Choosing to Live in States of Apoplexy
Thomas A. Droleskey
Pope Saint Pius X, writing in Singulari Quadam, September 24, 1912, explained that Catholics have an obligation to scrutinize everything in public life according to the teaching of Holy Mother Church. Although His Holiness was writing at the time specifically about labor organizations, his exhortation, as he made clear in his encyclical letter, applies to the entirety of the social order:
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."
One of the most glaringly laughable aspects of an electoral campaign in the United States of America is the spectacle of naturalists of the false opposites of the "left" and the "right" trying to discuss the "issues" of the day from a purely naturalistic perspective, something that we saw again on Tuesday evening, October 16, 2012, the Feast of Saint Hedwig, in the veritable slug fest that took place at Hofstra University in Hempstead, Long Island, New York, as President Barack Hussein Obama, aide and abetted by his debate coach, Candy Alt Crowley, and former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Willard Millard Romney engaged in a back-and-forth "town hall" debate that featured very few direct answers to the supposedly "undecided" or "persaudeable" voters who asked various questions and lots and lots of carefully stage-managed, rehearsed talking points and choreographed movements that were caricatures of spontaneity.
Neither Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, running for reelection as the nominee of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left," the Democrat Party. or Willard Mitt Romney, the nominee of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "right," think or speak in terms of First or Last Things. Both are penultimate naturalists. One, Obama, is a Marxist who was trained by a mother steeped in atheism and by a mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a committed Communist and a perverted man who was steeped most arrogantly in unrepentant sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandment, about which he wrote in a pseudonymous novel. The other, Romney, is a naturalist by way of the blasphemous Mormon cult who is full of various carefully focus group tested statements without any philosophical core to guide him as he cleaves to the talking points that have been given him to use by his handlers. In this regard, you see, he is but the spitting image of his late father, George Romney, born in Mexico as his father, the son of polygamist who had fled to Mexico when anti-polygamy laws were passed, was doing his own "missionary" work to take Catholics out of the Faith in Our Lady's dear country (see The Myth of George Romney).
As has been noted in many past articles on this site, ordinary life should not be characterized by the degree of seemingly endless and breathtakingly bitter disputes that characterize the farce of electoral politics in a country built on errors that have multiplied over time so that most people, steeped in a a variety of unrepentant sins and robbed of any true knowledge of First and Last Things and of the sanctifying helps provided by Holy Mother Church to see themselves and everything in the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith, get lost in the "trees" of various issues as they live in states of apoplexy about the future of their country. This is, of course, exactly what Pope Pius IX predicted would occur to those nations built on the falsehoods of "liberty of conscience" an "freedom of religion:"
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at
least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and
false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and
of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the
best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as
attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace
may require." From which totally false idea of social government
they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its
effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of
conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be
legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which
should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,
whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any
of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in
any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think
and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that
"if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there
will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in
the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very
teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and
wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And, since where religion has been removed from
civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation
repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is
darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is
supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some,
utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see
and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds
of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the
unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
Most of the ninety-minute talking points session that occurred Tuesday evening revolved around the money, the money and, of course, the money. We live in a society that has never known the bonds of the true religion and thus whose justice system has always been haphazard, a society in which most men do indeed believe that they have no other end "than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth" and thus "follows no other law in" their "actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasures an interests? Why do people permit themselves to get so distracted and wound up over the sideshows, over the bread and circuses?
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro lives in his own bubble of self-adulation that he cultivates from those around him. He is a skilled liar and manipulator, a man who rose to his Saul Alinksy inner self by lying and distorting the record of his false opposite number throughout the debate.
Willard Mitt Romney, for his part, gave as good as got, having memorized his talking points and working at the distinct disadvantage of having an overt Obama/Soetoro supporter, Candy Alt Crowley, serving as a supposed "moderator" when she was, of course, an Obama/Soetoro enabler and cheerleader.
Romney's big trip of the evening came when he was unable to remember how he should have handled the cover-up of the premeditated terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, that killed United States Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Romney got lost in the trees of what Obama had said when he commented on the tragedy in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday, September 12, 2012.
