germans, Swiss, and Italians. In Louisville, thirty Catholics were killed in an open square and burned alive in their houses. Those who attempted to flee were driven back into the flames at the point of pistols and knives. Even in St. Louis, several attempts were made in one week upon the lives of citizens. The Jesuits were not spared. At Ellsworth, Maine, Father Bapst was taken by force from the house of a Catholic where he was hearing confessions, was covered with pitch, rolled in feathers, tied, swung by his hands and feet to a pole, and carried through the city to the accompaniment of gross insults. (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” pp. 262-265.)

Interestingly, the aforementioned the Know Nothing Party (or American Party), was actually formed in 1845 by the first Talmudist elected to Congress, Lewis Charles Levin. Levin formed the Know Nothings not to oppose immigration in general but to protest the influx of German and Irish Catholic immigrants to the United States of America. In other words, the Know Nothing Party was founded by a Jew to oppose the immigration of Catholics to this country because he wanted to preserve the "American way," which, of course, provides plenty of space for the devil and his false religions, starting with Talmudism, of course, while seeking to intimidate Catholics in this country from knowing anything about, no less proclaiming openly, the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations. Americanism is thus an expression of the Talmudic ethos that celebrates error while scorning the truth incluing Truth Incarnate Himself

Part of the larger "Know Nothing" movement (named not for fictional Sergeant Hans Schultz of Hogan's Heroes, but for members of this movement saying that they "knew nothing" about its activities when questioned) that sponsored mob riots against Catholics in various areas, including the attacking and killing of individual Catholics and the burning of Catholic church buildings and schools. Know Nothings won control of the Massachusetts General Court in the elections of 1854, being successful as well in electing their candidates as mayors of the cities of Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California. Ohio was a particular stronghold of the Know-Nothings, who nominated former President Millard Fillmore, who had succeeded to the presidency of the United States of America upon the death of President Zachary Taylor on July 9, 1850, and served the remainder of Taylor's term (which ended on March 4, 1853), for president in 1856.

The Blaine amendments, named after the virulently anti-Catholic James G. Blaine (R-Maine), who, in additional to being the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States of America in 1884, served in the United States House of Representatives (where he was the Speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875), in the United States Senate and served two different terms in two different presidencies as the United States Secretary of State, prohibited the use of public funding of any kind to subsidize schools operated by religious organizations.

That notwithstanding, however, none other than the infamous Americanist, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, sought to encourage Catholics to join the leave the Democratic Party, which had served as the means by which Catholic immigrants from all over Europe, especially after the War between the States to achieve upward economic mobility and political influence, in order to join the Republican Party precisely because he, Ireland, wanted to show his support for public schools as the means to “Americanize” Catholic immigrants from Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.

John Ireland was also not above interfering in political matters outside of the State of Minnesota.

To wit, As is well known, Bishop Bernard McQuaid of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, conflicted with the infamous Americanist archbishop of Saint Paul, Minnesota, John Ireland, who took it upon himself in the Spring of 1894 to write letters to the members of the New York State Legislature to urge them to vote for Father Sylvester Malone, a supporter of suspended priest Father Edward McGlynn, who promoted the Knights of Labor, which had been condemned by the Vatican in a letter Elzear-Alexandre Cardinal Tascherau, the Archbishop of Quebec from March 19, 1871, to April 12, 1898 (a condemnation Americanists contended applied only to Canada and thus defied, later petitioning the Vatican successfully in the person of the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons to reverse), rather than for McQuaid for what was called the "Catholic seat" on the New York State Board of Education. Malone won, angering McQuaid and the Archbishop of New York, Michael Corrigan, another anti-Americanist of Irish descent. Ireland was a support of public schools as a means of "Americanizing" Catholic students. McQuaid and Corrigan wanted the Faith to be protected against the secularizing elements of a culture that they knew posed dangers to the life of the faithful. Sound familiar.

