Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part three

Hatred is a characteristic of all revolutionaries, starting with the Lucifer himself, who rebelled against God and was defeated by Saint Michael the Archangel before being cast down into hell with his fellow rebel angels:

The devil is a mocker and a scorner. He is also the proto-revolutionary as it was the rebellion he fomented against God in Heaven that caused many angels to follow him in making an irrevocable choice to hate God for all eternity. This first of all revolutions was described as follows by Saint John the Evangelist in The Book of the Apocalypse:

[7] And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:[8] And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Apocalypse 12: 7-9.)

The adversary’s hatred for God is such that, having failed in his rebellion against Him in Heaven, he plotted to do what he considered to be the next best thing: to tempt Eve and, through her, Adam into disobeying the very God Who had brought them forth. It is the tempter’s hatred of God that impels him to seek the ruin of the very zenith of His creative handiwork, man, and to take him body and soul into the fiery pit of hell for all eternity:

[6] But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. [8] And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed. [9] And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [10] And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads. . . .

[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. . . .

[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

[6] And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. [7] And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. [8] And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. [9] And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? [10] And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.

[11] And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? [12] And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. [13] And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. [14] And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. [15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. [17] And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. [18] Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. [20] And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living.

[21] And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them. [22] And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. [23] And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. [24] And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 2: 6-10, 16-17; Genesis 3: 1-23.) 

Hatred of God began with the adversary and entered into the hearts of men after their diabolically-inspired rebellion against Him in the Garden of Eden that resulted in their expulsion by God from their earthly paradise. All earthly revolutions (personal, theological, liturgical, social) are based in an unrepentant hatred for the true God of Divine Revelation and His Holy Commandments. As the very nature of man is made to know, love and serve God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church, those who rebel against God by means of unrepentant sin, no less the open promotion of sin under the cover of civil law and within every nook and cranny of what is called “popular culture” are rebelling against their own nature. This is why revolutionaries of whatever stripe, including “leftists” in the realm of the naturalist farce of partisan politics, are, at least for the most part, angry and unhappy people who will never find contentment here on the face of this earth nor, barring a miraculous conversion before they die, in the eternal torment that they must suffer in hell as the one who tempted them to be so hateful mocks them for succumbing to his wiles.

Heresy and liturgical abomination produce sterility. The conciliar revolutionaries refuse to do what it what would have been done in the past in the light of demographic changes: win new converts to the Catholic Faith. They have not done this because theirs is a religion that does not believe in winning converts, which is disparaged by Bergoglio and his revolutionary ilk as “proselytism.” Thus it is that Catholic church buildings must be shuttered and close as not an insubstantial part of the bounty from selling them has been paid out to victims of clerical abuse.

Revolutionaries hate everything about the past, which is why they must resort to physical violence against people and property so as to wipe out all traces of the past, to say nothing of teaching any possible counter-revolutionaries a lesson or two about what might befall then and their families and their property if they stand up to the inexorable march of the evolutionary forces of progress.
The first real modern revolution was the Protestant Revolution (whose path was certainly made possible by the sophistries and lies of pretended “philosophers” in the Renaissance), which was a violent and bloody assault upon the priestly hierarchy established by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at the Last Supper and upon anyone who held fast to it in spite of the slogans and misuse of history and theology by the revolutionaries and their apologists. Catholic churches were ransacked and stripped, statues destroyed, altars smashed, confessionals ripped out. I know, this sounds pretty much like what has happened within the Catholic Church in the past thirty-five years or so, which is precisely the point: the spirit of the innovation and the novelties of the past thirty-five to forty-five years is indeed Protestant to its very core, manifesting itself not only in the abominations of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination but in the very design of our church buildings, both exteriorly and interiorly. 

Indeed, the Protestant hatred of the glories of Catholicism reached fever pitch with John Calvin and his bloodthirsty disciples throughout Europe. Oliver Cromwell smashed altars in England with glee in the Seventeenth Century. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition was replaced with a "worship service," focusing on community fellowship which attempted to recapture the mythical spirit of a mythical, simpler liturgy. Again, this sounds very familiar to war-weary traditional Catholics who have seen the Faith of our Fathers stolen from us by wolves who are dressed in shepherds' clothing.

The Protestant Revolution, founded in its hatred for Christ’s true Church, was but the precursor of all modern social revolutions, starting with the French Revolution, founded as they have been in the hatred of everything to do with God and the deification of man.

The French Revolutionaries executed many Catholics, all to the delight of the bloodthirsty crowds, and committed unspeakable blasphemies in Catholic churches, including on the high altar of the Cathedral of Notre Dame, which, having been badly damaged in a fire on April 15, 2019, that may very well have been planned.

The Jacobins of the French Revolution took this to its next level, waging what the late Father Vincent Miceli, S.J., said in his book The Antichrist was the world's first anti-Theistic revolution, that is, a revolution against God Himself. While it can be said that this was also true of the Protestant Revolution, which was an attack on God Himself and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that He entrusted exclusively to His perfect society, the Catholic Church, for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, the French Revolution was the first of the social revolutions founded specifically in a hatred for God and a contempt for His Holy Church, which was mocked with the formation of a state-sponsored "Constitutional Church," replete with true bishops, mind you, which is more than can be said of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and a zeal for the murder of clerics and those who sponsored them. It is in this environment that Father William Joseph Chaminade worked in the underground and that formed the young Jean Marie Vianney, who was born on May 8, 1786, just a little over three years before the outbreak of the French Revolution on July 14, 1789.

Anticlerical fervor, fueled by the lodges of Judeo-Masonry, spread quickly throughout Europe, attacking the heart of the chief citadel of Christendom, the Papal States, with the Risorgimento of the Italian Masons, who seethed with anticlerical hatred and who, acting in the spirit of Martin Luther and Henry VIII, sought to close monasteries and dispossess religious communities. One of the first goals of the Italian Masons was to control the minds of the young by means of public schools, forcing Catholic teachers, including religious, to be "licensed" by the civil authorities, and, of course, to do what the French Revolutionaries had done, to strike at the heart of the domestic cell of Holy Mother Church, the family, by permitting divorce, which has been perhaps the singularly most powerful tool that the devil has used to turn people against the true God of Divine Revelation and the Holy Laws that He has entrusted to His Holy Church.

Otto von Bismarck's Kulturkampf, waged following Prussia's victory in the Franco-Prussian War and the unification of the German states, a revolution instituted by this consummate Freemason to consolidate the power of the united Germany as citizens were taught to obey the new hierarchy of civil authority that desired to make them more and more dependent upon the largesse of the civil state and to mind their masters without dissent, thus arrogating unto the civil state what belongs by right to the Catholic Church. The elderly were forced into retirement and a system of social security was established to make them dependent upon the largesse of the state and to drive a wedge between them and their children, who were "freed" from their obligations under the Fourth Commandment to return unto their parents the care and support that they themselves had received before they were grown. The warfare that Bismarck waged against the Church in Germany was denounced in no uncertain term by Pope Pius IX in Etsi Multa, November 21, 1873.

The Mexican Revolutionaries made war upon Holy Mother Church and her children at various points in the second decade of the Twentieth Century, a warfare that President Thomas Woodrow Wilson believed would bring about the triumph of the “liberal ideas” wrought by the bloodshed of the French Revolution:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to Father Francis Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

In other words, Thomas Woodrow Wilson really believed that it was "necessary" for the Freemsaonic/Communist Mexican government that enjoyed his favor to kill Catholics, whose "backward" beliefs were impediments to the institutionalization of "liberal values" that required him to suppress all opposition to his policies right here in the United States of America.

Father Francis Clement Kelley became the founding Bishop of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and it was during his time there that he wrote about the persecutions of Catholics in the third and fourth decades of the Twentieth Century that exceeded those that had met with the approval of the militant anti-Catholic Wilson in the second decade. Bishop Kelley’s Blood Drenched Altars contains a quotation from Father Brian von Hove, S.J., about the continuation of the persecutions in the years after the Vatican-negotiated “peace settlement” in 1929:

The first things (sic) Calles did after peace had been made was to shoot down 500 Cristero leaders. The six years of the entente Cordiale between Calles and the Church have been the six bloodiest years in the history of Mexico.

Actually, Elizonde puts the figure at 400, but perhaps the exact number will never be known. Calles was responsible for the killing. Plutarco Elías Calles, President of Mexico from 1924 to 1928, was depicted in the "BCR" the way Nicolai Ceausescu was in the popular press of 1989. When Calles left office in 1928 he controlled the government from behind the scenes, and he dominated the life of the country until 1934 when his rival Lázaro Cárdenas won out. How did Calles control the whole country for so long? Very simple _ by owning the army. Cárdenas prevented him from making a final comeback in 1936. No one has ever been able to explain adequately Calles' extreme and irrational hatred for the Church. Perhaps it was a combination of greed and Jacobin ideology. In any case, Cárdenas also hated the Church, but his fanaticism was more pragmatic and times had changed by the mid-30s.

The "BCR" described the 1929 revenge upon the Catholic "freedom fighters" more fully by setting the figure at 500 leaders and 5,000 ordinary men who were shot, often in their homes in front of their families. Their property was then seized, leaving the survivors destitute. Elizonde clearly says that the obedience of the Mexican Catholics to the request of the Holy See was a disaster for the Church, and ended only in betrayal. The American Jesuit Wilfred Parsons, on the other hand, claims Archbishop Pascual Díaz, SJ, of Mexico City, disagreed with those of Elizonde's persuasion, and thought the decision to seek a military solution was mistaken in the first place (Father Brian Van Hove, S.J, quoted in Bishop Francis Clement Kelley’s Blood-Drenched Altars.)

Hatred of Holy Mother Church, which is, of course, hatred of God Himself as He instituted her to be the sole means of sanctification and salvation, characterized much of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1918, the practices of the Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich, the Maoist Revolution in China in 1949, the Castroist Revolution in Cuba in 1959, and in all other places where Communism has been forced upon men and their nations. Countless hundreds of millions of people have died at the ends of the “social-justice seeking” Communists.

In like manner, you see, the seething, raging, violent hatred that fill the hardened hearts of the hardened sinners amongst the ranks of the pro-death and pro-sodomite mobs has as its source the devil’s hatred of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, His true Church and the doctrines she has received from her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Lady, and all the other saints and angels.

The adversary hates God because he envied his power and glory, and he rebelled against Him only to be defeated by Saint Michael the Archangel before being cast into hell with his fellow rebel angels who made the irrevocable decision to fight against their very Creator. The prince of darkness and the master of lies also hates the zenith of God’s creative handiwork, human beings, because they have rational, immortal souls made in the image and likeness of the One he hates, God, he directs all his energies to bring about the ruin of as many souls as possible and to fill them with his own hatred of God and all that is true, including most especially the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Militants in the pro-death and pro-sodomite ranks seethe with rage because they are at war with God and His immutable laws, which is why they are always furious in their demeanor, obscene in their speech, frequently violent in their behavior, and constantly raging about their “rights” as they go about living lives of utter unhappiness precisely because they spend their lives in the seeking of illicit gratifications that defy the laws of God and thus make themselves warriors against their own natures, which, whether or not they realize it—and most of them do not realize it, are made to know, love, and serve God has He has revealed Himself to mankind exclusively through His Catholic Church.

Indeed, there were many times when I heard the forces of death banging their drums from hell, blowing their whistles, screaming, screeching, shouting obscenities and trying to provoke confrontations while I was part of a group of Catholics praying Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary outside of pioneering baby-killing Bill Baird’s abortuary in Hempstead, New York, in the 1980s, and at countless pro-life rallies and marches in the 1980s and 1990s in New York and elsewhere. Many of those who support evil have souls that are in such possession of the devil that they have a preternatural hatred for all that is good and must seek confrontation with anyone who seeks to singe their consciences with the bright light of the Holy Faith.

While it is always necessary to leave the subjective judgment on the state of souls to the Divine Judge, Christ the King, while praying for the conversion of all those who are steeped in unrepentant sins that will doom them to hell if left unrepented and un-absolved before they die, it is also true, of course, that the objective nature of sin and its effects of the souls of men steeped in it are foretastes of hell, where men are eternally unhappy because they have lost the very end for which they have been created, namely, the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and eternally at war with the other damned souls sent there by their own free will decisions to go there as they are tortured by the devil and his associate devils for having been so stupid as to succumb to temptations and to become so blinded by sin, especially the sin of lust, that they sought, whether wittingly or unwittingly, to come the adversary’s accomplices in recruiting more citizens of hell.

God so respects human free will that He will never impose Himself upon anyone at death if they have not chosen for Him in life. Although He is the hound of heaven Who will give men up to their dying breaths to repent, He is also the just Judge of us all. Our freedom is a gift to serve Him, and if we wind up choosing to go hell for all eternity if we have chosen in life to serve ourselves and then persist in sin unrepentantly to the point of death. Those who persist in grave sins during their lifetimes have permitted themselves to captives to hatred, anger, obscenity, scurrility, lust, and all the other vices while they condemn anyone who attempts to reprove them as the Spiritual Works of Mercy demand of us.

Thus, those who are seething with anger about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022, are truly their own worst enemies and must live in constant states of agitation and anger. Their intellects can even become so darkened that they are incapable of seeing that most of their agitation is for naught as things in world that has rebelled against the Social Reign of Christ the King and His true Church are never as certain as they appear to be.

That is, for all the hatred, rage, acts of violence directed against Catholic churches and crisis pregnancy centers, and obscene statements of outrage, baby-killing remains fully “legal” in eighteen states (Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Hawaii) within the United States of America and legal challenges to pre-Roe v. Wade state statutes that outlawed most, although not all, surgical executions of innocent children and/or “trigger laws” to protect the lives of many, although all, innocent children within their mothers’ wombs have been filed in the States of Texas and Louisiana, and it is not at all clear whether district attorneys within states that have enacted laws to curb most acts of surgical baby-killing are going to enforce their states’ laws or what the consequences would be for them if they refused to so.

