It was a week ago now that I received a text that contained a link to video recording of a sermon given by a conciliar presbyter at a Sunday staging of the liturgically invalid and thus sacramentally barren Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination. The person who sent it to me asked for my judgment about the sermon, which I gave although I do not have enough time, nor, truth be told, interest, to view every video or listen to every audio presentation that others send to me.
The conciliar presbyter’s sermon—or, should I say, “homily”—lasted twenty-six minutes, and the man, who I would place to be in his early seventies as he said that this would be the fourteenth presidential election in which he would be voting since “reaching the age of majority,” which was twenty-one in the year 1968 as former Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon, then Vice President Hubert Horatio Humphrey, and former (and future) Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace contended for the presidency in the general election, which took place, on Tuesday, 5, 1968. The presbyter also said that, although he had said the same thing in 2016, that this upcoming presidential election “was the most important election” in his lifetime.
The essence of the “homily” was a scathing critique of former Vice President and current Trojan Horse for the Jacobins/Bolsheviks within the organized crime family of the naturalist “left” Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s, support for the surgical execution of the innocent preborn babies, “marriage” between practitioners of the sin of Sodom and its related vices, and socialism. While the presbyter’s “homily” was certainly a courageous effort on his part given the support for Biden that exists within so many chancery offices in the United States of America and within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River during this time of apostasy and betrayal, and was a very good review of Biden’s pro-abortion, pro-sodomite record, his reliance upon conciliar “popes” to demonstrate his points was very grating, admitting freely that I am sure that I grated many never-endings in the 1990s when doing the same in my writing for The Wanderer, and did not help to buttress his arguments.
Particularly annoying was the presbyter’s very erroneous claim that there was an “unbroken chain of thirteen popes” who had denounced socialism stretching back to Pope Pius IX. This claim is erroneous not only because that number includes the first five of the current line of antipopes, a reality he simply does not accept, but also because no one who is truly informed about the socialism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI would ever make such an unfounded claim, noting that it was also stretch to Albino Luciani/John Paul I in that list as he only governed as an antipope for all of thirty-four days. Glaring by its omission was the name of “Pope Francis,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as anyone aware of Joseph Robinette Biden’s disqualifications for public office understands that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a supporter of socialism and that he has publicly praised an actual baby-killer, Emma Bongino, the “Margaret Sanger of Italy (see Bergoglio Callas Italy's Foremost Abortion Promoter One of the Nation's Forgotten Greats), and has suborned one pro-abort and socialist in public life after another.
The conciliar presbyter certainly meant well. However, his ignorance of history, both remote and more proximate, was quite glaring when he made the very common assertion that “our problems began with Roe v. Wade.” Sigh. Roll of the eyes. As will be explained below, our problems did not start with Roe v. Wade, which was but the inevitable consequence of over six hundred centuries of the consequences of the neo-pagan, rationalistic Renaissance and, of course, the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which made possible the rise and eventual triumph of the religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity.
Almost simultaneous with the receipt of the text asking for my comment about the conciliar presbyter’s “homily” around five days ago was an email from a Catholic asking me to comment about a message he had received from one of his fellow Knights of Columbus who had taken issue with Mrs. Randy Engel’s absolutely stellar The Case Against An Abortion Consensus. As both the video link sent to me about the conciliar presbyter’s “homily” and the email sent to me by a member of the Knights of Columbus deal with the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn, I am going to use this commentary to explain the flaws in the conciliar presbyter’s belief that “our problems started with Roe v. Wade” and the email concerning Mrs. Engel’s article.
It Didn't All Start With Roe v. Wade
Most pro-life Americans are so busy finding "political" and "legal" and "constitutional" "strategies" that they are totally disinterested in even learning about how we have arrived at this point in history. Most people prefer to believe in partial-truths about "activist" judges and "loose" constitutional construction, reacting with outrage when they are told that the real proximate cause for each of our social problems, including abortion, is the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt in the Sixteenth Century and the rise of anthropocentricity (a man-centered view of the world) associated with Judeo-Masonry and with the variety of naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies that were spawned from the time of the so-called Age of the Enlightenment to our present day.
No, the move for decriminalized baby-killing by surgical means started in earnest in the early-1960s as a result of the "Thalidomide babies," that is, those babies born with birth defects as a result of their mothers having taken the drug Thalidomide to help them with their morning sickness during pregnancy. It was, as Dr. Doris Graber pointed out in a very matter-of-fact way in her Mass Media and American Politics text, in 1963 that the phenomenon of the "Thalidomide babies" produced calls for "therapeutic" surgical abortions to be made "legal."
The anti-family movement, which started with efforts on the part of Masonically-controlled state legislatures to liberalize existing divorce laws in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, gained great impetus with Margaret Sanger's Birth Control League in 1919 and numerous organizations devoted to "eugenics" in the 1920s, some of which were successful in convincing state legislatures ton enact mandatory sterilization laws for criminals and the retarded (once again, thank you states' rights). That anti-family movement, which comes from the devil and is designed to lead souls to Hell for all eternity as social order is disrupted as a result of the breakup of the family, had been given its "wedge" issue as a result of the Thalidomide babies, giving its leaders a "cause" to try to open the legal floodgates to surgical abortion-on-demand to complement the chemical abortions being produced by the "pill" and other abortifacient contraceptives. Indeed, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists issued a statement in 1965, shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), that declared in a most positivistic manner that drugs that stopped the life of a child after fertilization but before implantation in a mother's womb were to be called "contraceptives" instead of "abortifacients."
As I have noted in many other articles on this site, Roe v. Wade did not "start" the genocide of the preborn in this country that has taken over fifty million innocent human lives since 1965. The move for the decriminalization of surgical baby-killing began at the state level (so much for demigod of states' rights) as pro-abortion leaders such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of the National Repeal of Abortion Laws (now called NARAL-Pro Choice), and Lawrence Lader and William Baird, among others used the existence of various "exceptions" in abortion legislation then on the books as the means of "liberalizing" "access" to baby-killing for all women in all circumstances. The move for decriminalized baby-killing under cover of law started at the state level, moving into the Federal court system only when pro-death advocates believed that it was propitious for them to challenge the laws of those states which prohibited or restricted "access" to baby-killing.
