Notice to All Judicial Nominees: Please Check Your Catholic Faith at the Door

Did you read Steeped in the Erros of Americanism and Conciliarism Through No Fault of Her Own sixteen days?

You did?


Why am I asking such a question?

Thanks for the desire for a clarification, which I greatly appreciate.

Well, the reason I asked if you had read Steeped in the Erros of Americanism and Conciliarism Through No Fault of Her Own was to alert you to the fact that, as predicted, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has demonstrated her Judeo-Masonic and conciliarist bona fides by stating that  “can” do so if confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate of the United States of America and that had “done that in my Seventh Circuit” when replying to United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), a thirty-third degree Freemason, if she could “put side whatever Catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you.

This is the exchange that took place between Judge Barrett and Senator Graham on Tuesday, October 13, 2020, during the continuing hearings that are being held by the Senate Judiciary on her nomination to succeed the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Graham: Can you set aside whatever Catholic beliefs you have regarding any issue before you?

Barrett: I can. I have done that in my time on the Seventh Circuit. If I stay on the Seventh Circuit I will continue to do that, if I'm confirmed to the Supreme Court I will do that still.

Graham: I would dare say that there are personal views on the Supreme Court and nobody questions whether our liberal friends can set aside their beliefs. There’s no reason to question yours in my view. So the bottom line here is that there is a process. You fill in the blanks were this about guns and Heller, abortion rights. (Judge Barrett says that she can put her faith "aside".)

She also explained the process of how an abortion case would be heard, starting with a trial in a district court. Once a lawsuit did reach the Supreme Court, she said:

"It would be the full judicial process. It would be briefs, oral argument, conversations with law clerks in chambers, consultation with colleagues, writing an opinion, really digging down into it. It's not just a vote. You all do that, you all have a policy and cast a vote. The judicial process is different," she said. (Judge Barrett says that she can put her faith "aside".)

As noted in Steeped in the Erros of Americanism and Conciliarism Through No Fault of Her Own, Mrs. Barrett is a creature of Americanism and conciliarism’s embrace of it through absolutely no fault of her own. While she is more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone on the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, is nevertheless the case that she has voluntarily accept that the price of admission for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America is to state clearly that one it one must never use his Catholic Faith in any kind of judicial decision-making as a judge. Once again, this is not Mrs. Barrett’s fault in the slightest. However, this does illustrate the extent to which Catholics are required by the adherents of those who belong to one or the other of the two organized crime families of naturalism require a believing Catholic to blunt anti-Catholic opposition to them to demonstrate that they will never use their Faith in their jurisprudence. The fact that Catholics within the conciliar structures are willing to “put aside” their Faith, though, reflect on the extent to which conciliarism has embraced a total separation of religious belief from public duty that was condemned as follows by  Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1900:

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.)

One has a duty to use the true Faith as the basis of public policy in all that pertains to the good of souls as what pertains to the good of souls determines the fate of nations and of the world. 

As has been noted on this website endlessly throughout the years, the Constitution of the United States of America admits of no higher authority than its own text, thus making it as subject to deconstruction and misinterpretation as Holy Writ in the hands of Protestants and Modernist Catholics. This is the fundamental flaw of the Constitution that has led inevitably to the steady decline and degeneration that has followed steady since its adoption in 1788. Any government that is not founded on the true Faith will wind up resulting in mere men arrogating unto themselves that which belongs to God, namely, His Sovereignty over men and nations that is the sine qua non for social order. Any Cathholic who asserts that our duty is to a constitution first and to Christ the King and His Catholic Faith second may be in “good standing” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism but is far, far from any understanding of Catholic truth.

Pope Saint Pius X explained that our duty is to build the Catholic Church and he explained also that there is the Faith and her precepts are to guide us in each of our actions, personal and social:

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.)

Accordingly, We first of all declare that all Catholics have a sacred and inviolable duty, both in private and public life, to obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth enunciated by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. In particular We mean those principles which Our Predecessor has most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter "Rerum Novarum." We know that the Bishops of Prussia followed these most faithfully in their deliberations at the Fulda Congress of 1900. You yourselves have summarized the fundamental ideas of these principles in your communications regarding this question.

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. All who glory in the name of Christian, either individually or collectively, if they wish to remain true to their vocation, may not foster enmities and dissensions between the classes of civil society. On the contrary, they must promote mutual concord and charity. The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen's strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. "The precise opposite is the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion." (Pope Saint Pius X, Singulari Quadam, Sepetember 24, 1912.)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett does not recognize or accept this fact because she does not know about it. She is a creature of—and has been victimized by—Americanism and Modernism.  

Similarly, Judge Barrett is probably unaware of the fact that the mother country of the United States of America, England, gave Christendom a distinctive Anglo-Saxon culture, including the development of much of the Common Law, some of which is still the basis of legal reasoning, albeit much more infrequently now than in the past, in the United States of America.