Rather than focus on the solid two weeks that Obama/Soetoro and his factotums kept insisting that the attack occurred as a result of a "spontaneous protest" that arose as a result of a movie trailer for a motion picture that is said to "blaspheme" the false prophet and mass murderer named Mohammed, Romney played "small ball," focusing on caesar's remarks made on the Rose Lawn that included the word "act of terror" in a general sense, not as applied to the attack in Benghazi. Romney got tripped up all over himself, and it was Candy Alt Crowley who came to Obama/Soetoro's rescue by claiming that caesar had in fact referred to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" when he had not done so at all. This put Romney on the defensive as he did not remember what Obama/Soetoro had said on September 12, 2012, or the context in which the phrase referred to by Crowley had been used.
Even Candy Alt Crowley had to "walk back" her interjection in caesar's behalf earlier today, Wednesday, October 17, 2012, the Feast of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:
In the baseball playoffs, many fans believe the tie goes to the runner. In debates, ties are decided by the moderator and that’s what happened during the Tuesday night presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York. CNN’s Candy Crowley made her presence felt as a moderator in a major way on two points, but none larger than the issue of Libya.
The terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and four others in Benghazi has become a sore point for Obama, but Crowley made sure she called Romney out before Obama could tag him.
When Romney said Obama had not called the attack an act of terror for 14 days, Crowley interrupted and said: “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror.”
Naturally, Obama asked her to restate her point and she did. “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” asked the president. “He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that,” she continued.
Conservatives were outraged, arguing that Crowley’s interruption spoiled a key Romney point. They weren’t the only ones. Even Politico’s Mike Allen called the Crowley point “arguable” and pointed to the transcript of Obama’s statement saying it “generally” referred to “acts of terror.” CNN’s John King called the Obama statement a “generic” comment about terror, not specifically calling the Libya attack a terrorist act.
Afterward, CNN’s post-debate analysis team focused heavily on that point and Crowley herself admitted Romney had been right “in the main.” She said Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.” She also emphasized that each point she made also generated applause from one half of the audience, then the other.
But Crowley also admitted she took her cue to intervene from Obama. She said Libya was where Romney “tripped himself up.” But she clearly helped. After Romney made his point she cut in. “The president kept looking at me, going you … and I thought, well, I did know that, I said, he, you, he did, call it an act of terror.” She then chastised Romney because “he picked that one wrong fact.”
The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis was understated, saying simply: “Candy Crowley seemed to side with Obama.” But The Washington Post blamed Romney’s reaction on conservative media.
“Romney came off as being shellshocked by the mere suggestion” that he was wrong, wrote Erik Wemple. He continued his attack blaming the right. “Romney revealed that perhaps he’d spent some time inside a coverage bubble on the Benghazi story. In the words of one onlooker, he “[c]onfused conservative spin for the truth.”
However, the actual presidential transcript makes it clear that Obama was doing his best to include the word “terror” without actually saying the incident was a terror attack. After mentioning 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, the president said: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” Then he moved on to the Libya attack.
That one moment defined the debate. Crowley, who had come under criticism from both sides prior to the debate, also cut off Romney when he was making a point about the president’s "Fast and Furious" gun scandal. And, as in the other two debates, the moderators let the Democratic candidate dominate the clock. This time, according to CNN’s own tally, Obama won 44 minutes and 4 seconds to a mere 40 minutes and 50 seconds for Romney.
Libya dominated the after-discussion – left and right. Huffington Post’s celebration of Obama included this headline: “Candy Crowley Fact Checks Mitt Romney On Libya.” MSNBC Tingler-in-Chief Chris Matthews said Obama had “punched Romney hard,” to cheers of the MSDNC faithful.
Conservatives continued to harp on Crowley’s interruption. Romney adviser John Sununu summed up those comments with a sarcastic response during a conversation with CNN's Soledad O'Brien Wednesday. After O’Brien thanked Sununu for coming on, he took a dig back saying, “It's always good to come on the groupie channel.”
CNN, realizing it was in the midst of a firestorm, continued to follow the issue and have Crowley on again today. “Newsroom” Anchor Carol Costello introduced a discussion with the criticism, explaining, “Conservatives pounced, saying, ‘Crowley got it wrong.’”
Crowley was then shown defending herself from earlier in the morning, saying, “I was trying to move this along.” “There is no question the administration is quite vulnerable on this topic,” she added. But she amended what she said the night before. No longer did she take her cue just from Obama. “There was this point where they both kind of looked at me. You know. And then, you know. Romney was looking at me. Obama was looking at me. What I wanted to do was move this along.” She then restated that she fact checked both Romney and Obama.