The McQuaid-Ireland dispute occurred when all diocesan bishops, quite of course, had ordinary, territorial jurisdiction, something that no traditional Catholic bishop possesses (unless one accepts the claims made by Bishop Louis Vezelis, who, ironically, is located in Rochester, New York). And the McQuaid-Ireland dispute flared up anew later in 1894 when Ireland absented himself from his archdiocese for a month to campaign for Republican Party candidates in the State of New York, appearing alongside such notorious Masons as then United States Senator William McKinley (R-Ohio) and the then head of the United States Civil Service Commission, Theodore Roosevelt. McQuaid denounced Ireland from the pulpit in Rochester. That was a little much for the papal delegate, Monsignor (later Cardinal) Francesco Satolli, who wrote to McQuaid to tell him to stop the public criticism of Ireland, who was, to be sure, no favorite of Rome's.

The late Dr. Justin Walsh, who died in 2011, wrote the following in The Angelus eighteen years ago about this dispute:

On the First Sunday of Advent in 1894 (the third Sunday after Election Day) Bernard McQuaid, "mitered and with crozier in hand," rose in his cathedral to denounce the interloper from Minnesota. "John Ireland was guilty of unseemly action contrary to episcopal dignity, and one which is a scandal for right-minded Catholics," McQuaid began. He continued: 

If we are to believe the newspapers, Minnesota stands in great need of being purified and His Grace might have found ample scope there for the exercise of his political zeal. was not love of good government which induced Archbishop Ireland to spend so many weeks in New York, away from his diocese, where the law relative to residence obliged him to be.

No, McQuaid insisted, Ireland came "to acquit himself of a debt to the Republican party [for electing Fr. Malone to the board of regents.]" McQuaid added that an appeal to Rome might be necessary to teach the "conspirators" - his term for Ireland, Gibbons, Keane, and O'Connell - to stay home and tend their respective flocks. To forestall action by Rome, Ireland wrote to Propaganda [i.e., The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, established for dealing with all ecclesiastical affairs in missions of the Latin rite throughout the world and having jurisdiction over all foreign missions - Ed.] about McQuaid's pique: "My letters, had...more effect than all the effort he and his friends made in their own state. He was defeated, and he won't forgive me for that."

It was clear by 1895 that Americanist views were incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. In the spiritual realm Keane was hell-bent on fostering interdenominational congresses. In the temporal realm Ireland, and to a lesser extent Gibbons, had peculiar penchants for meddling in things better left alone by Churchmen. In such a situation action by Rome was inevitable. It came on January 6 when Leo XIII addressed Longinqua Oceani to American bishops. (Heresy Blossoms Like a Rose.)

Catholic bishops in the Twentieth Century in Oregon and North Dakota had to oppose state-sponsored efforts to impose Masonically-inspired upon Catholics.

To wit, members of the Grand Orient Masonic lodge of Oregon, using all of their considerable clout, joined forces with their great ally, the Ku Klux Klan, and others to sponsor an initiative (a referendum that, if approved by voters, becomes law as though it had been passed by a state legislature) to amend the Compulsory Education Act to, in effect, outlaw Catholic schools in the State of Oregon by mandating that all children be "educated" in public schools. This effort was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, June 1, 1925. (See America's Concentration Camps).

The State of North Dakota, long a den of Masonic activity (Freemasons in the newly formed state legislature in 1889 sought to "liberalize" existing divorce laws as a means of destabilizing the family, something that was fought by the founding bishop of the Diocese of Jamestown (later Fargo), North Dakota, John Shanley), passed an anti-garb law in 1947 to require priests and consecrated religious to wear lay clothing when teaching in public schools. The Freemasons of North Dakota hoped to force a crisis of conscience for priests and religious that would prompt the two bishops of North Dakota from prohibiting their clergy and religious to teach in public schools. Bishops Leo Dworschak of Fargo and Vincent Ryan of Bismarck got permission from the Holy See for the clergy and the religious to wear lay clothing, thereby avoiding that crisis of conscience:

When the "anti-garb" campaign was waged in North Dakota in 1948, Bishop Ryan led in the defense of the rights of those wearing religious garb to teach in the public schools of the state. The opposition was well organized and had carried on vigorous campaign before the Catholics of the state were aware of their activities. Bishop Ryan rose to the challenge, and his efforts to defeat this measure were very nearly successful. In conjunction with Bishop Leo Dworschak of the Fargo Diocese, he appealed to the Holy See for permission for the sisters to teach in lay clothing. The victory for the anti-Catholics and the bigots was rendered empty when the Holy See granted their request. Friends and enemies alike had a new admiration for Bishop Ryan following this campaign. (History of Bishop Vincent J. Ryan.)

Moreover, Catholic bishops supported statists such as Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a virulent anti-Catholic and the thirty-third degree Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt time and time again. After all, it was the "party" that mattered.

Oh, it was too bad that Wilson supported the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico. Catholics just voted for the Democratic Party, which permitted Franklin Roosevelt, who, unlike his statist predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, in whose administration he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, cultivated friendships with Catholic prelates in order to coopt them into supporting his own statist plans, to unleash a veritable campaign team of Catholic bishops and priests, starting with Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967. to denounce any "conservative" Catholic who dared to criticize his policies. As noted in We're Not in Kansas Any More in January of 2009, Roosevelt unleashed the "Right Reverend New Dealer," Monsignor John A. Ryan, to denounce the courageous Father Charles Coughlin for him during his re-election campaign in 1936. And Francis Cardinal Spellman was known as "FDR's errand boy in a miter." It has ever been the case that the only acceptable "Catholics" in the United States of America are those who burn grains of incense upon the altar of the gods of pluaralism, egalitarianism, majoritarianism, pragmatism, Judeo-Masonic naturalism and religious indifferentism.

Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris, therefore, are simply part and parcel of the long American history of anti-Catholicism whose ranks have been swelled by Judas Catholics in public life such as the Cuomos, Kennedys, Bidens, Pelosis, Durbins, Harkins, Renos, Shalalas, Schwarzeneggers, Guilianis, Murkowskis, Quinns, Lazios, Gillebrands, Kaines, Moynihans, Brennans, Menendezes, Leahys, Markeys, Murrays, Cantwells, Reeds, et al. The only “safe” and “acceptable” sort of Catholic to many elected officials who support the slicing and dicing of innocent human beings under the cover of the civil law and who demand full acquiescence to the agenda of the homosexual collective and all of its related vices, therefore, is one who is one who accepts the “Second” Vatican Council’s full reconciliation with the “principles” inaugurated by the French Revolution in 1789 and is thus trained not to use their Faith in public life.

Anyone who is even suspected of being a faithful, believing Catholic must be subject to the sort of demagoguery of the sort that ignorant, anti-Catholic bigots such as Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris use when faced with a presidential appointee that requires confirmation by the United States Senate. This what the grandstanding Haters Hirono and Harris are up to presently:

Washington D.C., Dec 21, 2018 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- A judicial nominee faced questions from Senators this month about whether membership in the Knights of Columbus might impede his ability to judge federal cases fairly. The Knights of Columbus say that no candidate for public office should have to defend his membership in a Catholic service organization.

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”

In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

“The Knights of Columbus does not have the authority to take personal political positions on behalf of all of its approximately two million members,” Buescher responded.

“If confirmed, I will apply all provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges regarding recusal and disqualification,” he said.

athleen Blomquist, spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, told CNA that the senators’ questions echoed the kind of anti-Catholicism seen in previous generations of American history.

“Our country’s sad history of anti-Catholic bigotry contributed to the founding of the Knights of Columbus, and we are proud of the many Catholics who overcame this hurdle to contribute so greatly to our country,” Blomquist told CNA

“We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus—a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings—would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age.”