It is useful to review some of the history of decriminalizing surgical baby-killing under cover of civil law prior to Roe v. Wade. Those who contend that the "people" in the various states have the "right" to determine whether to permit or prohibit surgical baby-killing would have no problem with the pre-Roe legislation, nor would they be bothered by the fact that many states have "trigger laws" in effect to "protect" baby-killing in the event that Roe v. Wade is reversed at some point by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
The State of Colorado was the first to "liberalize" its existing legislation, doing so in 1967:
The pre-Roe abortion statute was based upon § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code. Under the statute, an abortion could be performed at any stage of pregnancy (defined as “the implantation of an embryo in the uterus”) when continuation of the pregnancy was likely to result in the death of the woman, “serious permanent impairment” of her physical or mental health, or the birth of a child with “grave and permanent physical deformity or mental retardation. An abortion could be performed within the first sixteen weeks of pregnancy (gestational age) when the pregnancy resulted from rape (statutory or forcible) or incest, and the local district attorney confirmed in writing that there was probable cause to believe that the alleged offense had occurred Pursuant to Roe v. Wade, the limitations on circumstances under which abortions could be performed and the requirement that all abortions be performed in hospitals were declared unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Norton.Enforcement of the statute was not enjoined.
The pre-Roe statute has not been repealed, and would be enforceable if Roe v. Wade were overruled. The broad exceptions in the statute, however, in particular the exception for mental health, would allow almost all abortions to be performed. Colorado, Life Legal Defense Fund.These links no longer work. This site, Christ or Chaos, appears to be the current source for the information that used to appear at Life Legal Defense Fund.
The State of California, then headed by Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan, followed suit in 1967, passing the Therapeutic Abortion Act, has long been a haven for baby-killing:
The pre-Roe abortion statutes were based upon § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code. The California Penal Code prohibited abortions not performed in compliance with the “Therapeutic Abortion Act” of 1967, and made a woman’s participation in her own abortion a criminal offense (subject to the same exception). The Therapeutic Abortion Act authorized the performance of an abortion on a pregnant woman if the procedure was performed by a licensed physician and surgeon in an accredited hospital, and was unanimously approved in advance by a medical staff committee. An abortion could not be approved unless the committee found that there was a “substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother,” or that “[t]he pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.” An abortion could not be performed on grounds of rape or incest unless there was probable cause to believe that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. No abortion could be approved after the twentieth week of pregnancy for any reason.
In a pre-Roe decision, the California Supreme Court declared substantial provisions of the Therapeutic Abortion Act unconstitutional on state and federal due process grounds (vagueness). Sections 274 and 275 of the Penal Code were repealed in 2000, the Therapeutic Abortion Act was repealed in 2002. None of these statutes would be revived by a decision overruling Roe v. Wade. Abortions could be performed for any reason before viability, and for virtually any reason after viability.
Finally, regardless of Roe, any attempt to enact meaningful restrictions on abortion in California would be precluded by the California Supreme Court’s 1981 decision in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v Myers. In Myers, the state supreme court struck down restrictions on public funding of abortion on state constitutional grounds (privacy). In the course of its decision, the court stated that under the privacy guarantee of the state constitution, “all women in this state–rich and poor alike–possess a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether or not to bear a child." California, Life Legal Defense Fund
The State of Oregon, whose Masonically-controlled state legislature once compelled the attendance of all children of school age in state-run schools, effectively prohibiting parochial and other privately-run schools from operating (a law that was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925), passed its own pro-death legislation in 1969:
The pre-Roe statutes were based on § 230.3 of the Model Penal Code. The statutes allowed an abortion to be performed before the one hundred fiftieth day of pregnancy when (1) there was “substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy [would] greatly impair the physical or mental health of the mother,” (2) “the child would be born with serious physical or mental defect,” or (3) the pregnancy resulted from felonious intercourse. After the one hundred fiftieth day, abortion was permitted only if “the life of the pregnant woman [was] in imminent danger.”
Pursuant to Roe, most of these statutes were declared unconstitutional in an unreported decision of a three-judge federal court, and were later repealed. The pre-Roe statutes would not be revived by a decision overruling Roe v. Wade. Abortions could be performed for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. Oregon, Life Legal Defense Fund.
The State of New York passed legislation in 1970, albeit by one vote in the State Senate (cast by a Catholic, State Senator Edward Speno of East Meadow, Long Island, New York), to permit baby-killing through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy:
The pre-Roe statutes allowed abortion on demand through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. After the twenty-fourth week, an abortion could be performed on a pregnant woman only if there was “a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve her life. In a pre-Roe decision, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the law brought by a guardian ad litem for unborn children The legality of abortion would not be affected by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. The pre-Roe statutes, which have not been repealed, allow abortion on demand through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. After the twenty-fourth week, however, abortions could be performed only to preserve the woman’s life.
Regardless of Roe, any attempt to prohibit abortion (at least before viability) in New York probably would be barred by language in the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Hope v. Perales, a challenge to the New York Prenatal Care Assistance Program. In Hope, the court of appeals noted in passing that “it is undisputed by defendants that the fundamental right of reproductive choice, inherent in the due process liberty right guaranteed by our State Constitution, is at least as extensive as the Federal constitutional right [recognized in Roe v. Wade].” New York, Life Legal Defense Fund.
The movement to decriminalize baby-killing in the United States of America, ladies and gentlemen, started in the states, and it would remain perfectly legal in most of those states if Roe v. Wade, decided forty-two ago this very day, January 22, 1973, was reversed today. Only one state, Arkansas, has legislation in place that would ban all surgical baby-killing with no exceptions whatsoever. Another seven states (Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) would prohibit surgical baby-killing with the so-called "life of the mother exception." Those eight states represent a total of ten percent of the population of the United States of America. Surgical baby-killing would remain legal, both as a result of existing state laws and/or provisions or the decisions of various state courts, in forty-two states and the District of Columbia, meaning that the American slaughter of the innocent preborn via surgical means would be fully accessible to ninety percent of the American population. And those who think that entire generations of children who have been raised in the culture of ready access to contraception and abortion are going to have an "epiphany" during adulthood about the errors of their past training are not thinking clearly about the state in which we find ourselves at present.
Indifference to the Proximate Root Causes of Abortion: The Overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King
As noted earlier, most of those call themselves pro-life know nothing about the root causes of how we have come to such a state of affairs as that most people in a nation that professes itself to be “civilized”—and deems itself to be judge of whether other nations in the world are "worthy" of being considered as "civilized" as itself—can go about their business each day without giving a single thought (and I mean not a single, solitary thought) to the outrages being committed against God and man by means of the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn children under cover of law.
Most pro-life Americans are so busy finding "political" and "legal" and "constitutional" "strategies" that they are totally disinterested in even learning about how we have arrived at this point in history. Most people prefer to believe in partial-truths about "activist" judges and "loose" constitutional construction, reacting with outrage when they are told that the real proximate cause for each of our social problems, including abortion, is the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt in the Sixteenth Century and the rise of anthropocentricity (a man-centered view of the world) associated with Judeo-Masonry and with the variety of naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies that were spawned from the time of the so-called Age of the Enlightenment to our present day.