Further, as the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, pro-statist, opportunistic and self-righteous President in Name Only Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., noted in his initial remarks about the decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it is entirely possible that the Dobbs decision itself could be reversed. Before discussing such a possible reversal, however, it is important to review the remarks that one of adversary’s chief stooges, Biden, delivered on June 24, 2022, on the day that the Supreme Court of the United States of America issued its decision in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

THE PRESIDENT:  Today is a — it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very solemn moment.  Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.

They didn’t limit it.  They simply took it away.  That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans.

But they did it.  And it’s a sad day for the Court and for the country. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number One:





Cliché-mouthing career Pontius Pilate.

Listen up, Idiot Biden: There is something called the Fifth Commandment, and it always binds the consciences of all men and in every place without exception. Innocent human life is inviolable, and no man, whether acting on his own or collectively with other men in the institutions of civil governance, can bestow a “right” in contravention of the Divine and Natural Law.

Moreover, Moron Biden, Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion for the Court did not take away any “right” to kill babies. Even worse than that, of course, the majority opinion stated that the Constitution of the United States of America was “silent” about the surgical assassination of preborn children in their mothers’ wombs and that it was up to the “people” in the states to “decide” that over which they have no power to decide.

The Court merely—and I do mean merely—declared that the decision in the case of Roe v. Wade was not based on constitutional principles, reflected a sloppy account of the history of state abortion laws, and was on a collision course with itself from the day it was issued on Monday, January 22, 1983. The seven-justice majority in the case of Roe v. Wade manufactured a “right” out of whole cloth, thus convincing millions upon millions of people that they had a “right” to do something proscribed by God Himself, not that the majority in the Dobbs case stated this, of course.

Fifty years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided and has been the law of the land since then.

This landmark case protected a woman’s right to choose, her right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from the inter- — from interference of politics.

It reaffirmed basic principles of equality — that women have the power to control their own destiny.  And it reinforced the fundamental right of privacy — the right of each of us to choose how to live our lives. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Two:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, March 6, 1857, was the “law of the land” until the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America overturned it eight years later.

Plessy v. Ferguson, May 18, 1896, was the “law of the land” until the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, May 17, 1954.

Listen up, Master Demagogue Biden, no one has the right to “choose” to kill a baby.

The slogan of “women’s equality” can be mouthed a gazillion times but no human being, man or woman, has the right to do that which is opposed to the law of God and is knowable even by reason itself.

There is no “fundamental right of privacy” that permits anyone to subject an unborn baby, who belongs in his mother’s womb by the very nature of that which has been given by God to continue the human species, to subject that baby to being vacuumed apart by a vacuum machine twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum cleaner or to being burned alive with saline solutions of one sort or another or being sliced up within the birth canal or by being taken out of his mother’s womb via a partial Caesarian section and having his neck twisted until he is dead or by being taken out of the womb head first before a paid assassin masquerading as a “doctor” pierces and crushes his skull, which is still legal in cases involving the “health” or the “life” of the mother. Such barbaric tortures call to mind the likes of Moloch and Montezuma.

Herewith is what Moses wrote in the Book of Leviticus about Moloch:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: [2] Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: If any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers, that dwell in Israel, give of his seed to the idol Moloch, dying let him die: the people of the land shall stone him. [3] And I will set my face against him: and I will cut him off from the midst of his people, because he hath given of his seed to Moloch, and hath defiled my sanctuary, and profaned my holy name. [4] And if the people of the land neglecting, and as it were little regarding my commandment, let alone the man that hath given of his seed to Moloch, and will not kill him: [5] I will set my face against that man, and his kindred, and will cut off both him and all that consented with him, to commit fornication with Moloch, out of the midst of their people.

[6] The soul that shall go aside after magicians, and soothsayers, and shall commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of its people. [7] Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy because I am the Lord your God. [8] Keep my precepts, and do them. I am the Lord that sanctify you. (Leviticus 1-7.)

I return to the Mentally Challenged Reader of TelePrompTers and Prepared Texts in the White House sound stage across the street from the White House in the Old Executive Office Building:

Now, with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Three:

Baby-killing is not “health care.”

Women’s lives and health are not at risk.

Innocent life at all stages is, however, at risk because of chemical abortifacients, the surgical execution of children, the killing of “deformed” or “unwanted” children who manage to born despite efforts to kill them by surgical means, the myths of “brain death” and human organ vivisection in the name of “giving the gift of life,” the starvation and dehydration of human beings said to be brain damaged, and by means of “hospice”/”palliative care,” to say nothing about those who continue to be killed by the medical industry’s “approved” protocols for treating the Wuhan virus and its variants and by the “vaccines” that are injury and killing many more people than governments around the world are willing to admit.

The conception of a child is not a disease.

The birth of a child is not a disease.

Only diseased minds such as that belonging to the Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. continue to believe in and mouth such sloganeering cliches.

Minds blinded by sin and/or by the craven expedience of rank political careerists who love to tickle the ears of the “people” can do nothing other than mouth cliches, something that is certainly true of one with a low grace intellect who seventy-six out of eighty-five students at the Syracuse University College of Law in 1967 after having plagiarized an article that he inserted without attribution into his third year thesis, and such is the mind of the man to whose words on June 24, 2022, we now return:

As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as Vice President and now as President of the United States, I’ve studied this case carefully.  I’ve overseen more Supreme Court confirmations than anyone today, where this case was always discussed. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Four:

Starting in 1987, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., served the role of demagogue in his interrogations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas and a cheerleader for the pro-aborts Anthony McLeod Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Biden is nothing other than a lightweight when it comes to constitutional law and an abject rebel against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Back to Biden’s June 24, 2022, remarks:

I believe Roe v. Wade was the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Five:

There is no “fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy as no one is morally free to do what which is forbidden by God Himself, and civil law must be subordinated to the Divine and Natural Laws in all that pertain to the good of souls.

Biden’s so-called “fundamental rights” have destroyed the family, opened the door wide for widespread carnal promiscuity of the sort for which his own son, Hunter Biden, has become notorious without, it would appear, any word of rebuke from his father, and the unhappiness, depression, alienation that must perforce follow in the souls of those steeped in lives of natural or unnatural vices that are detestable in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Although painful, I return now to the “good Catholic” Biden’s June 24, 2022, statement about the Supreme Court decision in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization:

It was a decision on a complex matter that drew a careful balance between a woman’s right to choose earlier in her pregnancy and the state’s ability to regulate later in her pregnancy.  A decision with broad national consensus that most Americans of faiths and backgrounds found acceptable and that had been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of Americans today. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Six:

First, no one has any right from the true God of Divine Revelation to kill an innocent human being.

Second, there is no decision to be made when a child is conceived. There is only unconditional love to provide to a child, whose immortal soul has been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose Holy Will it is for that child to be brought to the baptismal font to become elevated to a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of His true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can no truly just social order.

Third, the Serial Plagiarist and All-Around Lowlife who should have stayed in his basement in Delaware is engaged in a great deal of revisionist history when claiming that there was a “broad national consensus” existed at the time that Roe v. Wade was issued on Monday, January 22, 1973. No such consensus existed then, and it would be irrelevant to the truth even if such a “consensus” ever existed thereafter as God has always been, is now, and will ever be a Majority of One.

Fourth, truth of any kind, whether supernatural or natural, does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity. Truth exists in the very nature of things. One can either abide by the truth and enjoy the benefits from so doing or one can seek to live in defiance of the truth and suffer the consequences now and, in the case of defying Revealed Truth, suffer the consequences for all eternity.

All right.

Penance is always necessary.

It is in a spirit of penance that I return to Biden’s June 24, 2022, comments:

And it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike. 

Roe v. Wade was a 7 to 2 decision written by a justice appointed by a Republican President, Richard Nixon.  In the five decades that followed Roe v. Wade, justices appointed by Republican Presidents — from Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George W. [H.W.] Bush — were among the justices who voted to uphold the principles set forth in Roe v. Wade. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Seven:

So what?

Each of the pro-abortion justices who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States of America who either in support of the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn in the case of Roe v. Wade (Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger—who later voted to uphold a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania twenty-hour waiting period statute in the case of Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, June 11, 1986, and is believed to have switched his vote from the dissent to the majority of Roe to prevent the senior associate justice at the time, William O. Douglas, from writing the opinion—and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Lewis Powell, Harry Blackmun, and Thurgood Marshall) or to uphold it thereafter (Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. and Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) were wrong. The deceased among them (Burger, Blackmun, Stewart, Douglas, Ginsburg, and Brennan) have been judged by Christ the King, although it should be noted that, in purely objective terms and nothing more, the harshest standard of Divine Justice would have been administered to the Catholic among them, William J. Brennan, whose “religion” was liberalism, not Catholicism).

Mere mortals made “decisions” that were never theirs to make in the first place, and nothing that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., says in their praise can change the fact that mere mortals, whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave do not to get to “decide” anything about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

It is now time, most sadly for me, of course, to return to President in Name Only Biden’s June 24, 2022, comments following the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

It was three justices named by one President — Donald Trump — who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Eight:

There is only one thing that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., does well apart from lying with impunity, blaming Vladimir Putin for high energy costs, inflation, and the buildup of plaque in the teeth of Americans, and using his son Hunter as a conduit to make millions of dollars from Red Chinese-connected “investors,” and that is being a demagogue.

In this regard, it should be remembered what then President Ronald Wilson Reagan said of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., nearly half of Biden’s lifetime ago:

Ronald Reagan once called Joe Biden a “smooth but pure demagogue.” Biden is not so smooth anymore, but he certainly remains a demagogueBiden’s preference for demagoguery to debate defines his career. For all his talk of civility and unity, he would much rather call his opponents names than address their arguments. Biden’s description of Georgia’s new election law as “Jim Crow on steroids” is typical of his demagoguery. It’s a comment as incendiary and heedless as his 2012 assertion that the policies of Mitt Romney were going to put blacks “back in chains.” (Biden’s Demagogic Habits.)

Rather than read Associate Justice Alito’s final opinion of the Court in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the smooth bur pure demagogue Biden believed that the mere invocation of the name Donald John Trump and the fact that he appointed three of the five justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade proves nothing other than the fact that he thinks the intelligence level of most Americans as is lows as his own. This use of the ad hominem argument to stop all discussion is beneath contempt. Then again, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s entire public life is beneath contempt.

We return now to the contemptuous one’ June 24, 2022, post-Dobbs decision comments:

Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law.  It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.

The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Nine:

The balance of law was upset in 1776 and again in 1787 when men believed that they could chart a course of “ordered liberty” without reference to Christ the King and His Church in the belief that fallen creatures could pursue what they called “civic virtue” by their own unaided powers.

However, as the souls of the baptized suffer from the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin as well as the cumulative effects of their own Actual Sins if left unrepented and un-absolved and the as the souls of the unbaptized are captives to the adversary, it is impossible for mere vessels of clay to produce “ordered liberty” their own unaided powers. One of the chief defects of the American founding is the founders did not believe that men needed to have belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace in order to be virtuous, no less to climb the latter of personal sanctity.

The founders were Pelagians who more or less believed that humans were self-redemptive, that they could stir up within themselves the “strength” to do whatever it is they desired to accomplish. The world has called Pelagianism by another term since the days of John Locke in the late-Seventeenth Century: liberalism, the “new world order” of which is the reason for high energy costs and out-of-control 1970s inflation to keep the masses in bondage to the social engineering schemes of the elites in District of Columbia swampland and at the headquarters of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

Pope Leo XIII put the lie to the belief that men can sustain virtue of the course of their lives without belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace in his Apostolic Letter to the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons, on January 22, 1899:

Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser ‘of his own gifts. “The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth.” — John iii, 8.

“And to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” — Eph. iv, 7.

And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. “For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit.”-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.

Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. “He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase.”-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God’s loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.

For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, “What dost Thou wish me to do?” yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: “Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do.”

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one’s self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators. To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself?

Can it be that those men illustrious for sanctity, whom the Church distinguishes and openly pays homage to, were deficient, came short in the order of nature and its endowments, because they excelled in Christian strength? And although it be allowed at times to wonder at acts worthy of admiration which are the outcome of natural virtue-is there anyone at all endowed simply with an outfit of natural virtue? Is there any one not tried by mental anxiety, and this in no light degree? Yet ever to master such, as also to preserve in its entirety the law of the natural order, requires an assistance from on high. These single notable acts to which we have alluded will frequently upon a closer investigation be found to exhibit the appearance rather than the reality of virtue. Grant that it is virtue, unless we would “run in vain” and be unmindful of that eternal bliss which a good God in his mercy has destined for us, of what avail are natural virtues unless seconded by the gift of divine grace? Hence St. Augustine well says: “Wonderful is the strength, and swift the course, but outside the true path.” For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

In other words, Pentecostalists contend that one must open oneself up to the belief that there should be “liberty” within the Church to discuss “new” things in imitation of the falsehoods of the American founding itself. It is also to open oneself up to reject the hierarchical nature of the Church herself.

That is, a belief in American individualism and egalitarianism, each of which are false naturalistic principles having nothing to do with the Faith (the first individualist and egalitarian was Lucifer, after all), leads one down the path of the layman seeking equality in the sanctuary with the ordained priest, of the abolition of Communion rails, of standing for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion, of the use of vulgar tongues, subject to all manner of change and misinterpretation and deconstruction and positivism, in the Sacred Liturgy, of the rejection of the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church as binding upon one’s conscience at all times and in all things. And the rejection of the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church leads one open to adopting Protestant Pentecostalism as the means by which one “knows” about God, deluding himself into thinking that God the Holy Ghost is leading him individually on a new path that deviates from the one prescribed by the Catholic Church. There is thus a direct path from Americanism to the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” of conciliarism–in all of the other “movements” that have sprung up like weeds in the past fifty-seven years since the close of the “Second” Vatican Council, and from that false council to Jorge's endless outreaches to Protestants, especially during this quincentennial of Martin Luther's Revolution against the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.