President Trump nominated Buescher to serve on the U.S. District Court on Nov. 3. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Buescher’s nomination Nov. 28, sending written questions to him on Dec. 5. 

The Knights of Columbus is active in 17 countries worldwide. In 2017, members carried out more than 75 million hours of volunteer work and raised more than $185 million for charitable purposes. Successive popes, including Pope Francis, have praisied the group for their charitable work and the manner in which they articulate Catholic faith and values.

In her questions to the nominee, Sen. Harris described the Knights as “an all-male society” and asked if Buescher was aware that the Knights of Columbus “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and were against “marriage equality” when he joined.

Responding to the senator’s questions, Buescher confirmed that he has been a member of the Knights since he was 18 years old, noting that his membership “has involved participation in charitable and community events in local Catholic parishes.”

“I do not recall if I was aware whether the Knights of Columbus had taken a position on the abortion issue when I joined at the age of 18,” he wrote in response.

Harris raised a statement from Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who said that abortion constituted “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale” and asked Buescher if he agreed with Anderson.

Buescher said he was not responsible for drafting statements or policies made by the Knights and that, as a federal judge, he would consider himself bound by judicial precedent regarding abortion.

“I did not draft this language. If confirmed, I would be bound by precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and would not be guided by statements made by others,” Buescher told the senator.

Blomquist told CNA that asking a judicial nominee to defend his membership of a major Catholic charitable organization is disturbing.

“We believe that membership in the Knights of Columbus, which helps everyday men put their Catholic faith into action, is worthy of commendation and not something a nominee for public office should be asked to defend," she said.

In 2014, Buescher ran as a candidate in the Republican primary election for Nebraska attorney general. During that campaign he described himself as “avidly pro-life” and said that opposition to abortion was part of his “moral fabric.” 

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) noted the nominee’s previously outspoken opposition to abortion and asked “why should a litigant in your courtroom expect to get a fair hearing from an impartial judge in a case involving abortion rights?”

Buescher responded that “as a candidate for Nebraska Attorney General in 2014, I did what candidates for any major state or federal office do, which is to take political positions on a variety of issues of the day.” 

“However, there is a difference between taking political positions as a candidate for elective office and serving as a federal judge. I believe a judge’s role and obligation is to apply the law without regard to any personal beliefs regarding the law,” Buescher wrote.

“If confirmed, I will faithfully apply all United States Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent on all issues, including Roe v. Wade."

Buescher also fielded questions from senators about Trump administration policy on Title X funding for clinics providing abortions and referrals, as well as on the application of anti-discrimination law to questions related to gender identity or sexual orientation.

The nominee underscored that, as a judge, it was not for him to advance personal or political opinions but to make fair and impartial rulings based on the law and judicial precedent. 

If confirmed by the Senate, Buescher will fill the vacancy left by Judge Laurie Smith Camp, who assumed senior status - a kind of judicial semi-retirement - on Dec. 1. (Hirono and Harris Quiz Judicial Nominee Over Knights of Columbus Membership.)

There are a number of salient points that I want to make. However, it is important in the first place to point out yet again that United States Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Kamala Harris (D-People’s Republic of California) are the personification of anti-Catholic bigotry and intolerance. They and their ilk deny the existence of immutable truths that have been revealed definitively by God and/or exist in the nature of things that He created. Yet it is that they believe in the immutable “truth” that fallen men, who are but contingent beings with bodies that are destined one day for the corruption of the grave, have the authority to “decide” matters of moral truth from which no one can dissent legitimately lest he be termed a “bigot” or an “extremist” or “hateful.” In other words, Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris believe that they have the right to dismiss any person, including nominees to serve on the Federal bench, who would dare to question the supposed “infallibility” of today’s quite fallible arbiters of what constitutes “acceptable” norms of law and human behavior.