Fathers Robert Mader and Denis Fahey summarized what led to the current decay in their respective works published in the first half of the Twentieth Century:
Father Robert Mader, a Swiss priest who published articles in Das Neus Volk in Switzerland between 1926 and 1934, explained what happen in the sort of world desired by the conciliar authorities, a word where the Social Reign of Christ the King has been replaced by the totalitarianism of the "civilization of love" that is nothing other than the reign of Satan himself:
The world is a book. Every creature is a sentence in it. The Author and Publisher is the Triune God, with the co-operation of the angels and the human beings. It is the task of human intelligence to read God's thoughts from this book.
Every book has its basic theme, its dominant idea, its soul, a word that says everything, because it contains everything. The word that represents theme and content of the entire creation and the history of the world is called Jesus the King.
One can only understand this completely when the book has been read to the end and one can look back. Only Judgment Day, the final chapter of the book, will bring complete clarity as to the meaning of creation. Only when the Sign of Man appears in the heavens, when the lightning flashes from the beginning to the end, shall we understand the mysterious why and wherefore of all that happens in Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the immortal King of the centuries.
When the Sign of the Son of Man does not shine in heaven, then the world is robbed of its Light. Sun, moon and stars are of no use. One sees nothing, one understands nothing. One stumbles about in the dark and trips on all the paths. It is like a spiritual eclipse of the sun over the universe.
St. John painted for us the image of the eclipse of the sun as the great fact of the world without Christ in masterful strokes. Through Jesus, the Word, "all things were made...and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it" (Jn. 1:3-5).
Certainly the spiritual eclipses applies to the time before Jesus. Yet despite two thousand years of Christianity, it exists still today for a great part of Christendom. The words of St. John the Baptist are still valid: "...there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not" (Jn. 1:26).
Jesus is by no means so well-known and loved as one ought to expect after nineteen centuries. Oh yes, they preach and talk and write a great deal about religious problems in our days. But the central Truth of our Religion: Jesus the Redemption of the world, the Life of souls and of nations, the Head and the Heart of society, Jesus the King, is perceived in the immense, general, exclusively saving implications of that Truth only barely and only by a few.
The sign of the Son of Man indeed can still be found in the churches, in the homes of Christian families, in the cemeteries and on the breasts of a few pious souls. However, it is not, as it once was, the sun that lights the day, that directs and influences all of public life, the thoughts and works of people. We are living in a period of spiritual night, cold, Christ-less night.
This ignorance is a world disaster. For it is always a precursor of serious catastrophes when leaders of the peoples have become so blind that they cannot distinguish between day and night, true and false, the path and the chasm. Even worse than blindness, not being able to see, is not wanting to see anymore.
Right now this is the state of a large part of the human race. Whatever name it may carry, whether liberalism, neutrality, non-denominationalism or laicism, the sin of the modern world is that it does not want to see the Sign of the Son of Man in the heavens anymore.
Jesus is no longer recognized as public, commanding, life-giving Power. According to the valid constitutions, He has officially nothing more to say in the parliaments, in the halls of ministries, in the courts, in the schools and in the workshops. At most His participation in the discussion is occasionally tolerated.
If one knows Who Jesus is: the Creator and the Conserver, the Savior, the Owner of the earth, then one must regard the liberal sin, that of fundamental social refusal to recognize the spiritual monarchy of Christ over society, as the most grievous sin committed since Good Friday. It is deicide, God-murder, committed in the name of law and of Satan, true Antichristianity. Cardinal Mercier therefore rightly called the official apostasy of the nations the greatest crime of our times.
At present this is the situation of the Sign of the Son of Man. They do not want it to shine in the heavens. Just like back then on Good Friday: We will not have Him reign over us!
But someday it will be otherwise. The world will not remain liberal forever. The artificial stars of earthly dimensions that want to eclipse the Sun of Our Lord will fall from heaven. Then will the Sign of the Sun of Man flare up in the heavens, and they shall see "the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mt. 26:64).
The Judgment Day will be the day of great revelations, not only in the sense that there will be no secrets anymore between persons, but also because it will reveal the secret of Jesus the King to all of the world. It will be a sort of new Epiphany, a Feast of the Appearing of the Lord, but more grandiose, more general than the Feast of the Three Kings. It will be a sort of Coronation before all the nations of the earth and all the hosts of heaven.
The notion of the absolute, exclusive, unlimited Kingship of Jesus over the entire human race and the entire universe is one of the most noble, but unfortunately also one of the most forgotten truths of our faith.
We have called the world a book. In this book, Jesus is not only the most interesting and most beautiful chapter, but also the central, dominating idea of the book in its entirety. We must search out this Holy Name on every page and regard everything in its light. When God wanted to call creation into being, He had only one great thought, an immense plan, a dominant idea, one Word: the Word Jesus Christ. Everything that exists has value and meaning in God, only insofar as it is member and organ of the holy Humanity of Jesus, an ornament of the robe of His glory, an image of His perfection, or a footstool for His feet.
St. Paul described the central thought of creation in firm strokes at the beginning of his Epistle to the Colossians: He "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created on heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consists" (1 Col. 1: 14-17).
Similar expressions are used in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "God...hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world...For in that he heath subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him" (Heb. 1:1-2; 2-8).
This language leaves us in no doubt. The Kingship of Jesus is not just one chapter, but rather the whole theme of the history of creation and the world. Jesus is all in all.
This idea is even more sharply delineated in St. Paul's teaching on the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, Christ the Head of the Church. Head and Body together form an inseparable, mystical, mysterious Unity. The name of this inseparable, mystical Unity is (because it is taken from the Head) Christ. Christ and HIs Church, Head and Body bound to one another, says St. Augustine, are only one being, a single Christ. We have not only become Christians. "We are Christ."
"Church" is just another name of Christ united with the members. The Church has its being only in and with and through Him. Christ is all in all, Way, Truth and Life in the Church. The same is true of Church history.
Jesus will be all in all in the fullest sense on Judgment Day. From that day on there will be no more lords and no more kings, there will not even be any more popes. Only one will be Lord, one will be King, one will be the High Priest, "when he shall have brought to nought principality, and power, and virtue" (I Cor. 15:24). Even the temple will be superfluous in the City of God. "For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb. And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For...the Lamb is the lamp thereof" (Apoc. 21: 22-23). So it is written. Everything belongs to Christ. Jesus is all in all. The theme of creation will have reached its completion. Cosmology will become Christology, the study of the world will become the teaching of Christ.
Creation is a book about Jesus the King. "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. And one of the ancients said to me: Wee not, behold the lion of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
"An the Lamb...came and took the book out of the right hand of him that son on the throne. And when he had opened the book...they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation...And every creatures, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To the Lamb benediction, and honor, and glory, and power, for ever and ever" (Apoc. 5: 1-5, 7, 9, 13).
Either science will humbly return to Jesus, or the book of creation and history will remain for science an absolute riddle. For they tell of Christ. May the song of creation become also the song of mankind: Jesus my King! My Jesus, my All!