What are the virtues necessary for those who exercise the commonweal?

Pope Leo XIII provided the answer in Mirae Caritatis, May 25, 1902:

Indeed it is greatly to be desired that those men would rightly esteem and would make due provision for life everlasting, whose industry or talents or rank have put it in their power to shape the course of human events. But alas! we see with sorrow that such men too often proudly flatter themselves that they have conferred upon this world as it were a fresh lease of life and prosperity, inasmuch as by their own energetic action they are urging it on to the race for wealth, to a struggle for the possession of commodities which minister to the love of comfort and display. And yet, whithersoever we turn, we see that human society, if it be estranged from God, instead of enjoying that peace in its possessions for which it had sought, is shaken and tossed like one who is in the agony and heat of fever; for while it anxiously strives for prosperity, and trusts to it alone, it is pursuing an object that ever escapes it, clinging to one that ever eludes the grasp. For as men and states alike necessarily have their being from God, so they can do nothing good except in God through Jesus Christ, through whom every best and choicest gift has ever proceeded and proceeds. But the source and chief of all these gifts is the venerable Eucharist, which not only nourishes and sustains that life the desire whereof demands our most strenuous efforts, but also enhances beyond measure that dignity of man of which in these days we hear so much. For what can be more honourable or a more worthy object of desire than to be made, as far as possible, sharers and partakers in the divine nature? Now this is precisely what Christ does for us in the Eucharist, wherein, after having raised man by the operation of His grace to a supernatural state, he yet more closely associates and unites him with Himself. For there is this difference between the food of the body and that of the soul, that whereas the former is changed into our substance, the latter changes us into its own; so that St. Augustine makes Christ Himself say: “You shall not change Me into yourself as you do the food of your body, but you shall be changed into Me” (confessions 1. vii., c. x.). (Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, May 25, 1902.)

Pope Leo went on to explain in Mirae Caritatis that modern man trusts in his own schemes, not in Our Lord, thus producing all manner of disorder in his own life and that of nations:     

But that decay of faith in divine things of which We have spoken is the effect not only of pride, but also of moral corruption. For if it is true that a strict morality improves the quickness of man’s intellectual powers, and if on the other hand, as the maxims of pagan philosophy and the admonitions of divine wisdom combine to teach us, the keenness of the mind is blunted by bodily pleasures, how much more, in the region of revealed truths, do these same pleasures obscure the light of faith, or even, by the just judgment of God, entirely extinguish it. For these pleasures at the present day an insatiable appetite rages, infecting all classes as with an infectious disease, even from tender years. Yet even for so terrible an evil there is a remedy close at hand in the divine Eucharist. For in the first place it puts a check on lust by increasing charity, according to the words of St. Augustine, who says, speaking of charity, “As it grows, lust diminishes; when it reaches perfection, lust is no more” (De diversis quaestionibus, Ixxxiii., q. 36). Moreover the most chaste flesh of Jesus keeps down the rebellion of our flesh, as St. Cyril of Alexandria taught, “For Christ abiding in us lulls to sleep the law of the flesh which rages in our members” (Lib. iv., c. ii., in Joan., vi., 57). Then too the special and most pleasant fruit of the Eucharist is that which is signified in the words of the prophet: “What is the good thing of Him,” that is, of Christ, “and what is His beautiful thing, but the corn of the elect and the wine that engendereth virgins” (Zach. ix., 17), producing, in other words, that flower and fruitage of a strong and constant purpose of virginity which, even in an age enervated by luxury, is daily multiplied and spread abroad in the Catholic Church, with those advantages to religion and to human society, wherever it is found, which are plain to see. (Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, May 25, 1902.)

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., believes in none of this, and, sad to note, not even many fully traditional Catholics understand this fact, which is why they are easily distracted by the agitations of the moment have no inclination whatsoever to read beyond the superficiality of headlines and/or accept, for example, that the “life of the mother” exception to the Fifth Commandment as a matter of principle, not legislative expediency after all efforts have been exhausted to codify unconditional bans on all baby-killing—something that only a handful of those in public life in the past fifty years have ever sought to attempt, is somehow “good” public policy and consonant with Catholicism. It is not.

We return yet again to the June 24, 2022, episode of It Pays to be Ignorant, hosted by Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.:

The Court’s decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences.  State laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions. 

So extreme that women could be punished for protecting their health.

So extreme that women and girls who are forced to bear their rapist’s child — of the child of consequence. 

It’s a — it just — it just stuns me. 

So extreme that doctors will be criminalized for fulfilling their duty to care.

Imagine having — a young woman having to ch- — carry the child of incest — as a consequence of incest.  No option. 

Too often the case that poor women are going to be hit the hardest.  It’s cruel.

In fact, the Court laid out state laws criminalizing abortion that go back to the 1800s as rationale — the Court literally taking America back 150 years. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Ten:

Pure demagoguery, especially in light of the fact that Master Demagogue, Patholical Liar, and Ignoramus Biden misrepresented the superb history that Associate Justice Samuel Alito amassed and presented in his opinion of the Court in the Dobbs case that demonstrated a consistent probition of the surgical execution of children to protect the unborn child that had existed in most states until the late 1960s. Biden is a shallow as he is intellectually dishonest, and he is as intellectually "deep" as Larry, Darryl, and Darryl on Newhart.

Once again, the killing of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs has nothing to do with “health care.” It is murder, something that even the pagans Ovid and Juvenal understood very well:

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

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

Poor women…endure the perils of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot condemns them; but how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb. (Juvenal, c.57/67-127, Pagan Sources.)

Women who do not want to bear a child must not engage in that which proper only to the married child. This is called obedience to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, Master Fear-Mongering Demagogue Biden, something that neither you nor sonny boy Hunter seem to understand as you remain in “good standing” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and indemnified by your “pope” as such.

It is disobedience to the laws of God make nations into barbaric entities under a veneer of “sophistication” and “progress,” and no amount of emotional appeals about various circumstances in which children can be conceived can ever justify the killing of an innocent baby as a mother in those circumstances has not been asked by God to carry a cross beyond their capacity to do so in cooperation with the graces His Divine Son won for them during His Passion and Death and that flow into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

God does not ask the impossible of His children no matter the circumstances in which they may find themselves, and all of Biden’s huffing and puffing can never change that reality.

Although I don’t know whether it was more painful to moved by emergency medical services personnel onto a backboard with a hip fractured in four places or having to comment upon the sophistry—and sophomoric sophistry at that!—of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.,  I return now to his June 24, 2022, comments:

This a sad day for the country, in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over.

Let me be very clear and unambiguous: The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law.

No executive action from the President can do that.  And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the vote — votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard.

This fall, we must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman’s right to choose into federal law once again, elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land.  We need to elect officials who will do that.

This fall, Roe is on the ballot.  Personal freedoms are on the ballot.  The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Eleven:

A believing Catholic should be saddened by the fact that parameters of constitutional jurisprudence must be confined to the strict limits of naturalist arguments that makes any total vanquishing of evil under the cover of the law impossible to accomplish as to argue against evil on purely naturalistic terms is to use the devil’s tools against himself, and he is always the winner in that equation as the adversary delights in using the apparent “lesser of two evils” to deceive the masses into thinking that “progress” is being made when it is not.

This having been noted, however, even though the decision in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022, was based on the erroneous premises that (a) the Constitution of the United States of America is “silent” on abortion; meaning (b) that the “people” in the states are “free” to “decide” on a subject about which there is nothing for them to “decide,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito did demolish the false constitutional reasoning and abjectly fabulist “history” of the seven justice majority in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and that is a matter for which one should be gratified despite the fact that baby-killing will continue even in those states that have enacted laws to restrict or prohibit most, although not all, surgical executions of the innocent preborn.

The renegade Catholic Biden, however, was a saddened about a decision that he believes has “taken away” something from women that they never had the authority from the true God of Divine Revelation to do, namely, killing the fruit of their wombs, a little baby whose only crime was being conceived of parents interested only in their own carnal pleasure and not about restraining themselves to the use of their generative powers only within the context of a valid marriage for the procreation and education of children, who are destined by God Himself to be members of His true Church Militant on earth and of the Church Triumphant in Heaven for all eternity.

However, there is a point to be made here about Biden’s urging people to vote for pro-death candidates.

The decision in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization is a tenuous one, and while a Federal law to codify the surgical killing of preborn babies as a “right,” which might be passed by Congress one day in the future, would not withstand judicial review as it would take a constitutional amendment to such a thing (just as the late no-exceptions Paramount Human Life Amendment that was advanced by the late Miss Nellie Gray, the Founder and President of the March for Life and the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, from 1973 until the day she died on August 12, 2012, was required to establish full legal protection for unborn children on a nationwide basis; the March for Life has marched off into a far different direction after Miss Gray’s death—see The Only "Consensus" on Abortion: Stop it All, Stop it Now, and Catholicism is the Only Way How), we must remember that the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” will do all within their diabolically-enabled powers to either pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America and/or prohibit Federal disaster aid sent to states that “restrict” a woman’s so-called “right to choose” to kill her baby within the sanctuary of her womb.

Moreover, Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, another pro-death, pro-sodomite Catholic who is “good standing” with Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s counterfeit church of conciliarism, has said that he did not believe that the decision in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization would stand for long:

A top White House official said on Sunday he doesn't think the overturning of Roe v. Wade will last long. 

"This is just not America," HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Becerra called on Congress to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade into law. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra on Sunday said he believes the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade will not last very long. 

"I've been around long enough to know that nothing's ever totally safe. But remember, we still haven't even been able to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, and so this country has a way to go," Becerra told NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to the long-proposed amendment for women's rights. "But certainly, I don't believe this decision by this court and [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization] is going to stand long."

He added: "This is just not America. We're not about taking rights. Most people around the world haven't looked at the U.S. as the beacon of light because we do things like Dobbs. Just the opposite. So I'm confident that we're going to get past this."

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that made abortion legal for the past almost 50 years. Several states have already moved to ban abortion. 

Democrats have expressed concern over the decision and raised $80 million in the week following the decision. Becerra told NBC that Democrats who are frustrated should give the administration ideas on how to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. He also called on Congress to pass legislation protecting women's reproductive rights. 

"We're going to explore everything we can," he said on Sunday. "And I also would ask them to please pass a law. They have it in their power, if they can find the votes to actually codify the Roe decision, which is what we need more than anything else. Executive action."  (Top White House official says he's optimistic Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade will not stand long.)

“This is just not America.”

That is quite a statement.

“This is just not America.”

Xavier Becerra would have us believe that the United States of America should be defined by the nonexistent “right” of women to kill their children with legal impunity at any time from conception until birth, and there are even the likes of Ralph Northam, the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, who have actually killed children after birth who had survived an attempt to kill them by means to kill them surgically within the womb or the birth canal, a practice that happens to be the law in the abortion capital of the United States of America, my own native State of New York.

Becerra thinks that the United States of America has been a “beacon” of light because of Roe v. Wade when it has been a beacon of darkness, a beacon of false liberty, a beacon of religious indifferentism, a beacon of secularism, naturalism, and Pelagianism from its very beginning two hundred forty-six years ago.

However, even though neither Becerra, who succeeded Stoogette Kamala Harris as the Attorney General of the State of California in 2017 after she was elected to serve as a United States Senator on November 8, 2016, nor his nominal “boss,” Biden, has said so publicly because of the protests that have been taking place at the homes of the five associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs case, one can be assured that, barring the adding of new seats on the Court, which is within the power of Congress to do, one or both of the two most senior associate justices on the Court, Clarence Thomas, who is seventy-four years of age, and Samuel Alito, who is seventy-two years of age, might do them the same kind of “favor” that they though the late Antonin Scalia did for them by dying while a Democrat was in the White House.

This is not likely to happen, of course, but its possibility is certainly being discussed by those who pull the strings for Biden, if not by Biden himself, showing once again that, just as is the case in the world of Modernism within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, nothing is ever stable in the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity wrought by Martin Luther and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry. What appears to be today’s “victory” can be transformed quite easily into tomorrow’s defeat. All one needs to do is to look at a gasoline pump or look at one’s receipt after doing grocery shopping to understand that one year’s election “victory” can turn into defeat rather easily. As Pope Leo XIII noted in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, secular systems of public administration turn quite readily into ones where “public life is stained with crime.”

Pardon the digression.

I return now to Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s demagoguery of June 24, 2022:

Until then, I will do all in my power to protect a woman’s right in states where they will face the consequences of today’s decision. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Twelve:

A Catholic who remains in perfectly good standing within what he thinks is the Catholic Church has pledged to “do all in my power” to protect willful murder and the supposed “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, Wilton “Cardinal” Gregory, does not even bat an eyelash nor make any peep out of this mouth to condemn the statement as hideous in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity.

This has been pretty much par for the course in the conciliar world for the past forty-nine years, although Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it clear by his very symbolic gestures that none of “his” “bishops” will ever discipline the likes of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and his pro-abortion, pro-sodomite ilk.

Back to the Delaware Bicyclist Biden:

While the Court’s decision casts a dark shadow over a large swath of the land, many states in this country still recognize a woman’s right to choose.

So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it.  It does not prevent a doctor in that state — in that state from treating her.

As the Attorney General has made clear, women must remain free to travel safely to another state to seek the care they need.  And my administration will defend that bedrock right. 