First, quite to the contrary of what Haters Hirono and Harris contend, the Knights of Columbus, although organizationally opposed to the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn in America’s killing mills, has forbidden local councils from expelling its pro-abortion and/or pro-sodomite members:

The leadership of the Knights of Columbus (K of C) has forbidden local councils to take any action against members of the Catholic fraternal organization who support legalized abortion or same-sex marriage.

A Massachusetts K of C member had proposed a resolution, to be taken up by the group's state convention, calling for the suspension of membership of any politician who gave public support to abortion and same-sex marriage. That resolution was declared inappropriate by the Supreme Advocate of the K of C, John Marrella.

In a letter to the Massachusetts K of C leadership, Marrella declared that "a subordinate council may not impose fraternal discipline with respect to a public figure's official actions on matters pertaining to faith and morals. Rather, any such discipline must be made by or at the direction of the Supreme Board of Directors."

"We recognize that some of our members who are public figures may use their public position to advocate or support policy positions that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals," Marrella conceded in his letter. He went on to admit that such public advocacy "contradicts the Catholic identity and mission of the Order."

Nevertheless, the top legal official of the K of C said that any action taken against K of C members who are public figures would "necessarily affect the entire Order." For that reason, he said, any disciplinary action should be taken by the group's top leadership.

Marrella went on to say that the K of C would not go further than the American bishops in taking public action against members whose public stands conflict with Church moral teachings. "If the public figure's bishop has not excommunicated him for his public positions on issues relating to matters of faith and morals, it would be highly inappropriate for the Knights of Columbus to do so," he wrote.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, which had supported the proposed resolution at the state convention, decried the intervention by the top K of C office as an "abdication of responsibility." C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League, said: "This letter effectively kills any grassroots initiative within the Knights to address the scandal of pro-abortion pols in the Order."

The Catholic Action League charged that the K of C's refusal to take action against pro-abortion members would allow the continuation of a public scandal. "In the 37 years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Board of Directors has never, to public knowledge, removed a single pro-abortion political figure from the Knights of Columbus," Doyle noted. "In Massachusetts, a majority of Knights serving in the Legislature voted in 2007 against a constitutional amendment restoring traditional marriage, and voted in 2005 for a law which compels Catholic hospitals to distribute the so-called morning-after pill to rape victims." (Catholic Action League Criticizes Knights of Columbus Policies about Pro-Death and Pro-Peversity Knights.)

Haters Hirono and Harris are simply ignorant, bigoted demagogues who are playing to the legions of “freethinking” Catholic apostates produced by the ethos, schools, universities and professional schools under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and to the rising number of atheists and pagans in the country who use liberty as a cloak to cover the malice of their unbelief and hedonistic practices.

Second, as has been noted several times when one of President Donald John Trump’s judicial nominees have been criticized for their opposition to abortion and/or sodomy, adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” feel perfectly comfortable with ignoring the plain words of the “no religious test” clause of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America. That clause reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Haters Hirono and Harris believe that the “no religious test” clause should forbid anyone who professes a religious belief from holding public office, especially when one holds even to a semblance of recognizable Catholicism. They are hypocrites of the highest order as they would never countenance a Catholic senator question a Jew or a Mohammedan about his ability to serve in a public office because of his commitment to either of these false religions that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Third, Haters Hirono and Harris are proving yet again the truth of the following citations about the deeply-ingrained bias that is anti-Catholicism:

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

Fourth, Haters Hirono and Harris are heartless monsters who refuse to recognize the fact each abortion, whether effected by chemical or surgical means, is indeed the killing of an innocent human being. This is a matter of pure biological science as a preborn baby has his own DNA and a beating heart after eighteen days. If the baby is not alive, Haters Hirono and Harris, why does it have to killed by a suction machine that is twenty-nine times more powerful that the human vacuum cleaner or burned alive by means of a saline solution or chopped up with surgical instruments inside his mother’s uterus or partially extracted to have his skull crushed? Abortion kills an innocent human being. This is not an ‘extreme” statement. This is simply a matter of pure biological science. Then again, what does that mean to hateful ideologues who use Catholic-bashing to protect hedonism and licentiousness?