Come, let us go there and make Him King, Him alone, King of minds and hearts, the King of the nations as well! Do you hear the bells ringing for the immortal King of the centuries? The world is gradually growing tired of being liberal, far from God and shy of Christ. It is seeking the Sign of the Son of Man. It is the seeking the King. (Father Robert Mader, Cross and the Crown, edited and translated by Dr. Eileen Kunze, Sarto House, 1999, pp. 51-55.)
Father Denis Fahey, writing in his The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, explained that we cannot be neutral in the battle between the reign of man and the Social Reign of Christ the King:
We can thus easily see that the entrance of Christianity into the world has meant two things. Primarily and principally, it has meant the constitution of a supernatural society, the Mystical Body of Christ, absolutely transcending every natural development of culture and civilisation. Secondly, it has had as result that this supernatural society, the Catholic Church, began to exercise a profound influence upon culture and civilisation and modified in a far-reaching way the existing temporal or natural social order. The indirect power of the Church over temporal affairs, whenever the interests of the divine life of souls are involved, presupposes, of course, a clear distinction of nature between the ecclesiastical authority, charged with the care of divine things, and the civil authority, whose mission is concerned with purely temporal matters. In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of states came to be sought in a manner calculated to favour the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social life came more and more under the influence of the supreme end of man, the vision of God in the three divine Persons.
Accordingly, the divine plan for order in our fallen and redeemed world comprises, primarily, the supernatural social organism of the Catholic Church, and then, secondarily, the temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of that influence in social institutions. From the birth of the Catholic Church on Calvary and the solemn promulgation of her mission at the first Pentecost, the Kingdom of God in its essence has been present in the world. As a result of the gradual acceptance of the role of the Church by the temporal representatives of Christ the King, the social institutions of states and nations became deeply permeated with the influence of the supernatural life of Christ. Then, and only then, could the Kingdom of God in its integrity or the rule of Christ the King in its integrity, be said to exist. The Kingdom of God or the rule of Christ the King is present in its integrity only in so far as the whole social life of states, political and economic, is permeated with the influence of the Church. To put it in other terms, Christ fully reigns only when the programme for which He died is accepted as the one true way to peace and order in the world, and social structures in harmony with it are evolved.
The Kingdom of God in its essence is always with us, but the influence of the Church on politics and economics, in other words, the extension of the Kingdom of God in its integrity, has varied with the centuries. Broadly speaking, the thirteenth century has been, so far, the high water mark of that influence. Since then, until recently, there has been steady decay. No particular temporal social order, of course, will ever realise all that the Church is capable of giving to the world. Each of them will be defective for several reasons.
First of all, the action of the Church, welcomed by some Catholics, will be opposed by the ignorance, incapacity and perversity of others.
Secondly, even if all Catholics did accept fully, they could only reflect some of the beauty of the Gospel as the saints reflected some of the infinitely imitable holiness of Christ.
Thirdly, there would still remain the vast number of non-Catholics to be won for Christ and have their social life organised under His rule. It is towards this latter goal that every generation of Catholics is called upon to work. The aim is not, needless to say, to bring back the Middle Ages, for the river of time does not turn back in its course, but the aim is to impregnate a new epoch with the divine principles of order so firmly grasped in the thirteenth century. The result of the so-called Reformation and the French Revolution has been to obscure the rights of God proclaimed by our Lord Jesus Christ and to diffuse naturalism.
Naturalism consists in the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the supernatural life and order, or more radically still, in the negation of the very existence of that life and order. In our day owing to the progress of the anti-Christian revolt, the more radical meaning has become common. Naturalism may be defined therefore as the attitude of mind which denies the reality of the divine life of grace and of our Fall therefrom by original sin. It rejects our consequent liability to revolt against the order of the divine life, when this life has been restored to us by our membership of Christ, and maintains that all social life should be organized on the basis of that denial. We must combat that mentality and proclaim the rights of God.
In his Encyclical letter on Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII teaches authoritatively: “From what we have already set forth, it is indisputably evident that their [the Freemasons’] ultimate aim is to uproot completely the whole religious and political order of the world, which has been brought into existence by Christianity, and to replace it by another in harmony with their way of thinking. This will mean that the foundation and the laws of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure naturalism.” Now, it is historically certain that the Declaration of the Rights of Man had been conceived and elaborated in the Masonic lodges before it was presented to the States-General of France. Accordingly, the infamous Declaration, a naturalistic or anti-supernatural document, is in reality a declaration of war on membership of Christ and on the whole structure of society based on that supernatural dignity. The same naturalistic hostility to membership of Christ and the supernatural life of grace runs through all the documents concerning human rights drawn up under the influence of the organised forces that were responsible for the Declaration of 1789. That is the real struggle going on in the world, and in it every member of Christ is called upon to play his or her part. There can be no neutrality. “He that is not with me is against me.” (St. Matthew XII, 30.) (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution is what set in place the inexorable set of diabolical forces that made possible the proliferation of errors in the supernatural order that have created as world without its King, a world that hinges on the whims of the “people” even though God remains a majority of One and is the true Sovereign of men and their nations.
The Faith, The Faith, The Faith
Thus, as well-meaning as the conciliar presbyter whose “homily” was sent to me a week ago may have been, his understanding of how we got to the situation where we are in is very shallow and reflects a lack of proper formation in both the true facts of history and the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the fact that the Holy Faith is the only means of personal sanctification and salvation and is the prerequisite for a just social order, noting that there will never be perfection in this mortal vale of tears human nature is flawed by the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin and of men’s Actual Sins. Fallen men need the Faith to provide structure in their own personal lives and to order all things in society in light of their common final end to behold the glory of the Beatific Vision for all eternity in Heaven.
Most Catholics have never even heard of, no less read, this beautiful and moving summary of Catholic truth found in Pope Leo XIII's Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that has been oft-quoted on this site:
We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Although it is possible to make arguments against the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn on a purely natural basis, such arguments are defenseless against those who steeped in irrationality and emotionalism and thus are impervious to scientific truth and the use of clear logic. The truth of the Holy Faith resonates in the souls of men, and it must be proclaimed fearlessly as we trust the efficacy of Our Lady’s graces to win souls for her Divine Son, Christ the King, and His true Church, which is not and can never be the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
The Knights of Columbus and the March for Life, Aided by the Conciliar “Bishops,” Seek a “Consensus”
As noted earlier in this commentary, the other email I received a week ago dealt with a reaction that a member of the Knights of Columbus had received from a fellow knight concerning the organization’s campaign for a “consensus” on the surgical execution of children that was the subject of Mrs. Randy Engel’s The Case Against An Abortion Consensus. Mrs. Engel, who is he president of the US Coalition for Life, used her commentary to provide a thorough history of how the American “bishops” and their allies in the “mainstream” pro-life community kept changing the anti-abortion focus from restoring full, unconditional legal protection to the innocent preborn to accepting various “compromises” over time.