If any state or local official, high or low, tries to interfere with a woman’s ex- — exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-American attack. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Thirteen:

Yes, there are many states where the unrestricted killing of babies by chemical and surgical means remains perfectly “legal,” although quite unlike the “safe, legal, and rare” slogan popularized by the administration of then President William Jefferson Clinton in the 1990s, abortion of any kind is manifestly deadly for its unseen victims and, without the act of willful murder being absolved by a true Catholic priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, is also deadly for the immortal souls of those who pay to have their children murdered, those who kill and those who assist, procure, abet with financial help and/or by means of political, legal and judicial action such killing.

It is quite a commentary on the Interstate Commerce Clause (found in Section 8, Subsection 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America) that the killing of unborn babies is considered to be a “business” protected thereby and for which no one can interfere without running afoul of its provisions. One can run afoul and violate the Fifth Commandment with impunity, but if seeks to point out the reality of what abortion is, what it does, and the harm it brings to all those involved as well to one’s nation, which is awash in violence precisely because its people have become desensitized to the killing of the most vulnerable and least safe amongst us today, he must termed a “hater” who is trying to “take away” “rights” that have been manufactured out of whole cloth by social engineers and legal positivists even though those “rights” do not exist in the nature of things.

There only two other parts of the Joltin’ Joe Demagogue’s June 24, 2022, that need to be addressed:

My administration will also protect a woman’s access to medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration — the FDA — like contraception, which is essential for preventative healthcare; mifepristone, which the FDA approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies and is commonly used to treat miscarriages.

Some states are saying that they’ll try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications. 

But extremist governors and state legislators who are looking to block the mail or search a person’s medicine cabinet or control a woman’s actions by tracking data on her apps she uses are wrong and extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans.

The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote to me and Vice President Harris stressing that these laws are not based on — are not based on evidence and asking us to act to protect access to care.  They say by limiting access to these medicines, maternal mortality will climb in America.  That’s what they say.

Today, I’m directing the Department of Health and Human Services to take steps to ensure that these critical medications are available to the fullest extent possible and that politicians cannot interfere in the decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor.  And my administration will remain vigilant as the implications of this decision play out. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Fourteen:

Biden cannot even get his facts and dates right.

The United States Food and Drug Administration, an appendance of the medical-pharmaceutical elite that provide treatments and manufacture drugs that, in too many instances, worsen existing conditions and/or cause new and more dangerous conditions in order to accustom unsuspecting patients into becoming lifelong and very expendable guinea pigs whose lives are as little concern to the apparatchiks in the swamp and their puppeteers in Big Pharma, approved the human pesticide, RU-486, and on September 14, 2000, and its approval was justified nineteen days later by the Republican Party’s candidate for the presidency that year, the incompetent, intellectually-challenged, shallow sloganeer and neoconservative war hawk named George Walker Bush, then the Governor of the State of Texas:

MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat. Moreover, the human pesticide, RU-486, is lethal to babies, Mister Former President, and is not "safe" for women's bodies and is positively lethal to their immortal souls. ]

True to his cowardly word, President George Walker Bush never lifted a finger to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s September 28, 2000, to permit the licensing and sale of the human pesticide, RU-486. Moreover, it was just six years later during his second term as President of the United States of America that the United States Food and Drug Administration permitted the over-the-counter so-called “emergency” contraceptive named “Plan B” even though it is also a poison pill that serves as an abortifacient:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;

Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;

Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and

Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .) 

Eight years of the “pro-life” administration of President George Walker Bush, which was populated with all manner of pro-aborts, did nothing to stop baby-killing. Indeed, one of his appointees, the first Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Thomas Ridge, a pro-abortion, pro-sodomite Catholic, ordered that annual inspections of abortuaries be halted when he was Governor of Pennsylvania, paving the way for Kermit Gosnell's house of butchery to operate without any kind of oversight whatsoever.

By the way, President Donald John Trump did not reverse these Food and Drug Administration policies that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has pledged to make even more available than every before so that babies can be killed “privately” for no one to see, no one except God, that is.

Herewith is the next-to-final part of Biden’s June 24, 2022, remarks:

I’ve warned about how this decision risks the broader right to privacy for everyone.  That’s because Roe recognized the fundamental right to privacy that has served as the basis for so many more rights that we have come to take — we’ve come to take for granted that are ingrained in the fabric of this country: the right to make the best decisions for your health; the right to use birth control — a married couple — in the privacy of their bedroom, for God’s sake; the right to marry the person you love. 

Now, Justice Thomas said as much today.  He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception.  This is an extreme and dangerous path the Court is now taking us on. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.)

Brief Comment Number Fifteen:

Willful murder is evil.

The denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage by means of contraception is evil.

Sodomy and its entire wage of ever mutating vices of rank impurity are evil.

To invoke the Holy Name of God, Who abhors sodomy, in defense of a nonexistent “right to marry” a person of the same gender is blasphemous and demagogic.

No one “loves” anyone else if he says or does anything that interferes with the salvation of his immortal soul, and those steeped in sodomy, no matter how much sentimentality they express for their partners in sin, will wind up hating each other for all eternity in hell if they do not repent and are absolved of their wretched sins of perversity before they die.

Who says?

Well, not the God invoked so blasphemously by Joseph Robinette Biden, that’s for sure:

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

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.) 

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

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

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

Lest Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., attempt to use the “separation of Church and State” and “I can’t impose my morality upon others” cards, suffice it to say that he cannot blaspheme God by invoke His Holy Name in support of the very sins that caused His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that worsen the state of men and their nations today and at the same time say his religion has no role to play in public life.

Moreover, every baptized Catholic is to bear witness to the truths of the Holy Faith at all times, and this obligation is not suspended once one is elected or appointed to public office:

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.)

A rightly formed Catholic will never use the “can’t impose my morality upon others” canard or the “separation of Church and State” slogan, and those who are not rightly formed have no excuse once they are shown by the quotations above that their first duties are to Christ the King, His true Church, and the good souls even at the cost of their political careers rather than at the risk of their own losing their own salvation for all eternity in accordance with the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself and of the Apostles after His own teaching and example:

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

And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 40-42.)

If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God. If any man minister, let him do it, as of the power, which God administereth: that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ: to whom is glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is to try you, as if some new thing happened to you; But if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that when his glory shall be revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his Spirit, resteth upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things.

But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God? And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them also that suffer according to the will of God, commend their souls in good deeds to the faithful Creator. (1 Peter 4: 11-19)

Time and time again, however, we have seen Catholics in public life throughout the world, including here in the United States of America, consider it a virtuous civil duty to separate what they call their “private beliefs” from the decisions they make as public officials. This is true both of the “left” and the “right,” and it has been stated repeatedly by Catholics who have been nominated to serve on the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., has been and continues to be one the worst Catholics in public, surpassing even the wretched examples of the late United States Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and the late Governor of New York Mario Matthew Cuomo both in his stridency and his longevity as a career leech who has sucked the blood of American taxpayers for half a century well into his very visible dotage.

To the final part of Biden’s June 24, 2022, comments:

Let me close with two points. 

First, I call on everyone, no matter how deeply they care about this decision, to keep all protests peaceful.  Peaceful, peaceful, peaceful.  No intimidation.  Violence is never acceptable.  Threats and intimidation are not speech.  We must stand against violence in any form regardless of your rationale.

Second, I know so many of us are frustrated and disillusioned that the Court has taken something away that’s so fundamental.  I know so many women are now going to face incredibly difficult situations.  I hear you.  I support you.  I stand with you. 

The consequences and the consensus of the American people — core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and the stability of the rule of law — demand that Roe should not have been overturned.

With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country.  They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world.  But this decision must not be the final word.

My administration will use all of its appropriate lawful powers.  But Congress must act.  And with your vote, you can act.  You can have the final word.  This is not over.

Thank you very much.  I’ll have more to say on this in weeks to come.  Thank you. (Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade. For more of the Biden administration’s histrionic propaganda, one can see: Biden Announces Actions In Light of Today’s Supreme Court Decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Remarks by Harris on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade, Remarks by Biden During a Virtual Meeting with Governors on Non-Reproductive Rights, and Readout of White House Meeting with Global Pro-Death Leaders.)

Brief Comment Number Sixteen:

How is a nation that still permits the killing of preborn without restrictions in eighteen states and features such killing in “exceptional” cases in thirty-two others an “outlier” nation in a “developed” world that is so “developed” that its leaders consider it oppressive to obey the Fifth Commandment?

How is a nation that permits the killing of innocent human beings under the falsehood of “brain death” to permit vital organ vivisection in the name of “giving the gift of life” an “outlier” nation in a “developed” world that is so developed that its doctors consider it a duty to play God and to impose a false standard for the determination of death in order to kill living human beings for their vital organs, which are quite a valuable commodity on the “organ transplant network”?

How is a nation whose doctors and “health care professionals” have devised “quality of life” standards to determine when to deny living human beings the administration of hydration and nutrition and/or when to consign them to the “exit door” represented by “palliative care”’/hospice an outlier nation in a developed world that is so developed that it can do precisely what the doctors of the Third Reich did without so much as a qualm of regret or some degree or remorse of conscience?

No, the United States of America is, quite sadly, very much in the “mainstream” of the so-called “developed world,” a world that was the unintentional handiwork of Martin Luther and the very deliberate handwork of Christophobes who believed themselves to be so “liberated” as to create the conditions that shackle men and their nations to their very own imposed falsehoods of Modernity that will but boomerang and place its architects into the shackles of hell for all eternity.

Once again, God is Majority of One.

“Not So Fast,” Say the Modern Day Herods in Black Robes

Some of the efforts to protect the expansive killing of the preborn in several states that either have pre-Roe v. Wade era laws on the books and/or have “trigger laws” passed by their state legislature to prohibit most but that prohibit most but not all surgical executions of innocent unborn babies have met with judicial roadblocks in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organizaiton, June 24, 2022.

The forces of hell have shown that they will do everything possible to prevent state laws that seek to partially limit the execution of innocent babies after they have reached a certain age within their mothers’ wombs, thus consigning those between conception and the arbitrary chosen times at which legal protection begins to execution at any time beforehand, from taking effect. Lawsuits have been filed in Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Utah, to prevent enforcement of laws whose enforcement even in the best of circumstances might be left up to the “judgment” of local district attorneys, some of whom are all too happy to ignore laws they consider unjust.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, which has been shaped by twenty-eight years of Republican governorships (although a certain Governor George Walker Bush appointed a pro-abort associate, Alberto Gonzales, as an associate justice of the the Texas high court efore Gonzales went on to fame as defender of torture and warrantless searches as Bush’s White House Counsel and Attorney General of the United States of America), has stepped in to block a temporary restraining order issued by a Harris County, Texas, judge, Christine Weems, that would have continued unrestricted baby-killing up to a baby’s sixth week of age in his mother’s womb:

The Texas Supreme Court has blocked a lower court order that had allowed clinics in the state to continue performing abortions even after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its landmark 1973 ruling that confirmed a constitutional right to abortion.

It was not immediately clear whether the clinics in Texas that resumed performing abortions just days ago would halt services again following the ruling late Friday night. A hearing is scheduled for later this month.

The whiplash of Texas clinics turning away patients, rescheduling them, and now potentially canceling appointments again — all in the span of a week — illustrates the confusion and scrambling that has taken place across the country since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

An order by a Houston judge on Tuesday had reassured some clinics they could temporarily resume abortions up to six weeks into pregnancy. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly asked the state's highest court, which is stocked with nine Republican justices, to temporarily put that order on hold.

"These laws are confusing, unnecessary, and cruel," said Marc Hearron, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, after the order was issued Friday night.

Clinics in Texas — a state of nearly 30 million people — stopped performing abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court last week overturned Roe v. Wade. Texas had left an abortion ban on the books for the past 50 years while Roe was in place.

Attorneys for Texas clinics provided a copy of Friday's order, which was not immediately available on the court's website.

Meanwhile, more than half of Texans would make abortion legal in most cases in their state, and most think women will still seek abortions, despite the Supreme Court ruling and local laws, according toCBS News poll.

Abortion providers and patients across the country have been struggling to navigate the evolving legal landscape around abortion laws and access.

In Florida, a law banning abortions after 15 weeks went into effect Friday, the day after a judge called it a violation of the state constitution and said he would sign an order temporarily blocking the law next week. The ban could have broader implications in the South, where Florida has wider access to the procedure than its neighbors.

Abortion rights have been lost and regained in the span of a few days in Kentucky. A so-called trigger law imposing a near-total ban on the procedure took effect last Friday, but a judge blocked the law Thursday, meaning the state's only two abortion providers can resume seeing patients — for now.

The legal wrangling is almost certain to continue to cause chaos for Americans seeking abortions in the near future, with court rulings upending access at a moment's notice and an influx of new patients from out of state overwhelming providers.

Even when women travel outside states with abortion bans in place, they may have fewer options to end their pregnancies as the prospect of prosecution follows them.

Planned Parenthood of Montana this week stopped providing medication abortions to patients who live in states with bans "to minimize potential risk for providers, health center staff, and patients in the face of a rapidly changing landscape."

Planned Parenthood North Central States, which offers the procedure in Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska, is telling its patients that they must take both pills in the regimen in a state that allows abortions.

The use of abortion pills has been the most common method to end a pregnancy since 2000, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone, the main drug used in medication abortions. Taken with misoprostol, a drug that causes cramping that empties the womb, it constitutes the abortion pill.

"There's a lot of confusion and concern that the providers may be at risk, and they are trying to limit their liability so they can provide care to people who need it," said Dr. Daniel Grossman, who directs the research group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco.

Emily Bisek, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood North Central States, said that in an "unknown and murky" legal environment, they decided to tell patients they must be in a state where it is legal to complete the medication abortion -- which requires taking two drugs 24 to 48 hours apart. She said most patients from states with bans are expected to opt for surgical abortions.

Access to the pills has become a key battle in abortion rights, with the Biden administration preparing to argue states can't ban a medication that has received FDA approval.

Kim Floren, who operates an abortion fund in South Dakota called Justice Empowerment Network, said the development would further limit women's choices.