It is, however, nonetheless very sad that Brian C. Buescher saw fit to distance himself from his own pro-life beliefs and from the statements about the worldwide genocide of the preborn issued by Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus. Such a surrender to the fascism of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” is unworthy of a Catholic as (a) haters such as Hirono and Harris see right through this effort to appease them and (b) a Catholic must take seriously the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8: 36-28)

We are required as Catholics to stand in defense of the truth, not to knuckle under to the caesars and caesarettes of Modernity, including Haters Hirono and Harris.

Fifth, Haters such as Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris who justify and enable the killing of the innocent preboran may receive the plaudits of the multitudes in this life. However, even though they do not believe it to be so, each is going to have the face the Christ the King at the moment of their Particular Judgments:

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

We need to pray for the conversion of Mazie Hirono, a non-practicing Buddhist, Kamala Harris, who was raised as a Baptist and a Hindu (thank you, founding fathers for your embrace of religious indifferentism), before they face the Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven in person. We need to pray very fervently for their conversion and that of the likes of Dianne Emiel Berman Goldman Feinstein Blum, a Talmudist, and Richard Durbin, a pro-abortion, pro-perversity “Catholic,” and all others in public life who seek to force believing Catholics to hide their Faith under a bushel basket and dance to the tunes of death and destruction that they, in their august “infallibility,” require as a litmus test for anyone to serve in public life. Yes, the very people who decry a “pro-life” litmus test on the part of a Republican president use their own pro-abortion and anti-Catholic litmus tests to disqualify anyone who they consider to be a “threat” to the established “order” of sin and rebellion.

Sixth, even though Brian C. Buescher is coming under attack for belonging to the Knights of Columbus and being coerced into disowning his own beliefs, he is, after all, a product of the conciliar church, having been born in 1972. As such, therefore, her belief that she would not use her faith or personal convictions on the bench or in public life is very similar to the false view held by Durbin and other pro-abortion Catholics in public life assert that they “cannot impose” their beliefs upon others. (Obviously, Mazie Hirono, Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, Andrew Mark Cuomo, Kirsten Gillebrand and Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, et al., feel perfectly free to impose their own false beliefs upon others when it suits their purpose to do so.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seventh, it is in this regard, therefore, that Brian C. Buescher shares common ground with Haters Hirono and Harris, albeit for different reasons, concerning the Americanist myth that public officials cannot use their religious faith or personal conviction in public life. Americanism produces all manner of ironies, and this is one of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all so reminiscent of the late New York Governor Alfred Emanuel Smith’s ghostwritten effort ninety years ago to refute a Protestant attorney, Charles Marshall, about the binding nature of Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, on Catholics in the United States of America. Marshall understood that Quas Primas did bind Catholics. Smith believed in no such thing. This proves yet again that the “spirit of Vatican II” was incubated in large part, although certainly not exclusively, right here in the religious indifferentist United States of America.

How sad it is that so many Catholics in public life continue to dance to the tunes played by our contemporary Herods and Herodiases, Neros and Diocletians, Cranmers and Elizabeths, Cromwells and Robespierres, Lenins and Hitlers, Maos and Castros. Who in public life will ever stand up for the rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother, Our Immaculate Queen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Bruno, pray for us.


The Catholic Church's Consistent Opposition to Abortion

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

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

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

On therapeutic abortion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Anfilochius, Bishop of Iconia:

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

Canon II.

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

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

That the unborn child is alive:

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

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

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

Council of Elvira (c. 305)

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

Council of Ancyra (314)

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

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

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

2 Now, this is the way of life:…

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

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

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

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

Juvenal (c.57/67-127)

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