Indeed, as will be demonstrated below, the entire thrust of the American “bishops’” family life bureau in the 1960s was flawed from the beginning as it was based in silence about contraception and on an acceptance of the “life of the mother exception” that is completely immoral as there are no exceptions to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment. It became a short step from there to include the “life of the mother” exception in the “some” baby-killing as the “best” that can be accomplished before settling in the 1990s on the morally flawed strategy of emphasizing opposition to crushed skull (partial birth) abortions, known medically as “dilation and extraction,” wherein a baby in in the latter stages of his development in this mother’s womb can is extracted head first so that his skull can be crushed. The bishops also supported the anti-life classroom “sex education” agenda that had been established by Monsignor James T. McHugh, who worked closely with Mary Calderone of the Sex and Information Committee of the United States of America, and has been undermining the purity and innocence of children in conciliar schools ever since.
Over sixty million preborn babies have been executed in their mothers’ wombs since the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Thousands more babies, however, had been slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs for the preceding six years in some states (Colorado, California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey) whose legislatures enacted “liberalizing” statutes to permit innocent children to be butchered in their mothers’ wombs (see below). Moreover, hundreds of thousands of other children had been killed chemically by abortifacient contraceptives and devices.
Unfortunately, however, the late and very valiant Nellie Gray, who conceived of, helped to organized and presided over all but one of Marches for Life after the first one on January 22, 1974, refused to include opposition to contraception as part of her “life principles,” choosing to concentrate solely on opposing Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton even though the Supreme Court’s rationale in support of baby-killing had been established in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that declared a long unused Connecticut statute forbidding the sale of contraceptives to married couples to be unconstitutional. Just as the widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality led to the widespread acceptance of baby-killing-on-demand, so is the case that the Court’s “reasoning” in Griswold led directly to the outcome in Roe. Griswold v. Connecticut, though, was the jurisprudential foundation for them all, however, as the court’s seven justice majority (Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan—then the court’s lone Catholic justice, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg) “found” a “right to privacy” emanating from alleged “penumbras” in the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Even Associate Justice Hugo Black, the Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama who became a court liberal on many matters, found that kind of judicial activism too much to stomach, denouncing it very plainly even though he did not like the law, which we know as Catholics is objectively just and good of its nature, in question:
The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.
One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .
I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.
I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions. See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965.)
The late Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, a Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in his native Alabama, who had was fellow Freemason Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on August 13, 1937, did not like the Connecticut statute under review in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Indeed, he defended a fellow Klansman who had murdered Father James Coyle in 1921 when he, Black, a thirty-five year-old attorney in private practice. Nonetheless, though, Black understood the principles of just constitutional interpretation, articulating very clearly what would happen if the Court continued to “invent” “rights” that had no foundation in the Constitution of the United States of America whatsoever.
It impossible to oppose surgical abortion unless one also opposes contraception, which is overthrows the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and thus makes the conception of a baby to be considered an “accident” if he is not “planned” or “wanted.” Mrs. Gray chose not to do so, some who knew her better than I did told me, as she wanted to involve as many non-Catholic “religious leaders” as possible, not that many Catholic leaders wanted to do so. They did not.
Roe v. Wade could have been overturned by a no exceptions constitutional amendment in the 1970s if the conciliar bishops (many of them at the time were true bishops) worked in unison to penalize Catholics in public life who supported the surgical execution of preborn babies and if they themselves opposed all abortions without exception. The real fault here lies not with the intrepid Nellie Gray but with the conciliar bishops, both true and false, and their chief point man, James T. McHugh, as they forfeited what they should have seen as their solemn apostolic duty to defend the inviolability of all innocent human life from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages without any exceptions, qualifications or reservations whatsoever. Indeed, Mrs. Randy Engel documented in The Catholic Inquisitor newspaper that Monsignor McHugh advised the conciliar “bishops” against taking legal action in opposition to Roe v. Wade after that decision was rendered.
Sadly, however, the conciliar bishops in 1973 did nothing then and thereafter to prevent and/or punish rhetorically “pro-life” Catholics in public life as Edward Moore Kennedy. Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Hugh Leo Carey, Thomas P. O’Neill and Mario Matthew Cuomo, among so many others at the time, when they switched their positions to support what they called was the “choice” of a woman to do with “her” body as she pleases. This shopworn slogan ignores the simple biological fact that a preborn child is not the mother’s body even though God Himself has ordained creation so that he spends his first nine months in what she be the sanctuary of his mother’s womb.
Only four American bishops, Timothy “Cardinal” Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John “Cardinal” Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment (named after its sponsor, United James Senator James Buckley, C-New York) on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These bishops, however, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated, at least to a very large extent, by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expedience or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.
The first legislative compromise based upon the McHugh strategy was the Hyde Amendment, which was first passed by Congress in 1976, that prohibited the use of Medicaid funds to kill preborn child except in cases where it was alleged that a mother's life was endangered. This “exception” served as the basis in 1993 for the inclusion of exceptions in cases involving forcible assaults upon a women’s bodily integrity by strangers or relatives. The Hyde Amendment, in other words, has always permitted the direct intentional killing of some children and is thus fraudulent. It is not "pro-life" as the civil law may never permit the direct, intentional killing of any human being, no less with taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, the late Mrs. Nellie Gray, the founder of the March for Life, tried always emphasized the importance of a no-exceptions Constitutional amendment in this in the 1970s and 1980s when there were enough Republicans and Democrats who had called themselves “pro-life” in Congress. However, the “best” that could be done was the fatally flawed Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which would have given the states the ability to decide whether to permit, restrict or prohibit the surgical assassination of innocent preborn children. This was flawed because it conceded to institutions of human governance the power to loose men from the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, a power that belongs to no mortal creature, whether acting individually or together with others in the aforesaid institutions of civil governance. God is a majority of One.
This is a different country now than it was in the years after the Supreme Court decision in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. I was only twenty-one years old at the time, having commenced my graduate studies days before at the University of Notre Dame in Notre Dame, Indiana, and had made a bee line for the offices of Dr. Charles E. Rice, a Professor of Law at the Notre Dame Law School and the author of The Vanishing Right to Live, a book published by Doubleday in 1968 that had been used by a Dominican priest at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York, during a moral philosophy course I took with him in the Spring Semester of 1972. There was a chance for such an amendment then. However, even many who were in their thirties, forties and fifties forty-seven years ago are dead, replaced by generations of Americans who have come to accept chemical and surgical baby-killing as a matter of their own “constitutional rights.” Sentimentality and lust reign supreme, not the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Again, just by the way, whatever did happen with all the agitation for the paramount, no-exceptions human life amendment that many of us supported in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton?