"The purpose of these laws anyways is to scare people," Floren said of states' bans on abortions and telemedicine consultations for medication abortions. "The logistics to actually enforcing these is a nightmare, but they rely on the fact that people are going to be scared."

A South Dakota law took effect Friday that threatens a felony punishment for anyone who prescribes medication for an abortion without a license from the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners.

In Alabama, Attorney General Steve Marshall's office said it is reviewing whether people or groups could face prosecution for helping women fund and travel to out-of-state abortion appointments.

Yellowhammer Fund, an Alabama-based group that helps low-income women cover abortion and travel costs, said it is pausing operation for two weeks because of the lack of clarity under state law.

"This is a temporary pause, and we're going to figure out how we can legally get you money and resources and what that looks like," said Kelsea McLain, Yellowhammer's health care access director.

Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, said staff members at its clinics have seen women driving from as far as Texas without stopping — or making an appointment. Women who are past 15 weeks were being asked to leave their information and promised a call back if a judge signs the order temporarily blocking the restriction, she said.

Still, there is concern that the order may be only temporary and the law may again go into effect later, creating additional confusion.

"It's terrible for patients," she said. "We are really nervous about what is going to happen." (Texas Supreme Court blocks order that resumed abortions.)

As I noted in part one of this commentary, there is nothing in the Dobbs decision that will end the chemical killing of the innocent preborn by means of overt abortifacients, noting that a few states, most notably Ohio, have provisions banning the prescription of abortifacients, and there will be court cases galore over the “people’s” “authority” to prohibit the prescription, sale, and use of these human pesticides. The “heartbeat law” in Texas does not prohibit the use of overt abortifacients, which is why I wrote the following about Texas Senate Bill 8 ten months ago:

Moreover, contraceptive pills and devices are abortifacients, and the fact that neither they nor even abortifacients such as RU-486, the human pesticide, are prohibited in S.B. 8 means that there is nothing to prevent an expectant mother from getting a prescription to do on her own what S.B. 8 means to proscribe in most cases by surgical means up to the first ten weeks of her pregnancy (Texas law prohibits direct abortifacients after ten weeks) is very telling:       


                (a)  For the purposes of determining the presence of a fetal heartbeat under this section, "standard medical practice" includes employing the appropriate means of detecting the heartbeat based on the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the woman and her pregnancy.

  (b)  Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman's unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.

Ninth, got a heartbeat, no execution. No heartbeat? Go ahead and kill. How is any of this related to truth even in the natural order of things. It is not given unto man to dispense with innocent human life because of illicit, unjustifiable, sophistic “determinations” that have no standing whatsoever in the hospital of the Divine Physician.

Meanwhile, a little caesarette in black robes in the State of Louisiana issued her own injunction to block enforcement of that state’s ‘trigger law” from taking effect:

As the battleground over abortion rights shifted Monday to courthouses around the country, Louisiana took center stage when a New Orleans judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a "trigger law" banning abortions and the state's three clinics announced they would resume procedures in the coming days. 

The clinics in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Shreveport shut their doors on Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional protection for abortion and opening the gates for a wave of litigation from all sides.

The high court's ruling paved the way for Louisiana to immediately enact a dormant set of laws banning both surgical and medication abortions, without exception for cases of rape or incest. Similar trigger laws were adopted in 13 states in anticipation of the ruling and were designed to take effect swiftly. 

Abortion providers and advocates on Monday sued the state in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, arguing that the overlapping web of trigger laws was "unconstitutionally vague." Hours later, Judge Robin Giarrusso, a Democrat first elected to the bench in 1988, issued a temporary restraining order, barring the state from enforcing its ban. 

Clinics reopen doors 

In response to the order, the clinics said they will reopen their doors. They "plan to resume providing the procedures as soon as possible," according to Ellie Schilling, the lead lawyer in the lawsuit. 

Judge Ethel Simms Julien, also a Democrat, will hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction July 8. 

The plaintiffs in the case include the Hope Medical Group for Women, which operates the Shreveport clinic, as well as the New Orleans chapter of the nonprofit Medical Students for Choice. The lawsuit argues that New Orleans is the proper jurisdiction for the case because that's where the nonprofit, comprised of medical students from Tulane University and LSU, operates. 

The petition names as defendants Attorney General Jeff Landry, a staunch opponent of abortion, and Louisiana Department of Health Secretary Courtney Phillips. Landry, a Republican, vowed to fight the judge's ruling and enforce the law.

"We would remind everyone that the laws that are now in place were enacted by the people through State Constitutional Amendments and the LA Legislature, which the citizens elect representatives," Landry tweeted Monday. "We are fully prepared to defend these laws in our state courts, just as we have in our federal courts."

Web of trigger laws

Louisiana passed its first trigger law in 2006 under then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Another piece of legislation, signed last week by Gov. John Bel Edwards, sought to clarify that statute and clear up some of the inconsistencies in anti-abortion laws passed during the past decade. But the plaintiffs say it's only muddied the waters.

Under one part of the law, anyone found guilty of performing an abortion could face up to 10 years in prison. Those found guilty of performing late-term abortions, defined as taking place at 15 weeks of gestation or later, would face up to 15 years if convicted. But a portion of the 2006 law says that anyone performing abortions will be subject to a maximum of two years in prison. 

The lawsuit also argues the state’s trigger laws are vague and fail to outline “constitutionally guaranteed notice of exactly what conduct is prohibited, if any, and when.” It notes, for example, that the statutes permit abortions for medically futile pregnancies. But the list of what is considered “medically futile” has not yet been promulgated by the Louisiana Department of Health, as required

Bottom of Form

The suit also claims that the statutes conflict on whether abortion is prohibited after fertilization or implantation. 

Benjamin Clapper, the executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, said he's confident that appellate courts will allow the ban to proceed.

"While these matters are still developing, Louisiana law is clear that babies will be protected from abortion when Roe v. Wade is overturned," he wrote. "We are confident that our courts, whether at the district, appellate, or state Supreme Court level, will affirm our laws in time."

'Years of legislative and judicial challenges'

Also Monday, abortion rights advocates asked a Florida judge to block a new law there that bans the procedure after 15 weeks with some exceptions and is set to take effect this week. And a hearing was scheduled for Monday afternoon in Utah, where Planned Parenthood challenged a trigger law there that contains narrow exceptions.

Abortion rights activists also went to court to try to fend off restrictions in Texas, Idaho, Kentucky and Mississippi, the state at the center of the Supreme Court ruling, while the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed an emergency motion there on Saturday seeking to block a 2021 law they worry can be used to halt all abortions.

In Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court left it to the states to decide whether to allow abortion.

"The expectation is that this will result in years of legislative and judicial challenges," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University law school.

As of Saturday, abortion services had stopped in at least 11 states — either because of state laws or confusion over them.

In some cases, the lawsuits may only buy time. Even if courts block some restrictions from taking hold, lawmakers in many conservative states could move quickly to address any flaws cited.

That's likely to be the case in Louisiana. 

Around the country, challenges to other trigger laws could be made on the grounds that the conditions to impose the bans have not been met, or that it was improper for a past legislature to bind the current one.

Laura Herner, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, said other challenges might call into question whether state laws sufficiently and clearly allow for exceptions to protect the life or health of a pregnant woman. (Abortions to resume in Louisiana, after judge issues temporary injunction against state ban.)

The Supreme Court  of the State of Louisiana has upheld the temporary injunction against Lousiana's old law that was in effect at the time Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, and against the enforement of a 2006 act, since amended, that would criminalize the killing of preborn babies after their fifteenth week of life within the sanctuaries of their mothers's wombs:

The Louisiana Supreme Court refused to overturn a lower court ruling preventing the state from enforcing its abortion ban on Thursday.

A judge had temporarily blocked enforcement of Louisiana's "trigger law" banning nearly all abortions last week. The judge placed a temporary stay on enforcement following a lawsuit from abortion providers in the state, who argued it was overly vague.

Thursday's state Supreme Court ruling allows that stay to remain in place at least through Friday when abortion providers will make their case in court.

Louisiana was the first state to have its abortion bans challenged after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in late June. It is not the only one, however, as Texas and Kentucky have faced similar issues.


Louisiana's Thursday ruling comes after the Kentucky Supreme Court handed down a similar decision in that state, allowing a temporary block on abortion ban enforcement to be upheld. (Louisiana Supreme Court says abortions must remain legal for now, despite 'trigger law'.)

The Dobbs case, therefore, has not “settled” very much because once one refuses to admit that the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment are applicable in the context of civil law one becomes a prisoner of various “majorities” that can change from election to election. Such instability and unpredictability leave the unborn still quite vulnerable, especially when one considers the simple fact, oft stated on this website, that those who are accustomed to kill for a living are not going to observe with exacting scrupulosity the “exceptions” under which children may be killed with the full “blessing” of the civil law.

Although most of the legal challenges that have been filed to prevent the enforcement of what are said to be “pro-life” laws will only manage to buy the baby-killers a bit of time, there are situations such as those at present in Kentucky where pro-death attorneys are claiming that the “right” to surgically execute the innocent preborn is protected by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) asked the state’s Supreme Court on Sunday to reinstate an abortion ban that briefly went into effect following the overturning of Roe v. Wade but was later blocked by a lower court.

A judge on Thursday had temporarily blocked the implementation of two state laws, which would effectively ban abortion unless necessary to save the woman’s life, following a challenge from abortion-rights groups arguing that Kentucky’s state constitution protected abortion rights. An appeals court judge later denied a request from Cameron to reinstate the ban.

“We are exhausting every possible avenue to have Kentucky’s Human Life Protection Act and Heartbeat Law reinstated,” Cameron said in a statement. “There is no more important issue than protecting life, and we are urging the state’s highest court to consider our request for emergency relief.”

Cameron’s filings with Kentucky’s Supreme Court argue there is no right to abortion in the state’s constitution and that without an emergency ruling from it, unborn children will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.

Samuel Crankshaw — spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which represents one of the abortion providers in the suit — praised the appeals court ruling that affirmed blocking the law’s immediate implementation.

“We’re glad to see the Court of Appeals agrees the lower court has taken proper emergency action to protect abortion access,” Crankshaw said in a statement. “This win is temporary, but we won’t back down in the fight to defend Kentuckians’ most basic rights from extremist politicians like Daniel Cameron.”

Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, another plaintiff in the suit, did not immediately return a request for comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld a 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi, overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions that established and protected a constitutional right to abortion. (Kentucky attorney general asks state Supreme Court to reinstate abortion ban.)

Even if the Kentucky “heartbeat” law that would ban most some, although not all, surgical executions of the innocent preborn after a heartbeat is detected, is, after much litigation in Kentucky’s lower courts, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Commonwealth of Kentucky, which is loaded with pro-abortion judicial positivists, the commonwealth’s General Assembly, which consists of a State Senate and State House of Representatives, is overwhelmingly in the hands of the Republican Party (38-8 in the State Senate; 75 to 25 in the House, can act to overturn that decision as the commonwealth’s constitution specifies that amendments to its text can be proposed by a three-fifths majority in each respective chamber of the General Assembly and then sent to the people for ratification or rejection in the next general election.

Such are the shifting sands of “popular sovereignty,” however, there is no guarantee that a “pro-life” amendment, if one is needed, that is, to the Commonwealth of Kentucky's constitution, would be approved in a general election, especially when one considers the money that would flow into the commonwealth from the coffers of the likes of George Soros and the fear-mongering that would be used by pro-death forces.

Once again, while it is good that Roe v. Wade was overturned in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, it may very well turn out to be the case that it is on just as much a collision course with itself as was Roe v. Wade as to ignore the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and to vest all “decision-making” on things about which there is nothing to decide in the very nature of things with the “people” means that nothing is ever “settled” and that, in this instance, the forces of evil will prevail to greater or lesser degree depending upon the circumstances of the times. Such must ever be the pernicious logic of governmental systems that make no room for Christ the King and His true Church in all that pertain to the good of souls.

Roe v. Wade is gone, but this does not mean that it is gone for good nor that the surgical execution of the preborn will stop, which is why we must be ever vigilant in prayer, especially asking Our Lady to send her graces into the souls of women who are seeking to kill their children so that they will come to understand that there they have no “decision” to make, only maternal life offered in imitation of Our Lady herself to give.

Does this mean that we remain inert in the face of evil?

Of course not!

If it is not possible for us to be a visible presence with other traditional Catholics by praying Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary in front of America’s killing mills, including hospitals, and/or to engage in the sort of sidewalk counseling that was championed so well by the late Joseph Scheidler, who died at the age of ninety-three eighteen months ago, we can certainly join these courageous witnesses of moral truth and true Catholic charity by means of prayers, especially, of course, by means of praying Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.

At the Doorsteps of the Conciliar Antipopes and Their "Bishops"

Prior to the recent action taken by “Archbishop” Salvatore Cordileone against Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, the lords of conciliarism have preferred “dialogue” with pro-abort Catholics in public life rather than to punishment.

This lack of action has indemnified and emboldened pro-aborts within the Democratic Party to the point of the utter defiance of God Himself exhibited constantly by the Consummate Demagogue and Grifter Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and by the “papally” “blessed Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi herself (see Georgie "The Chin" Bergoglio Strikes Again on Behalf of the Pro-Aborts).             

Jorge’s minions, such as Luis Ladaria, the prefect of the misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, have talked about “dialogue” and “engagement.” However, Bergoglio has spoken loud and clear: Catholic pro-aborts and pro-sodomites in public life who oppose capital punishment, which is part of the very Natural Law and can no sooner be repealed than can the laws of the physical university, support the nonexistent “right” of foreign nationals to invade other nations at will, are champions of the full World Economic Forum agenda for “global climate change,” the World Health Organization’s agenda for vaccinating unsuspecting victims unto their very deaths, and every Marxist and quasi-Marxist program of confiscatory taxation to redistribute the income are the ones who are considered to be “pro-life,” not those single-issue, anti-“social justice” conservatives who do not accept the Bernardinian “consistent ethic of life.” Bergoglio cares not about dialogue as his religion is globalism, not Catholicism.