English judges heard cases-at-law as they sat under crucifixes and attempted to provide remedies and/or render decisions that were consonant with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as well as the facts and circumstances of the cases before them. These judges were mindful of the fact that they would be judged by the Divine Judge, Christ the King, at the moment of their Particular Judgment, and it was from the tradition of justice that flowed from the Common Law that the Magna Carta was issued in 1215 to serve as a check upon the abuses of royal power. Although certainly owing a debt to the heritage of Roman law, the Magna Carta, however, was written by Catholics who were mindful of their duties to Christ the King and it is one of the greatest English contributions to Christendom.

To be sure, Judge Amy Coney Barrett is putting the members of the false opposite of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” to shame by destroying the various sophisms they have attempted to use against her. She has braved demagoguery, caricature and rhetorical traps with admirable skill and a command of facts. Indeed, it is nothing other than laughably hypocritical for the Democrats to raise what would be an altogether legitimate question, which I will explore in another commentary at some in the near future, about her ability to be the mother of seven children and to fulfill her duties as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America when each of them encourages women to have “careers” of their own and to, paraphrase the old Greyhound bus lines “Go Greyhound, and leave the driving to us” slogan (see Go Greyhound and Leave the Driving to Us and a Fred MacMurray advertisement  Fred MacMurray Takes Greyhound), “go, be a career, girl, and leave the children to us.” Judge Barrett’s poise under such hypocritical lambasting and rhetorical fire has drawn praise from many quarters. Granted.

However, this is to note that Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s willingness to put her Catholic faith “aside” demonstrates that the very people who use everything but the words of the Constitution of the United States of America upon which to base their public-policy decision-making and/or judicial policy-making make their personal beliefs and social engineering/ideological predilections as the very basis of what they call perversely a “pursuit of justice” by bending a “living constitution” to make it concur with their stated policy objectives from which no one is free to dissent.

This does not mean that Judge Barrett is not wrong to “put aside” any effort to use the binding precepts as, of course, she is. However, it is point out that the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which draws much from the ethos of Americanism, teaches Catholics to do precisely what Judge Barrett stated to Lindsey Graham that has done and continues to do while not requiring positivists of the “leftist” stripe to reciprocally as “religious” beliefs must be excluded while secular, ideological predilections are perfectly acceptance even though such beliefs/predilections are adhered to as unquestionable legal dogmas that they contend bind the consciences of everyone.

In truth, of course, civil law must conform to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls, meaning, as has been noted on this site since its inception and in my college classrooms and professional writing decades before I became a sedevacantist fourteen and one-half years ago, that human beings, whether on their own or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, lack the authority to do anything with immutable moral truths than to do adhere to them and to recognize that there are matters that exist in the nature of things that are not subject for debate or “repeal.” Truth is. Truth exists, and truth exists independently of human acceptance of their binding force or validity.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett does not permit herself to admit this publicly as she has permitted a false “wall” to be built between what she knows to be immutably binding truths and her jurisprudence, thus showing yet again that to be exclude truth, whether supernatural or natural, from public policy and/or judicial decision-making is to make oneself a prisoner of a falsehood that is destructive of justice and hence of all true social order.

The price of admission for Catholics in American public life involves ignoring the plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of both men and nations:

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: 26-38.)

To check one’s beliefs, which one knows to be absolutely truth, at the door of judicial is to surrender that which the “left” never surrenders, and it is to play by the devil’s rules as it is never possible to restrain the advance of moral evils and the deification of both popular sovereignty and the civil state that accompany those evils by means that are merely natural. To do requires one to compartmentalize the personal from the social, thus fulfilling the very words of the late Cardinal Pie about such a divorce or dissevering that serves to advance the anti-Incarnational agenda of Modernity:

"So much as Christ does not reign over societies, that much does His influence over individuals remain superficial and precarious. If it is true that the work of the apostolate is, by definition, to bring about the conversion of individuals, and that it is not nations which will go to heaven, but souls, one by one, it must not, meanwhile, be forgotten that the individual lives profoundly joined in a social organization that has influence over him. If you attempt to convert individuals without wishing to Christianize their social institutions, your work remains frail. What you have built in the morning, others will reverse in the evening. Is it not this tact of God's enemies instructive to us? In seeking everyday to tear away the heart of the individual, they employ more effort in the pursuit of destroying social institutions. One single defeat for God in this area, is the disturbance of the faith, if not the ruin, in a great number of souls." (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie, back side of the title page.)

" 'Do not reproach us,' Cardinal pie insists, 'for returning more often than not to this question of the rights of Jesus Christ over society; the responsibility of spiritual medicine, like that of the body, lasts as long as it takes to uproot [error]. Our many Saints and our many seers have traced for us the duty in this regard. The errors of the Donatists had a range incomparably less than these lamentable effects tests us. We are seeing, however, in reading the sermons of the holy Bishop of Hippo [St. Augustine], that we should not pass up an occasion to take them p again, almost daily, against these controversies. The sectarian spirit [analogous to the divisiveness of the Donatists] is eminently opinionated and stubborn; without regard to the more convincing answers, to the more decisive refutations, it imperturbably repeats the same common place banalities, reproduced invariably and without restraint. If the defenders of the truth, out of squeamishness, scruple against repeating, if the yare not renewing the blows, already a hundred times, against the lie, it [political naturalism] will remain master of the terrain' " (Fr. de St. Just, pp. 93-99, quoted in Selecting Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, p. 30.)