No such amendment ever reached the floor of either house of the Congress of the United States of America, and, as noted above, the morally flawed “Hatch-Eagleton Amendment,” which would have given each state the “right” to “decide” whether to “permit,” restrict or limit the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers’ wombs, failed in a floor vote in the United States Senate on July 28, 1983, by a vote of 49 for and fifty against.
Just as an aside, of course, the United States Senate was controlled by the Republican Party at this time. Nineteen pro-abort Republican senators Robert Packwood (R-Oregon, Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island), William Cohen (R-Maine), Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), Slade Gorton (R-Washington, John Heinz (R-Pennsylvania), Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kansas), Charles Mathias (R-Maryland), Robert Packwood, R-Oregon), Charles Percy (R-Illinois), William Roth (R-Delaware, Warren Rudman (R-New Hampshire), Alan Simpson, Arlen Specter (R-Wyoming) James Stafford (R-Vermont), Ted Stevens, (R-Alaska), John Tower (R-Texas), Malcolm Wallop, (R-Wyoming), Lowell Weicker (R-Connecticut), Peter Wilson (R-California).
Just an aside, you understand. (Senator Jesse Helms, R-NC, voted present as he was the sole senator to understand that the Hatch-Eagleton amendment would have resulted in a constitutionally granted, rather judicially imposed, “right” for state legislatures to enact and maintain pro-killing laws. Helms, a thirty-third degree Freemason, mind you, also was only one of three Republicans who voted against the confirmation of the nefarious Ruth Bader Ginsburg on August 4, 1993, the Feast of Saint Dominic de Guzman, O.P. The other two were Catholics, Robert Smith of New Hampshire and Donald Nickles of Oklahoma.)
As time progressed, of course, some of the Jacobin/Bolshevik members of the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America began to distance themselves from any effort to oppose abortion on demand without exception as they followed the tragic path of Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life” that he enunciated at Fordham University, Bronx, New York, December 6, 1983:
The substance of a Catholic position on a consistent ethic of life is rooted in a religious vision. But the citizenry of the United States is radically pluralistic in moral and religious conviction. So we face the challenge of stating our case, which is shaped in terms of our faith and our religious convictions, in non-religious terms which others of different faith convictions might find morally persuasive. . . . As we seek to shape and share the vision of a consistent ethic of life, I suggest a style governed by the following rule: We should maintain and clearly communicate our religious convictions but also maintain our civil courtesy. We should be vigorous in stating a case and attentive in hearing another's case; we should test everyone's logic but not question his or her motives. ("A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue".).
To what must a Catholic listen on the issue of the taking of innocent human life?
Those who support the chemical and/or surgical taking of innocent human life in the womb do not have a "case." They have lies. Such people, if they are non-Catholics, must be converted to the Catholic Faith. Those who are Catholics must be told that they excommunicate themselves from the Church's maternal bosom by supporting willful murder, one the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
The Bernardin approach to "life issues" contrasts, of course, very sharply with that of the true popes of the Catholic Church, who taught clearly and unequivocally that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. We do not speak in "non-religious" terms. We make proper Catholic distinctions when speaking about moral issues, remembering always to speak as Catholics at all times without ever dissenting from anything contained within the Deposit of Faith at any time for any reason, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:
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.)
The very reason that contraception and abortion are part of our culture and protected by civil law is because the Protestant Revolution overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century in many parts of Europe and the revolutions and movements inspired by the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry finished the job in the rest while creating entirely new nations elsewhere, such as in the United States of America, whose people were to celebrate religious "diversity" as a "protection" against tyranny and a "guarantee" of individual liberties rather than as the means by which the devil can propagate and then institutionalize Every Error Imaginable.
Every Catholic must be opposed to contraception and abortion, and there is no room to “settle” for a “consensus” that accepts the killing of innocent preborn babies in earlier stages of his prenatal development but restricts must, but not all, such killing in the last three months before he is born.
Yet it is, of course, that the conciliar “bishops” and the Knights of Columbus, who, following the lead of their “bishops,” have never expelled a single pro-abortion member from their ranks, have co-opted the March for Life by making it a vessel of the sort of a “consensus” with the devil that is of the essence of the entire false spirit of conciliarism in its entirety. This is a statement that was issued by the March of Life’s affiliate, “March for Life Action” prior to the March for Life earlier this year:
8 in 10 Americans believe that abortion should have real, legal limits. Even 6 out of 10 pro-choice Americans agree that abortion should happen only during the first three months of pregnancy, at most. Furthermore, almost 2/3rds of Americans oppose tax dollars paying for abortion.
Yet most pro-choice politicians support the extreme position that abortion should be legal right up until birth. And, they want Americans to pay for abortion with our tax dollars.
It’s time for this extremism to end. It’s time for politicians to stop listening to the pro-abortion lobby, and join the national consensus. (March for Life Action.)
This is what passes for “pro-life” leadership?
We can no more settle for a “consensus” about one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, willful murder, than we can for a “consensus” about just accepting the existence of false religions without believing that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has given us a mission to convert all men everywhere to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
Always eager to find “common ground” between truth and error, the aforementioned Joseph Louis Bernardin even started what he called the “Common Ground Initiative” to produce “dialogue” between those who support unrestricted baby-killing on demand in all circumstances as a matter of “human rights” and a woman’s supposed “right to choose” (to kill a baby, of course!) and those who oppose such killing in all circumstances without exception.
There is no “common ground” between truth and error.
None. Truth must be proclaimed.
Those in error must be corrected.
Civil law that defies the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law has no binding force over men and must be opposed and defied, not accepted as “settled law” or made subject to “discussions.”
The truths of the moral law are non-negotiable.
Then again, the conciliar revolutionaries believe that everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith is subject to “discussion,” “reflection” and “adaptation” according to alleged “pastoral needs” that, to recall the words uttered by Pope Pius XII to the Jesuits sixty-three years ago, “would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.”
At this late hour?
To make it appear that that there some kind of moral distinction between a baby in the final three months of his development in his mother’s womb and those who are in the first phase of their development?
A consensus on this?
From where is such an immoral “consensus” to come and what would it accomplish in a Congress where at least one house will be controlled by the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” come January 3, 2021, and with the far from remote possibility that the party of abortion, sodomy, statism and deceit will oust the party of careerism, cowardice, compromise and passivity as the majority in the other house, the United States Senate?
From the fifty-six percent of Catholics in the United States of America who support the surgical execution of children in nearly all cases? (See October 2020: Key Findings about Catholics and Abortion in Pew Poll.)
At a time when organized and well-funded “leftist” revolutionaries plan violence to root out “Trumpism” even if the pathetic reprobate named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., wins the presidential election on November 3, 2020?
Many leftists have directed some deeply disturbing rhetoric at conservatives and Trump supporters in recent months, claiming President Trump’s bombast is responsible for the political polarization of today’s America. This is pure nonsense.