As I have asked rhetorically before, however,  how did over twenty-four years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late William Brennan, a Catholic who cast a vote in favor 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, while he served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, decisions he reaffirmed in subsequent cases?

How did twenty years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Thomas P. O'Neill (D-Massachusetts)?

How did over thirty years of “engagement and dialogue” change the late New York State Senators Ralph Marino and John Marchi?

How is any ongoing “engagement and dialogue” changing prominent Catholic pro-aborts Kathy Hochul, Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York, or New York State Senator Sean Ryan?

How did over thirty-six years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)?

How did over thirty-three years of "engagement and dialogue" change the late United States Representative Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccarro (D-New York).

How did over forty-two years of "engagement and dialogue change the late Governor of New York, Mario Matthew Cuomo?

How did over forty years of “engagement and dialogue” change the thirty-third degree Freemason Charles Rangel, the disgraced former United States Representative from Harlem in the Borough of Manhattan and the longtime Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?

How has over thirty-three years of "engagement and dialogue" changed the reprobate named Rudolph William Giuliani?

How has thirty years of "engagement and dialogue" changed the disgraced former Governor of New York, Andrew Mark Cuomo?

How has forty years of “engagement and dialogue” changed United States Representative Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi?

How has twenty years of "engagement and dialogue" changed United States Senator Kirsten Gillebrand (D-New York)?

How has forty-nine years of "engagement and dialogue" changed the President In Name Only Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware; see, for example, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Demagogue Update).

How has forty years of “engagement and dialogue” changed United States Senators Susan Collins, Patricia Murphy, Richard Durbin, Edward Markey, Maria Cantwell, Timothy Michael Kaine, Patrick Leahy, Lisa Murkowski, Jack Reed, Robert Menendez, Alex Padilla, or Catherine Cortez Masto?

How has twenty years of “engagement and dialogue” changed California Governor Gavin Michael Newsom or his comrade Xavier Becerra, the militantly pro-death United States Secretary of Health and Human Services mentioned earlier in this commentary.

How did decades upon decades of “engagement and dialogue” change former officeholders such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., Barbara Mikulski, Richard Riordan, Rick Lazio, Susan Molinari, George Elmer Pataki, David Paterson, Christopher Dodd, Peter Rodino, Carol Mosely Braun or Robert Torricelli?

How has a decade of “engagement and dialogue” changed New Jersey Governor Philip Murphy?

How is any ongoing “engagement and dialogue” changing former Rhode Island Governor and current United States Secretary of Commerce Gina Marie Raimondo or current Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea?

The conciliar sect’s nearly half of a century of "engagement and dialogue" has been and continues to be an abysmal failure as it does the work of the devil himself, not the work of Christ the King, Whose Social Kingship over men and their nations its leaders reject both in theory and in practice. Indeed, the conciliar sect’s half century of “engagement and dialogue” remains what it has been: a gigantic smokescreen to make possible the indemnification of “social justice” Catholics in public life who do not understand that there can be no true justice in the world as men persist in their sins unrepentantly and as they themselves suborn each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The pestilential apostate from Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has made it perfectly clear that he was on the side of then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and that he was more than ready for a “President” Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton in 2016. It was no accident that Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky was one of the invitees to speak at a 2021 Vatican conference on “mind and body” that was the subject of Jorge’s False Church Enables Enemies of Christ the King and Souls Without a Thought of Offending God at the time..

There is a special irony in all this, however: neither “progressivists” nor the “conservatives” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that the principal purpose of civil government is to foster those conditions that make it more possible for men to sanctify and thus to save their souls as members of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Neither the “progressivists” nor the “conservatives” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that the good of nations depends upon right order within the souls of men, an order that is impossible without having belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace,

The “progressivists” and the “conservatives” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are thus completely united in their rejection of the following words of Pope Saint Pius X summarizing the purpose of civil government and in rejecting Pope Leo XIII’s admonition concerning the dangers posed by the religiously indifferentist civil state:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time does nothing to detract from the immutability of the Catholic teaching explicated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X.

Indeed, the fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time is the result of the proliferation of a deliberate, planned attack by the adversary himself upon it by using the combined, interrelated errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry to uproot the Holy Cross as the foundation of personal and social order in Europe and to make sure it was not the foundation of such order here in the United States of America.

Father Denis Fahey made this exact point in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)   

Although Holy Mother Church accommodates herself to the concrete realities in which her children live, she makes no concession to errors that have resulted in the triumph of religious indifferentism and overt hostility to the true Faith. No one but no one in the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believes that Catholicism is the absolute prerequisite for a just social order and that the civil state can never endorse than which is opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity, something that Holy Mother Church taught consistently from time immemorial until she was eclipsed by the conciliar robber barons during the anti-pontificate of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and the “Second” Vatican Council that he convened to make an “opening” to the “modern world.”

Here is a reminder of the teaching that is rejected by the progressivists and the conservatives within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a rejection that has caused these two false opposites to do battle with each other about matters contained within the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and thus can never be any subject of debate, discussion or “dialogue”:

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only passport to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

We must be consigned to the losing proposition of always arguing about the inarguable if we do not speak forthrightly as Catholics in the midst of the world, which includes not compromising on any matter of Catholic teaching and moral truth for the sake of suborning evil or, in the case of the current president, accept what he believes are his own “infallible” pronouncements about “exceptions” to the absolute inviolability of all innocent human life that have long been the bete noir of the American “bishops” themselves.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has sought to silence the “conservatives” and stop the “pro-lifers,” whom he equates as followers of former President Donald John Trump, from punishing a “champion” of “social justice,” Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows precisely what he is doing. He knows his recent actions have cut the legs out from every “conservative,” “pro-life” “bishop” in the United States of America and has also made it next to impossible, humanly speaking, for any Catholic to argue about pro-abortion Catholic politicians with his relatives, friends, coworkers, fellow parishioners, or acquaintances no matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal. He did this with a special “in your face” and “finger in the eye” manner to Salvatore Cordileone and the “bishops” who have agreed with his sanctions against.

Indeed, two of the pro-abortion Catholics in public life listed above are relatives of readers of this site. These reprobates can now pull out the “pope” card in any “dialogue” that their truly Catholic relatives want to have in order to warn them of the eternal consequences that they will face if they persevere until they die in their support for evils cry that out to Heaven for vengeance.

Perhaps it is useful to recall that Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not mention one word about abortion in his pilgrimage to Brazil seventy-seven months ago in July of 2013 for World Hootenanny Day, which he justified as follows during his in-flight interview on his trip from Rio di Janeiro, Brazil, to Rome on July 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martha:

Patricia Zorzan: Speaking on behalf of Brazilians. The society has changed, young people have changed, and we see many young people in Brazil. You have spoken to us about abortion, matrimony between persons of the same gender. In Brazil a law has been approved which extends the right of abortion and has allowed matrimony between persons of the same gender. Why didn’t you speak about this? [Repeated in Italian]

Francis: The Church has already expressed herself perfectly on this. It wasn’t necessary to go back to this, nor did I speak about fraud or lies or other things, on which the Church has a clear doctrine.[Repeated in Italian]

Patricia Zorzan: But it’s an issue that interests young people…

[Repeated in Italian]

Francis: Yes, but it wasn’t necessary to talk about that, but about positive things that open the way to youngsters, isn’t that so? Moreover, young people know perfectly well what the position of the Church is.

[Repeated in Italian]

Patricia Zorzan: What is the position of Your Holiness, can you tell us?

[Repeated in Italian]

Francis: That of the Church. I’m a child of the Church. (Press Conference in English.) 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio would speak as follows about abortion if really was a child of the Catholic Church, which he is not as he expelled himself from her maternal bosom by virtue of holding to one revolutionary Modernist proposition after another:

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

“Pope Francis” would not reference the unborn as a throwaway line if had a true concern for the innocent preborn, and Brazil “legalized” a “back door” to the surgical killing of babies only days after Bergoglio had been in the country for World Youth Day from July 21, 2013, to July 28, 2013, and after he had received Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, a Catholic, so lovingly without uttering a word to her publicly about the pending legislation there. So many other like examples can be given of such selective silence on the part of a man who places the alleged “rights of man” and of the “planet” over the immutable precepts contained in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Two other occasions come to mind now.

First, “Pope Francis” said nothing in 2014 when Belgium legalized child-killing after birth in cases of “deformity” or long-term disabilities. He was deaf, dumb, and mute while the legislation was being debated and after it passed. Here is a reminder of my commentary at the time:

Belgium has become the first country in the world to approve euthanasia for children of all ages after the country’s parliamentarians passed the controversial bill today in a vote of 86 to 44, with 12 MPs abstaining.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, called the move a “form of abandonment.”

Belgium has abandoned the elderly, and now they are saying they will abandon their children,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Schadenberg said the new law is not about ending suffering for children with disabilities, but about expanding the “categories that are eligible for death.”

The bill was first introduced in December 2012.

The law extends to those under the age of 18 who request euthanasia with parental consent. It also applies to younger children requesting euthanasia after a doctor has certified that the child fully understands the implications of the decision.

“This is the horrific logic of euthanasia: Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom,” wrote Wesley J. Smith about the law.

The proposed law had been protested by a number of groups that said the existing 2002 euthanasia legislation has been an unmitigated disaster.

Schadenberg said he was not surprised to see the bill pass, since he said the entire euthanasia project in Belgium is being “pushed blindly” by a government that has ignored all the abuses currently taking place within existing euthanasia laws.

“Euthanasia has been really out of control in Belgium for quite some time. We know from studies that about 32 percent of euthanasia deaths go without requests. Over half of euthanasia deaths are not reported,” he said.

Schadenberg said the new law will only make it easier for doctors to indiscriminately and without repercussion end the lives of the most vulnerable deemed unfit to live. (Belgium Parliament passes law allowing children to be euthanized.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio said nothing.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio did nothing.

Similarly, the Argentine Apostate neither said nor did anything to oppose the referendum in Ireland to permit unrestricted baby-killing before the vote and, of course, he said nothing about the passage of the referendum even when he visited the Land of Saints and Scholars just two months later for the World Meeting of Families.

The keeping of Ten Commandments and all the precepts of the Natural Law is not an “impossibility” nor some kind of ethereal, if not unreachable, unrealistic “ideal.” Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and conciliar revolutionary wrecking crew of apostates believe that such is the case, making a liar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and consigning the Spiritual Works of Mercy, listed just below, to the dustbin of history, “artifacts” that belong in a “museum” of the past:

  • To instruct the ignorant.
  • To counsel the doubtful.
  • To admonish sinners.
  • To bear wrongs patiently;
  • To forgive offences willingly;
  • To comfort the afflicted;
  • To pray for the living and the dead.

God does not command the impossible. The graces won for us by His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday that are poured out into our souls by the working of God the Holy Ghost as they flow through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to resist temptation and to grow in sanctity. To obey the laws of God is never “impossible,” and to treat such obedience as a burdensome or impossible “ideal” is show oneself possessed of the Modernist spirit of agnosticism that was critiqued and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

Let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he sets before himself is to make one who is still without faith attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the sole basis of faith. There are two ways open to him, the objective and the subjective. The first of them starts from agnosticism. It tends to show that religion, and especially the Catholic religion, is endowed with such vitality as to compel every psychologist and historian of good faith to recognize that its history hides some element of the unknown. To this end it is necessary to prove that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is nothing else than the progressive development of the germ which He brought into the world. Hence it is imperative first of all to establish what this germ was, and this the Modernist claims to he able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messias, the divinely-given founder and ruler. Then it must be shown how this germ, always immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different circumstances through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the doctrinal, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats. Anyone who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of her history — the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself before Us. Thus do they argue, not perceiving that their determination of the primitive germ is only an a priori assumption of agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the germ itself has been gratuitously defined so that it may fit in with their contention.

36. But while they endeavor by this line of reasoning to prove and plead for the Catholic religion, these new apologists are more than willing to grant and to recognize that there are in it many things which are repulsive. Nay, they admit openly, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, that they have found that even its dogma is not exempt from errors and contradictions. They add also that this is not only excusable but — curiously enough — that it is even right and proper. In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where, according to them, manifest errors are to he found. But, they say, the subject of these books is not science or history, but only religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped Up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that the expression of science and history in a more perfect form would have proved not so much a help as a hindrance. Moreover, they add, the Sacred Books, being essentially religious, are necessarily quick with life. Now life has its own truths and its own logic — quite different from rational truth aand rational logic, belonging as they do to a different order, viz., truth of adaptation and of proportion both with what they call the medium in which it lives and with the end for which it lives. Finally, the Modernists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim as true and legitimate whatever is explained by life. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

In other words, everything that exists is true and legitimate merely because of its existence, which means in contemporary terms, according to the conciliarists, that “families” come in different shapes and sizes, including those who do not have an “ideal” form according to the “closed-in” view of “black and white morality” that does not take into account how people actually live.

Pope Pius XII warned Bergoglio’s own Society of Jesus in 1957 about their support of such a false belief:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.) 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies, which are designed to disrupt man's relationship to God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, the Catholic Church, and thus sow the seeds of the kind of social chaos, anarchy and violence that will lead one day to the broad popular acceptance of the Antichrist when he emerges on the scene as one who will restore "order" and perhaps even make nations "great" again.

“Are you more Catholic than the pope?” such people might ask.

Here is the answer one must give in such a “dialogue”: “The “pope” is not the pope precisely because he is not a Catholic, and neither are you.”