"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction,

"if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .

"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?". . . .

"Neither in His Person," Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction,

"nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: 'He is our peace, Who hat made both one. . .'  (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: 'every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world' (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7).

"So then, Card. Pie continues,

"when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., 'Separation of Church and State,' for one, and the enigmatic axiom 'A free Church in a free State,' for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist."

Fr. de St. Just adds:

"Accordingly, the Bishop of Poitiers had always fought against THE SEPARATION OF Church and State. Moreover, he opposed all separations, that of reason and faith, of nature and grace, of natural religion and revealed religion, the separation of the philosopher and the Christian, of private man and public man. He saw in all these [separations] a resurgence of Manichean dualism and he had fought all these with, the supreme argument, the law formed by Christ. Therefore, it is in all truth, writing to [Minister of the Interior] the Count of Presigny, that he could render this testimony:

'We have nothing in common with the theorists of disunion and opposition of two orders, temporal and spiritual, natural and supernatural. We struggle, on the contrary, with all our strength against these doctrines of separation which is leading to the denial of religion itself and of revealed religion.'"

Fr. de St. Just returns at this point and introduces us to what is perhaps Msgr. Pie's strongest language, with regard to this entire subject:

"To this doctrine of the Church, which Msgr. Pie brought to the mind of the rulers of nations, the liberals would oppose acts favoring separation.

"Certain countries, Belgium and America, for example, haven't they proclaimed the separation of Church and State, and doesn't the Church enjoy a more complete liberty under such a system?"

Cardinal Pie responded firmly to this question:

'THE AMERICAN AND BELGIUM SYSTEM, this system of philosophical-political indifference, shall eternally be a bastard system" (pp. 122-124 in Fr. de St. Just's book) (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 21-23.)

None other than Pope Saint Pius X used the writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to help him explicate Catholic Social Teaching as a bishop in Mantua, Italy, and Venice, Italy, before he did so upon his elevation to the Throne of Saint Peter on August 3, 1903:

"[St.] Pius X, giving audience in the French seminary, declared to have 'often read and re-read' the works of Cardinal Pie . . . . This veneration of [St.] Pius X for the great Bishop of Poitiers is demonstrated for us by this account found in Canon [Paul] Vigue's 'Select Pages of Cardinal Pie': "A priest from Poitiers has recalled that one day he had the honor of having been introduced into the cabinet of the Supreme Pontiff, [St.] Pius X, in the company of a religious who was also from Poitiers. 'Oh! the diocese of Poitiers," the Holy Father exclaimed, raising his hands, when he heard the name Poitiers mentioned. "I have almost the entire works of your Cardinal,' the saintly Pontiff continued, 'and, for years, there has hardly been a day that I have not read some of its pages.' (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, testimonial pages.)

To check one’s belief at the door of a courthouse is to become a sophist who must do everything imaginable to deny that just governments derive their powers from Christ the King and thus have no authority of any kind to dispense with His eternal laws upon whose strict observance, despite the sins of fallen creatures, depend the fate of men and their nations.

Pope Pius XI explained our duty as Catholics in public life in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

We will advance the cause of Christ the King by promoting the fulfillment of His Most Blessed Mother's Fatima Message, offering our acts of reparation for our sins and those of the whole world to His Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We will advance the cause of Christ the King with every Rosary we pray.

We will advance the cause of Christ the King with every act of mortification we offer up to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, every bit of humiliation and ostracism and ridicule that we suffer for Him as His totally consecrated slaves through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, every effort we make to form ourselves and our children in the crucible of love that is the Holy Cross as we spend time before Our King in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We will advance the cause of Christ the King with the Enthroning of our homes to His Most Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and by refusing to participate in our culture of naturalism thereafter, getting rid of the television once and for all.

We will advance the cause of Christ the King by refusing to enable the careers of naturalists who hate Him and His Holy Church just as much as the Masons in Mexico and the Communists in Spain did as they put thousands upon thousands of Catholics to death as those brave martyrs exclaimed the glorious words made famous by Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., as the bullets pierced his flesh on November 23, 1927:

Viva Cristo Rey!

We must remember these words that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Our King, spoke to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

Pray that Judge Amy Coney Barrett will see the truth and thus act in accordance with it at all times, yes, even if it means she is not confirmed or that she stands the risk of impeachment by the leftist” mobs if she is confirmed.

(A new fifty-four day Rosary Novena begins today. Please join us in praying this Novena for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter.)

Yes, Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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 Teresa of Jesus, pray for us.