Sure, Trump talks about MS-13 as “animals,” Antifa as “thugs,” and Hillary Clinton as crooked enough to “be in jail.” His supporters know his presentation to be a bombastic and theatrical schtick, but he never threatens any group of voters.
By contrast, some ominous tones, even homicidal and terrorist tones, are coming from the mainstream left. Increasingly, through mainstream media and Big Tech, high-profile leftists are speaking openly about violence to be inflicted on Trump and all his supporters.
I’m not talking specifically about the Antifa and Black Lives Matter street violence we’ve seen in places like Denver and Portland, which includes outright murders of Trump supporters. I’m referring here to voices that normalize and promote open terror against any freedom-respecting person who has different views from those blessed by left-wing leaders, media, and Big Tech. Seven examples are included below.
1. A Think Tank Guy Should Meet…A Firing Squad
First, in a chilling Twitter incident, agitator Nils Gilman called for the execution of journalist and former Trump adviser Michael Anton. Gilman publicly stated, “Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate.” Brasillach was a Nazi collaborator in France whose fate was execution by firing squad. Neither Gilman nor Twitter took down the tweet, despite many protests, including a public letter of grave concern from the Claremont Institute, where Anton is a senior fellow.
Gilman is head of the George Soros-funded Berggruen Institute and a co-founder of the “Transition Integrity Project,” which war-gamed the ouster of Trump from office regardless of whether he wins re-election. Anton’s crime, in Gilman’s mind, was publishing an article about Gilman’s project in the American Mind, titled “The Coming Coup.”
Why is Gilman’s Sept. 21 death threat against Anton still up on Twitter an entire month later? Will it remain up after the election?
2. Shoot This CEO For Not being Woke Enough
Second, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo objected to the company Coinbase’s decision to ease up on forcing employees to engage in social justice agendas such as critical race theory. Costolo accused Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong of being among the “me-first capitalists” who would be the first lined up and “shot in the revolution.”
Costolo, who has 1.5 million Twitter followers, added that he would “happily provide video commentary” of the executions. The tweet has disappeared, although there is no mention of it being deleted. One response comes with a screenshot though:
3. If Trump Loses, His Supporters Remain ‘An Existential Threat’
Third, if the Democrats take over the reins of power — in an election, a coup, or a bought-and-paid-for “color revolution” — what happens to those who have supported Trump?
Take a look at this Aug. 1 Salon article, which argues that even if Biden wins, Trumpism “will survive the election and continue to be an existential threat.” Author Paul Rosenberg That isn’t good enough, however, according to Feffer. It’s important to go after “low-level participants” to root out Trumpism. It recommends enforcing this changing of “hearts and minds” so that there is “an attitudinal shift that could lead to lasting transformation.” This is not a far cry from re-education camps and coercive thought reform.
The formula appears to be threefold and on a large scale, “the scale on which we need to be thinking,” according to the Salon article. First, divide the so-called redeemable Trump supporters from those intent on keeping America great. Second, send those who are problematic to virtual education camps. Third, stomp out all the ideas the power elites don’t like.
In the same vein, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who has 1 million Twitter followers, recommended that a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” be established to rid the nation of Trumpism.
examines the arguments in writings by John Feffer and other anti-Trump pundits who believe there is a lot of work to be done to force the “de-trumpification” of America. They compare Trump supporters to Nazis or the Baathists of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and describe America under Trump as a “pathocracy.”
Rosenberg cites Feffer, who says the solution is “to drain the swamp Trump created, bring criminal charges against the former president and his key followers, and launch a serious campaign to change the hearts and minds of Americans who have been drawn to this president’s agenda.” He even brings up the Nuremberg trials as instructive, trials that resulted in death sentences for 37 Nazis.
. Prosecute Everyone Who Supported Trump
Fourth, former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann recently ranted that everyone associated with Trump, including his enablers and supporters, must be “prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.” To many, Olbermann might seem to be a has-been, but he has nearly 1 million Twitter followers. He represents the viewpoint of many in the propaganda media that control more than 90 percent of the megaphones. Olbermann referred to Trump supporters as “maggots” who needed to be chased from the stage.
5. Trump Supporters ‘Must Be Eradicated From Society’
Fifth, on Aug. 4, 2019, a supposed religious scholar and CNN contributor Reza Aslan announced on Twitter — a tweet still up as of Oct. 22 — that all Trump supporters “must be eradicated from society” along with Trump, and that there is “no longer any room for nuance.” Aslan has nearly 300,000 followers.
His extremely defamatory and threatening tweet reads verbatim: “The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters — ALL OF THEM — are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And his evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.”
Openly Attacking Members of Congress
Sixth, the organized violence against guests at the Republican National Convention as they left the White House in August showed new levels of open hostility against the right. Most notably, the mob swarmed Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and his wife, who were convinced they would have been severely injured or killed if there were no police presence.
This represents a ramping up of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter attempt to normalize extreme violence against any perceived political opponent. Agitators even set up a mock guillotine on the spot with an effigy of Trump in it.
7. Plots to Dox Political Opponents
Seventh, the left is now using doxing tools to invite widespread targeting of Trump voters. A recently unveiled database called “The Media Manipulation Casebook” is described as a means of gathering personal information that exposes anonymous Trump supporters. NBC News reporter Brandy Zadrozny appears to use it to find “addresses, property records … even Amazon wish lists” that can be a “goldmine for learning about what a person reads, buys, and wants.”
At the same time, open-source materials, such as donations tracked by the Federal Election Commission, are being used to invite the targeting of Trump donors, either by name or address on a hostile site. The information can be used much like the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” which triggered the attempted murders at the Family Research Council and the GOP baseball practice.
Terror Is Predictably Increasing
Examples of hostilities toward Trump supporters abound. Many are connected to the potential for violence should Trump win re-election. As the examples above show, however, the threat of terror is even greater should he lose. If Democrats gain control of the White House and other branches, the left has spoken openly of their intent to punish a huge swath of Americans with a program that threatens to cancel them, impose thought-reform programs on them, and worse.
How far will this go? Members of the domestic terror organization Weather Underground, headed up by 1960s radical Bill Ayers, explained some 50 years ago that when “the revolution” came, a lot of Americans would have to be located to education camps. This sounds eerily like what Reich and others are now proposing after they oust Trump. Weather Underground members said that those who didn’t comply despite re-education, which they estimated would include about 25 million Americans, would have to be eradicated, as in killed.
Of course, that could never happen here, right? Just remember that history is littered with societies filled with decent, normal people who descended into chaos and murder, often incited by propaganda from a heavily controlled media. However unlikely this seems, we must pay close attention to these patterns so we don’t repeat some of the darkest days of history. (https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/26/7-open-leftist-threats-that-political-terror-is-coming-to-america-whether-trump-wins-or-not/.)