Bergoglio runs a protection racket for pro-abortion, pro-sodomite statists, pantheists, socialists, communists, other assorted globalists, Big Pharma, and the censorious lords of Big Tech. The only thing he is not running is the Catholic Church as he is the current head of its counterfeit ape. This is a point that those “conservative,” “pro-life” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believe in what the late Father Anthony Cekada correctly termed the “cardboard pope” must come to understand as they gnash their teeth, rend their garments, and spend a great deal of time writing lamentations over the “bad” pope who is, after all, no pope at all.

What “conservatives” and outright resist while recognize Catholics must come to understand is that abortion, as horrific as it is, is lower on the hierarchy of evils than crimes against God. Heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, and sacrilege are direct sins against the honor, glory, and majesty of God and make a mockery of His Sacred Deposit of Faith and turn the Sacred Worship that is His due into a spectacle of communitarian self-congratulations.

As horrific as the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, we must remember that the greatest criminals alive today are the spiritual robber barons of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who promote one false, heretical proposition after another on an almost daily basis as they reaffirm hardened sinners in their lives of eternal perdition and castigate believing Catholics.

The conciliar revolutionaries have sought to undermine and eclipse all notion of dogmatic permanence and liturgical reverence.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it appear as though the “Church of Christ” is not coextensive with the Catholic Church.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it appear as though false religions please God and are a legitimate means of human sanctification and salvation.

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it appear as though the Old Covenant God made with Moses is perfectly valid and was never superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday and that He ratified by shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

The conciliar revolutionaries have endorsed countless errors that have been condemned by our true popes, whose reaffirmations of immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and/or inhere in the very nature of things have been scuttled by use of various euphemisms (“living tradition,” “hermeneutic of continuity”) to mask the old Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism that has finally been called as such and embraced with enthusiasm by various and sundry of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s henchmen within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Crimes against God and His Holy Deposit Faith are graver in His sight than are even the crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance (willful murder, the sin of Sodom, withholding the day laborer’s wages, defrauding the widow). Yet it is that these crimes are being committed each day as God Himself is profaned every time the liturgical abomination of desolation promulgated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI is staged.

This is to say nothing of the way in which the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity is blasphemed by billions of ordinary people worldwide on a daily basis nor to discuss sins of impurity, indecency, scurrilous speech and the wholesale usury that is at the foundation of the world’s economic system. It impossible for there to be right order in civil societies when such order does not exist in the souls of men who not only persist in their sins unrepentantly but who have sought to protect their sins under the cover of the civil law and to celebrate them widely.

Once again, therefore, consider these words of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, who lived from December 31, 1540, to August 16, 1603, as quoted in Pope Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

God the Holy Ghost saw fit to instruct us in Sacred Scripture, including in the passage from the Book of Proverbs:

[34] Justice exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable. (Proverbs 14: 34.)

Christ the King will not be mocked. He will suffer the sins of men so that they and their nations might be brought to repentance. He is not, however, indifferent to that which caused Him to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross, sin, and that wounds the Church Militant on earth and impedes the pursuit of the true common temporal good of men and their nations.

This is the time of the Great Apostasy. It is time for all Catholics to take seriously the following words of Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., about Pope Saint Leo the Great concerning the nature of the papacy itself that has been undermined perhaps even more by the “resist while recognize” crowd than by the conciliar revolutionaries themselves:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Well, it is all there, isn’t it?

One must engage in all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to believe that the contagion of heresy is not rife within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why all those who are not yet convinced of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal should re-read these words:

This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has esteemed the symbols of idolaters. So have Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and “Saint John Paul II” before Bergoglio’s own election as the head of the false conciliar sect on March 13, 2013, and Bergoglio has shown repeatedly that he has no belief in the integrity of the Catholic Faith. So have his predecessors in the past sixty-two and one-half years.

Dom Prosper Gueranger praised Pope Saint Leo the Great as follows in The Liturgical Year:

One of the grandest Saints in the Church’s Calendar is brought before us today. Leo, the Pontiff and Doctor, rises on the Paschal horizon, and calls for our admiration and love. As his name implies, he is the Lion of holy Church; thus representing, in his own person, one of the most glorious of our Lord’s titles. There have been twelve Popes who have had this name, and five of the number are enrolled in the catalogue of Saints; but not one of them has so honored the name as he whose feast we keep today: hence, he is called “Leo the Great.”

He deserved the appellation by what he did for maintaining the faith regarding the sublime mystery of the Incarnation. The Church had triumphed over the heresies that had attacked the dogma of the Trinity, when the gates of hell sought to prevail against the dogma of God having been made Man. Nestorius, a Bishop of Constantinople, impiously taught that there were two distinct Persons in Christ—the Person of the Divine Word, and the Person of Man. The Council of Ephesus condemned this doctrine, which, by denying the unity of Person in Christ, destroyed the true notion of the Redemption. A new heresy, the very opposite of that of Nestorianism, but equally subversive of Christianity, soon followed. The monk Eutyches maintained that, in the Incarnation, the Human Nature was absorbed by the Divine. The error was propagated with frightful rapidity. There was needed a clear and authoritative exposition of the great dogma, which is the foundation of all our hopes. Leo arose, and, from the Apostolic Chair, on which the Holy Ghost had placed him, proclaimed with matchless eloquence and precision the formula of the ancient faith—ancient, indeed, and ever the same, yet ever acquiring greater and fresher brightness. A cry of admiration was raised at the General Council of Chalcedon, which had been convened for the purpose of condemning the errors of Eutyches. “Peter,” exclaimed the Fathers, “Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo!” As we shall see further on, the Eastern Church has kept up the enthusiasm thus excited by the magnificent teachings given by Leo to the whole world.

The Barbarian hordes were invading the West; the Empire was little more than a ruin: and Attila, “the Scourge of God, was marching on towards Rome. Leo’s majestic bearing repelled the invasion, as his word had checked the ravages of heresy. The haughty king of the Huns, before whose armies the strongest citadels had fallen, granted an audience to the Pontiff on the banks of the Mincio, and promised to spare Rome. The calm and dignity of Leo—who thus unarmed confronted the most formidable enemy of the Empire and exposed his life for his flock—awed the barbarian, who afterwards told his people that, during the interview, he saw a venerable person standing, in an attitude of defense, by the side of Rome’s intercessor: it was the Apostle St. Peter. Attila not only admired, he feared the Pontiff. It was truly a sublime spectacle, and one that was full of meaning;—a Priest, with no arms save those of his character and virtues, forcing a king such as Attila was, to do homage to a devotedness which he could ill understand, and recognize, by submission, the influence of a power which had heaven on its side. Leo, single-handed and at once, did what it took the whole of Europe several ages to accomplish later on.

That the aureola of Leo’s glory might be complete, the Holy Ghost gifted him with an eloquence which, on account of its majesty and richness, might deservedly be called Papal. The Latin language had, at that time, lost its ancient vigor; but we frequently come across passages in the writings of our Saint which remind us of the golden age.

In exposing the dogmas of our holy Faith, he uses a style so dignified and so impregnated with the savor of sacred antiquity, that it seems made for the subject. He has several admirable Sermons on the Resurrection; and speaking of the present Season of the Liturgical Year, he says: “The days that intervened between our Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension, were not days on which nothing was done: on the contrary, great were the Sacraments then confirmed, and great were the mysteries that were revealed.” (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, April 11, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

“Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo.”

Yes, it is always Saint Peter who speaks through the mouth of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Have the conciliar “popes” spoken truth or have they, quite instead, propagated falsehoods with ready abandon and made it appear as though their invocation of a “living tradition” and/or a “hermeneutic of continuity” can disguise their belief in the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism? Indeed, the conciliar revolution has degenerated to the point where some of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “theologians” speak openly in support of dogmatic evolutionism without making any advertence whatsoever to the euphemisms used by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, or Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Similarly, despite the old lie about “heretical” popes that is accepted without question by almost everyone within the “resist while recognize” and/or “conservative” circles within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Dom Prosper Gueranger, writing about Pope Leo II, whose feast was commemorated three days ago, that is, on Sunday, July 3, 2022, the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost within the Octave of Saints Petr and Paul, came to the defense of the truth that we have never had a “heretical” pope in the history of Holy Mother Church.

Pope Saint Leo II, teaches how a true pope fought heresy and even denounced his predecessor, Honorius, for his failure to combat it even though, as Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., pointed out in The Liturgical Year, Honorius had an otherwise irreproachable pontificate and could not be charged with being a heretic himself. His fault was political and administrative, not doctrinal, as Dom Prosper Gueranger explained in his disquistion about Pope Saint Leo II:

It were fitting that our attention should not be diverted, on this Vigil, from the august object which is occupying the Church in the preparation of her chants. But the triumph of Peter will shine out with all the more splendor in proportion as the testimony he rendered to the son of God is shown to have been maintained with all fidelity, during the long series of succeeding ages, by the Pontiffs, inheritors of his primacy. For a considerable time, the twenty-eighth of June was consecrated to the memory of Saint Leo the Great; it was the day chosen by Sergius I for the Translation of the illustrious Doctor, and indeed a more magnificent usher into tomorrow’s Solemnity could hardly be desired. From no other lips but his has Rome ever set forth, in such elevated language, the glories of these two Princes of the apostles and her own fame; never since the incomparable scene enacted at Cesarea Philippi, has the mystery of the Man-God been affirmed in manner so sublime, as on that day wherein the Church, striking the impious Eutyches at Chalcedon, received from Leo the immortal formula of Christian Dogma. Peter once more spoke by the mouth of Leo; yet far was the cause from being then ended: two centuries more were needed; and another Leo it was, even he whom we this day celebrate, who had the honor of ending it, at the Sixth Council.

The Spirit of God, ever watchful over the development of the sacred liturgy, by no means wished any change to be effected on this day in the train of thought of the faithful people. Thus when towards the beginning of the fourteenth century, the 11th of April was again assigned to Saint Leo I (for that was really the primitive place occupied by him on the cycle), Saint Leo II, the anniversary of whose death was this 28th of June, and who hitherto had been merely commemorated thereon, being now raised to the rank of a semi-double, came forward, as it were, to remind the Faithful of the glorious struggles maintained both by his predecessor and by himself, in the order of apostolic confession.

How was it that Saint Leo’s clear and complete exposition of the dogma and the anathemas of Chalcedon did not succeed in silencing the arguments of that heresy which refused to our nature its noblest title, by denying that it had been assumed in its integrity by the Divine Word? Because for Truth to win the day, it suffices not merely to expose the lie uttered by error. More than once, alas! history gives instances of the most solemn anathemas ending in nothing but lulling the vigilance of the guardians of the Holy City. The struggle seemed ended, the need of repose was making itself felt amidst the combatants, a thousand other matters called for the attention of the Church’s rulers; and so while feigning utmost deference, nay, ardor even, if needful, for the new enactments, error went on noiselessly, making profit of the silence which ensued after its defeat. Then did its progress become all the more redoubtable at the very time it was pretending to have disappeared without leaving a track behind.

Thanks, however, to the Divine Head, who never ceases to watch over his work, such trials as we have been alluding to, seldom reach to such a painful depth as that into which Leo II had to probe with steel and fire, in order to save the Church. Once only has the terrified world beheld anathema strike the summit of the holy mount. Honorius, placed on the pinnacle of the Church, “had not made her shine with the splendor of apostolic doctrine, but by profane treason, had suffered the faith, which should be spotless, to be exposed to subversion;” Leo II, therefore, sending forth his thunders, in unison with the assembled Church, against the new Eutychians and their accomplices, spared not even his predecessor. And yet, as all acknowledge, Honorius had otherwise been an irreproachable Pope; and even in the question at stake, he had been far from either professing heresy or teaching error. Wherein, then, did his fault lie?

The Emperor Heraclius, who, by victory had reached the height of power, beheld with much concern how division persistently lived on between the Catholics of his Empire and the late disciples of Eutyches. The Bishop of the Imperial City, the Patriarch Sergius, fostered these misgivings in his master’s mind. Vain of a certain amount of political skill which he fancied himself to possess, he now aimed at re-establishing, by his sole effort, that unity which the Council of Chalcedon and Saint Leo the Great had failed to obtain; thus would he make himself a name. The disputants agreed in acknowledging two Natures in Jesus Christ; hence to reply to these advances of theirs, one thing were needed, thought he, viz., to impose silence on the question as to whether there are him Him two Wills or only one. The enthusiasm with which this evident compromise was hailed by the various sects rebellious to the Fourth General Council showed well enough that they still preserved and hallowed all the venom of error; and the very fact of their denying, or (which came practically to the same thing) hesitating to acknowledge that in the Man-God there is any other Will than that proper to the Divine Nature, was equivalent to declaring that He had assumed but a semblance of Human Nature, since this Nature could by no means exist devoid of that Will which is proper to It. Therefore, the Monophysites, or partisans of the one Nature in Christ, made no difficulty in henceforth being called by the name of Monothelites, or partisans of the one Will. Sergius, the apostle of this novel unity, might well congratulate himself; Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, hailed with one accord the benefit of this “peace.” Was not the whole East here represented in her patriarchates? If Rome in her turn would but acquiesce, the triumph would be complete! Jerusalem, however, proved a jarring note in this strange concert.

Jerusalem, the witness of the anguish suffered by the Man-God in his Human Nature, had heard him cry out in the Garden of His Agony: Father, if it be possible, let this Chalice pass from me; yet, not My Will, but Thine be done! The City of dolors knew better than any other what to hold concerning these two Wills brought there face to face, yet which had, by the heroism of Incomparable Love, been maintained in such full harmony; the time for her to bear testimony was come. The Monk Sophronius, now her bishop, was by his sanctity, courage, and learning, up to the mark for the task that lay before him. But while, in the charity of his soul, he was seeking to reclaim Sergius, before appearing against him to the Roman Pontiff, the bishop of Constantinople already took the initiative; he succeeded thus, by a hypocritical letter, in circumventing Honorius, and in getting him to impose silence on the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Hence, when at last, Saint Sophronius, at the head of the bishops of his province assembled in council, thought it had become a positive duty on his own part to turn towards Rome, it was but to receive for answer a confirmation of the prohibition to disturb the peace. Woeful mistake! yet withal, it by no means directly implicated the Infallible Magistracy; it was a measure exclusively political, but one which was, all the same, to cost bitter tears and much blood to the Church, and was to result, fifty years later, in the condemnation of the unfortunate Honorius.