Robert Reich is no “fringe” leftist. He was William Jefferson Blythe Clinton’s Secretary of Labor from January 20, 1993, to January 20, 1997. Although more about the civil unrest that is ahead of us after November 3, 2020, no matter who wins the presidential election, the fact remains that there is not now and there will not be in the future any “consensus” about limiting or eliminating the surgical execution of children. We do not have the voice of the Chief Shepherd on earth to guide the sheep, who are thus left wandering from the verdant pastures provided by the Catholic Church, she alone who has the Divinely imposed duty of assuring that civil leaders pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End and of interposing herself as a necessary last resort when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention after her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching, sanctifying, and exhorting fail to result in restraining civil leaders from pursuing actions offensive to God and thus inimical to the souls of men and thus to their nations.
Not under any circumstances.
As noted before, God is a majority of One.
God does NOT need human assent for his immutable laws are binding regardless of what his mortal creatures endowed with an immortal soul decide. Our Lord demands submission to the truth without exception, reservation or qualification, a demand that is non-negotiable even in a “pluralist’ society that is reaping the whirlwind of a false concept of “freedom” that makes everything negotiable.
God is a majority of One.
Most so-called "pro-life" Americans, including Catholics, do not think in terms of absolute truth. They do not want to think. They do not follow the details of current events or remember the little that they read, which is why I will append below for yet another time a brief summary of the actual anti-life, anti-family record of the "conservative" statist and war monger named George Walker Bush, whose record will always look bad to Christ the King, Who is Truth Incarnate, no matter how "good" it might look to facile minds who have permitted themselves to fall into the trap of seeing the world through the eyes of the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right."
Alas, even those Catholics who are pro-life, no matter where they fall across the ecclesiastical divide, do not understand or accept these facts. They are willing to accept "crumb" from phony pro-life politicians in the false belief that we will "get somewhere" by means of the political process. We will not. Many of these truly good people, a lot of whom have worked their entire lives to defend the inviolability of preborn human life by volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers and by praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in front of abortuaries and by speaking out against this crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, are looking for naturalistic solutions to the abortion genocide precisely because they have never been taught by the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the proximate cause for social problems in our world today is the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the combined forces of Judeo-Masonry.
No matter how difficult or “hopeless” it may appear to us mere mortals, true Catholic realism demands that we seek to plant the seeds for the restoration of this Social Kingship, starting with the enthronement of our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
It is essential that Catholics come to recognize that the remote cause of all problems, whether personal or social, is Original Sin and that the proximate cause for our social problems today is Modernity's warfare against the Incarnation and thus against the Social Reign of Christ the King, a warfare that has been aided and abetted by conciliarism's warfare against the necessity of restoring Christendom as the foundation, although never an absolute guarantor, of course, of personal and social order.
Men will never seek to restore full legal protection to the innocent preborn if they persist in lives of wanton blasphemy, religious indifferentism, moral relativism and outright paganism. Men cannot offend God in matters of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Commandments and expect that others will observe the binding precepts of the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments, especially when the supposed “pope” and most his “bishops” are brazenly open and serial violators of each of the Ten Commandments, deconstruct the plain words of Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers while treating Sacred Tradition as nothing other than a set of prescriptions that had been “distorted” by the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas and are thus in need of modification to meet the alleged “needs” of “modern” man.
The battle to end the surgical killing of babies will fail no matter how hard even well-meaning legislators and activists attempt to push various proposals. Moreover, the chemical assassination of the preborn would continue unabated even if Roe v. Wade itself wound up being reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and nothing would be done to stop the killing of embryonic human beings by means of in vitro fertilization and of the stem-cell research that is derived from them. Perhaps even more to point is the simple fact that babies are being killed immediately after birth and, in many instances this country and around the world, innocent human beings at any stage after birth are subject to—and are in fact being killed by—“medical professionals” by means of “brain death,” “palliative care,” “doctor assisted suicide, the withdrawal of food and water, and a variety of other means.
This is all but the inexorable result of what must happen to men and their nations when “liberty” is used as a cloak for malice after they give no thought to Christ the King and the just Judgment that he will render on their immortal souls.
Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, that Holy Mother Church will accommodate herself to the concrete realities in which her children find themselves in the modern civil state in order to continue her work of sanctification and instruction. Holy Mother Church, however, never concedes as a matter of principle the false premises of the modern civil state as she seeks to exhort her children to know their obligations to pray and to work for the conversion of their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order:
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, 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.
The unjust decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the unjust laws passed by Congress and state legislatures are just a logical result of what happens when men believe that “religious freedom” can result in a “discovery of truth.” It is no accident that the “truth” of “religious freedom” was “discovered by the bishops present at the “Second” Vatican Council, and it is this “discovery that helped to create the “perfect storm,” so to speak, for the coalescence of the forces of Antichrist to march triumphantly to our present day, and those coalesced forces have much on their “do list” before their time expires. Much more, ultimately including the dispossession of “dissenters” from their homes, the confiscation of their property and bank accounts, the forfeiting of social benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, their imprisonment, “enhanced interrogation” during incarceration, and of course, execution if these “undesirables” do not “reform.”
Oh, you don’t think that this is possible?
What do you think happened from 67 A.D. to 313 A.D. (and beyond in some places) in the Roman Empire?
What do you think happened during the Protestant Revolution in England and Ireland?
What do you think happened during the French Revolution?
What do you think happened during the Bolshevik Revolution and Maoist Revolutions and their aftermath?
What do you think happened in Mexico in the early-Twentieth Century?
Unlike the Catholic Church, which makes concessions to the realities of the concrete circumstances in which her children live without endorsing the errors of the moment, the counterfeit church of conciliarism concedes the liceity of the false principles, which its lords consider to be "good" in and of themselves. This is one of the reasons that chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of law continues unabated and that the agenda of perversion will become more and more institutionalized over the course of time. One cannot fight moral evils with false principles.
The counterfeit church of conciliarism rejects the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Its "conservative" 'bishops" in the United States of America have been content, at least up until now, to ally themselves with phony "pro-life" politicians in the organized agency of naturalism known as the Republican Party, most of whom support surgical baby-killing in some instances and the assassination of the innocent preborn by chemical means in all instances, thus falling into the same naturalist trap as their predecessors in the Catholic Church who served as lackeys for the likes of Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, James Earl Carter Jr, William Jefferson Blyth Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Sotero in the past and are doing so for Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. at this time. Their “red and green” “pope,” however, is seeing to it that this alliance of like-minded Jacobins/Bolsheviks is the wave of the conciliar future while men and their states are reduced to slavery at the hands of new “high priests” and “priestesses” of the opposite of the naturalist “left.”
The only true path of out the abyss is through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which is why it is important to use the final two days of this month of October, the month of Our Lady’s Holy Rosary, to renew our own consecrations to Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart so that we will offer up all that we must suffer here below to advance the cause of the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart of Mary and thus of the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state in life permits.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
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