The Holy Ghost, indeed, who has guaranteed the infallible purity of the doctrine flowing officially from the Apostolic Chair, has not pledged himself to protect in a like degree, from all failure, either the virtue, or the private judgment, or even the administrative acts of the Sovereign Pontiff. Entering into the views of this marvellous solidarity which the Creator made to reign both upon earth and in heaven, the Man-God, when he founded the society of saints upon the authentic and immutable basis of the Faith of Peter, willed that to the prayers of all should be confided the charge of completing his work, by obtaining for the successors of Peter such preservative graces as do not of themselves necessarily spring from the divine Constitution of the Church.

Meanwhile Mahomet was just letting loose his hordes upon the world. Heraclius was now to learn the worth of his Patriarch’s lying peace, and was to come down lower in shame than he had been exalted in glory by his victories over the Persians, in the days when he had acted as the hero of the Cross. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt fell simultaneously beneath the blows of the lieutenants of the Prophet. Sophronius, placed as he was in the very midst of the scene of invasion, grew still greater under trial. Abandoned by the emperor, where the defense of the empire was at stake, disavowed by Rome, as regarded Faith, he alone intrepidly treated with Omar, as power opposed to power; and when about to die, still hoping against all hope in Rome, though thence had come a blow harder far to bear than that of the Caliph, he confided to Stephen of Dora the supreme, which the latter thus relates: “In his justice strong as a lion, contemning calumnies and intrigues, blessed Sophronius took me, unworthy as I am, and conducted me to the sacred spot of Calvary. There he bound me by an indissoluble engagement, in these words: Thou shalt have to render account to him who being God was voluntarily crucified for us according to the Flesh on this spot, when on the day of his terrible Coming he will appear in glory to judge the living and the dead, if thou defer or neglect the interests of his Faith now in peril. Well knowest thou, that I cannot in the body do this thing, being hindered by the incursion of the Saracens which our sins have deserved. But do thou set out as soon as possible, and go from these confines of the earth unto the furthest extremity, until thou reach the See Apostolic, there where are set the foundations of orthodox dogma. Go again and again, not once, not twice, but endlessly, and make known to the holy personages who reside in that place, the shock that these lands of ours have sustained. Importunately, ceaselessly, implore and supplicate, until Apostolic prudence at length determine, by its canonical judgment, the victory over these perfidious teachings.”

The Bishop of Dora was faithful to the behest of Sophronius. When, twelve years later, he gave this touching narrative at the Council of Lateran in 649, it was then the third time that despite the snares and other difficulties of the times, he could say: “We have taken the wings of a dove, as David speaks, and we have come to declare our situation to this See, elevated in the sight of all, this sovereign, this principal See, where is to be found remedy for the wound that has been made upon us.” Saint Martin I, who received this appeal, was one worthy to hear it; and soon afterwards he repaired by his own martyrdom the fault committed by Honorius, in suffering himself to be tricked by an impostor. His glorious death, followed by the tortures endured for the Truth by the saintly Abbot Maximus and his companions, prepared the victory which the heroic faith of Sophronius had announced to the Roman Pontiff. Admirable was this amends received by Holy Church for an odious silence: now were Her Doctors to be seen, with tongue plucked out, still continuing by divine power to proclaim that Christian dogma which cannot be enchained; still with lopped off hands, finding means, in their indomitable zeal, to affix to the mutilated arm the pen whose function, now made doubly glorious, continued thus to carry throughout the world the refutation of falsehood. 

But it is time to come to the issue of this memorable contest. It is to be found in him whose feast we are this day celebrating. Saint Agatho had assembled the sixth General Council at Constantinople, at the request of another Constantine, an enemy of heresy and a victor over Islam. Faith and justice now did the work, hand in hand; and Saint Leo II could at last sing aloud: “O holy Mother Church, put off thy garb of mourning, and deck thee in robes of gladness. Exult now with joyous confidence: thy liberty is not cramped.” (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Pope Saint Leo II, July 3.)

Pope Saint Leo II fought against falsehood.

The conciliar "popes" have embraced it just as they have taught false moral theological concepts to justify their indemnification of Catholic pro-aborts in public life.

The papacy is a subject for our veneration, not mockery and scorn, something that Dom Prosper Gueranger pointed out in his reflection for today, July 6, the Octave of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul:

Firmly resting upon Peter, the Church turns to him whom the Spouse has given to be her Head, and testifies to him no less veneration and love, than obedience and fidelity; such is the craving of her gratitude. Moreover she is fully aware of what is thus expressed by St. Peter Damian (or as others say by a disciple of St. Bernard), “none may pretend to intimacy with our Lord, unless he be intimate with Peter.” How admirable is this unity in God’s advance towards his creature! but, at the same time, how absolute is the law of the creature’s progress to the Life Divine. God is not found, save in Jesus; nor Jesus, save in the Church; nor the Church, save in Peter. If you had known Me, said Christ, you would, without doubt, have known my Father also; but the Jews sought God, outside of Jesus, and their efforts were vain. Since then, others have come, wanting to find Jesus, while setting aside his Church; but that which God has joined, what man shall put asunder? So these men, running after a Christ, a phantom of their own conceptions, have found neither Jesus Christ nor his Church. In fine, others are sons of the Church, yet they persuade themselves that in those pastures where, by right, the soul may feed upon God, they have none to seek, save the divine Shepherd, who dwells in heaven. By the very fact of his having committed to another, the care of feeding both lambs and sheep, Jesus seems to have had quite a different view; for these words imply, not only some, either mere beginners and the imperfect, or the strong and saints, but all, little and great, whom the heavenly Shepherd confided to Simon-Barjona, to be, by him, fed, directed, advanced, and guarded.

O thou soul that hungerest after God, go to Peter; think not, otherwise, to appease thy cravings. Formed in the school of the holy Liturgy, thou hast surely no part with such as neglect the Humanity, as they say (speaking of Mary’s Divine Son), in order to come all the more assuredly to the word; but in like manner take care, thou also, not to turn God’s Vicar into an obstacle in thy path. Jesus longs for the blissful meeting, even as thou dost; be certain, therefore, that what he places between thee and himself, on the way, is no obstacle, but a help. Just as in the adorable Eucharist, the sacred species are but to point out to thee where he is whom, of thyself, thou couldst never find here below; so too the mystery of Peter has no other end but this, to show thee with absolute certainty He Who resides for thee in the Divine Sacrament, in his proper substance, resides also for thee, in his authority and infallible guidance. These two mysteries complete one another; they walk hand in hand an will both cease at the same moment,—at the moment when our eyes may gaze at last directly upon Jesus; but, from now till then, the Church sees herein not so much an intermediary or a veil, as the most precious Sign of the invisible Spouse. Therefore, wonder not, if the homage she pays to Peter seems to rival that which she bestows on the Sacred Host; in her multiplied genuflections which she makes before both, she is indeed adoring; adoring not that man, it is true, whom we see seated on the apostolic throne, nor yet the mere species perceived by our senses on the altar; but, adoring, in both instances, the same Jesus, who is silent in the Eucharistic Sacrament, and who speaks and commands in his Vicar.

Further still, she knows that Peter alone can give her the Sacred Host. Baptism which makes us to be sons of God, and all the sacraments which multiply the divine energies within us, are a treasure which he alone has license to dispose of legitimately, either by himself or by others. It is his word, throughout the world, that, in every grade of authorized teaching, gives birth within souls to faith, the beginning of salvation, and develops it from these humble commencements right up to the luminous summits of sanctity. And because, on the mountain heights, the life of the Evangelical counsels of the chosen garden reserved to himself by the Spouse, Peter must needs likewise claim as his own, the guidance and protection, in a more special manner, of religious communities, for he is wishful to be always able himself to offer directly to Jesus, the fairest flowers of that holiness of which his exalted ministry is the very principle and support. Thus sanctified, to Peter again, does the Church address herself, when she would learn in what way to approach her Spouse, in her worship; she says to him, as heretofore, the disciples said to Our Lord: Teach us to pray, and Peter, animated with what he knows so well of the gorgeous pomp of worship in the heavenly country, regulates for us here below the sacred ceremonial, and dictates to the Bride herself the theme of her songs. Lastly, who but Peter can add to her holiness, those other marks of unity, catholicity, and apostolicity, which are, in face of the whole world, her irrefragable right and title to the throne and to the love of the son of God.

If we are truly sons of the Church, if in very deed it is from the heart of our Mother, that we draw our sentiments, let us well understand what should be our gratitude, respectful love, tender confidence, and utter devotedness of our whole being, towards him from whom, by the sweet Will of God, come all these good things. Peter, in his own person and in that of his successors, specially in him who in these our own days bears the weight of the whole world and our burdens also, ought to be the constant object of our filial reverence and homage. His glories, his sufferings, his thoughts should become ours. Forget not that He of whom the Roman Pontiff is visible Representative, has willed that every one of his members should have their invisible share in the government of his Church; the responsibility of each one in a point of such major importance, is clearly indicated in the great duty of prayer, which in God’s sight is of more value than action, and which is rendered by love, stronger than hell. Then, there is that other strict duty of alms-deeds, whereby we are obliged to come to the relief of the indigent, even of our humblest brother: if so, can we deem ourselves free with regard to the Bishop and Father of our souls, when unjust spoliation makes him know, in the necessities of his immense administration, cramping want and difficulty? Happy they who to the tribute of gold, may be allowed to add that of blood! but all are not granted such an honor!

On this, the last day of the Octave consecrated to the triumph of these two Princes of the Apostles, let us, once again, salute the city which was witness of their final combat. She is guardian of their tombs and continues to be the the See of Peter’s successors; by this double title, she is the vestibule of heaven, the capital of the spiritual empire. The very thought of the august trophies that adorn both banks of her noble river, and of all those other glorious memories that linger around her, made the heart of St. John Chrysostom exult with enthusiasm, beneath his eastern sky. We give his words as addressed to the people, in one of his Homilies: “In very deed, the heavens illumined by the fiery rays of the meridian sun, have naught comparable to Rome’s resplendent rays shed over the whole earth by these two luminaries of hers. Thence will Paul arise, thence Peter likewise. Reflect, yea tremble, at the thought of what a spectacle Rome is to witness, when Peter and Paul rising up from their graves, shall be borne aloft to meet the Lord. How brilliant in her roseate hue is Rome before the eyes of Christ! What garlands encircle this city! With what golden chains is she girded! What fountains are hers! Oh! this city of stupendous fame! I admire her, not because of the gold wherewith she abounds, nor because of her proud porticoes, but because she holds within her these two Pillars of the Church.” Then the illustrious orator goes on to remark how he burnt with longing desire to visit these sacred tombs, the treasure of the world, the secure rampart of the queen-city.

In these our own days, the bishops of God’s Church are bound by law to come at fixed intervals, from their various dioceses, throughout the world, to visit the basilicas raised over the precious remains of Peter and Paul; like this latter, they too must needs come and see Peter, still living in the Pontiff, his successor in the primacy. Although simple Christians are not subject to the same obligation to which bishops are bound by oath, yet ought every true Catholic frequently to visit in thought, at least, these blessed hills, whence flow the streams of salvation that divide and carry their waters over the whole world. One of the most consoling symptoms, at the present sad time, is the visible stir which is evidently taking hold of the masses, and urging them to the Eternal City. A movement, which must be encouraged as much as possible, because it is a return to the wisest traditions of our forefathers; and in these days the facility for such a pilgrimage, once in a lifetime, is so great, that few or none would thereby undergo any serious inconvenience, as regards either their family or social position.

But if some there be who really cannot apply to themselves in this literal sense these words of the Psalm: “I have rejoiced at the things that have been said to me, we shall go into the House of the Lord;” let them, at least, make these sentiments of true spiritual patriotism their own, and more so than did the Jews of yore: “May there be abundance for them that love thee, O true Jerusalem! Let peace be in thy strength and abundance in thy towers. For the sake of my brethren who are in thee, this is my prayer: yea this is my prayer, because thou art the house of the Lord our God.” (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Octave of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, July 6.)

The See of Peter is our safeguard against doctrinal impurity just as it is the rock that guarantees fidelity in all that pertains to Faith and Morals, and it is offensive to the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church to even suggest that there can be a “loyal opposition” to the one who is Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s very vicar here on earth.

I have long contended that the worst enemies of believing Catholics when the “loving” and so very “tolerant” merchants of the slaughter of the innocent preborn and apologists for all that is indecent, impure and hideous in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity control all three branches of the Federal government of the United States of America launch their overt schemes of persecution against us that believing Catholics will be fingered the Bergoglian “bishops,” who will serve as the apologists for and cheerleaders of our own show trials to eradicate all dissent from the prevailing cultural agenda of evil.

We must take seriously the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that are contained in Chapter Ten of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew:

Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. [17] But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. [18] And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: [19] But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. [20] For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

[21] The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death. [22] And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. [23] And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come. [24] The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord. [25] It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?

[26] Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. [27] That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. [28] And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. [29] Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. [30] But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

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

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

[41] He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. [42] And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. (Matthew 10: 16-40.)

We must never fear to proclaim the truths of the Holy Faith, especially as the time of the Roman caesars and their persecution of believing Catholics has returned, this time with the full support and enabling of a putative Successor of Saint Peter and many of his equally putative clergy.

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

We must always give thanks to God for each of our crosses as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and betrayal, making sure to pray our Rosaries of reparation as we give unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary the fruits of all our efforts to restore all things in Him, Christ the King.

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.