Then Crowley added a major point. “Now, did the president say this was an act of terror? The president did not say it.” Then she explained how she came up with her view. “The president said ‘these acts of terror,’ but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi, so I don’t think that’s a leap,” she concluded. (CNN's Crowley Sides With Team Obama.)
It was Tuesday morning, October 16, 2012, the Feast of Saint Hedwig, that Patrick Joseph Buchanan provided a superb timeline of the Obama administration's cover-up of the Benghazi tragedy that was enabled last evening by Candy Alt Crowley in a blatant fashion:
On Sept. 11, scores of men with automatic weapons and RPGs launched a
night assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, killed Ambassador Chris
Stevens and set the building ablaze. Using mortars, they launched a
collateral attack on a safe house, killing two more Americans, as other
U.S. agents fled to the airport.
On Sept. 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the attack
came out of a spontaneous protest caused by an anti-Muslim video on
On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the entire nation the attack had not been premeditated or preplanned but emanated from a spontaneous protest of the nasty video.
On Sept. 25, Obama at the United Nations mentioned the video six times.
But when they were pushing this tale, what did the White House actually know?
For we have now learned that the assault was observed in near real time by the State Department's Charlene Lamb, who was in contact with the security section at the Benghazi compound.
The next day, Sept. 12, Fox News and Eli Lake of The Daily Beast reported that U.S. intelligence had concluded it was terrorism. Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence had identified some of the terrorists as members of an al-Qaida affiliate.
Thus either administration higher-ups were ignorant for more than a week of what their own agents knew, and are thus manifestly incompetent, or they colluded in a cover-up and orchestrated deception.
As the facts are revealed, the weight of evidence tilts toward the latter conclusion.
Why? Because we now know there never was any protest at the Benghazi compound -- not against an anti-Muslim video or anything else.
And if there was no protest, who sent Carney out to blame the attack on the protest? And if there was no protest, who programmed Rice and put her on five separate Sunday talk shows to attribute the massacre to a protest that never happened?
If real-time intelligence and U.S. agents at the scene knew it was premeditated, preplanned terrorism by Sept. 12, who told Rice to deny specifically on Sept. 16 that the attack was premeditated or preplanned?
Indeed, why was Rice sent out at all? She is not in the chain of command. Why she accepted the assignment is obvious. She wants to be Hillary Clinton's successor as secretary of state. But who put her up to this? Who pushed her out front to mislead us?
The CIA's David Petraeus or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper should have been sent out to say what we knew, five days after the massacre. As Chris Stevens reported to the secretary of state and President Obama, why was Hillary or National Security Adviser Tom Donilon not sent out to explain what had happened to Stevens and the others?
Looking back, Carney and Rice appear to have been used by their superiors.
Carney would never have gone out to speculate on his own about what happened in Benghazi. His line on Sept. 14 had to have been fed to him by the White House chief of staff, Donilon, Obama or all of them.
As for Rice, someone contacted those five TV networks to put her on. And the party line she delivered -- the opposite of the truth -- had to have been fed to her, almost word for word -- by Donilon or the chief of staff.
Could Donilon or Hillary have been in the dark about what Rice was going to say? Could they have still been in the dark about what had happened five days before in Benghazi, when Hillary's own deputy Charlene Lamb had followed the terrorist attack in near real time?
Hillary and the entire Obama national security team are in that famous photo with Obama watching Seal Team Six in Abbottabad when Osama bin Laden was taken down.
Was the National Security Council alerted by Lamb when she was observing the attack in near real time? Did the NSC also observe?
Was the president told by the NSC that we were getting real-time intel and video from Benghazi, and would he like to see?
There is an even more fundamental question:
Why did the White House persist with the phony story of a protest against a video being the cause of Ambassador Stevens' death, when they had to know there was no protest?
The most plausible explanation is that the truth -- we were being hit with the worst terror attack since 9/11 in a city we saved -- would have exposed Obama's boasting about his Libya triumph and al-Qaida being "on the run" and "on the path to defeat" as absurd propaganda.
Al-Qaida is now in Libya, Mali, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Pakistan.
And the epidemic of anti-American riots across the Muslim world, with Arab Spring elections bringing to power Islamist regimes, testify to the real truth. After four years of Obama, it is America that is on the run in the Middle East.
But we can't let folks find that out until after Nov. 6.
Hence the Benghazi cover-up. (Behind the Benghazi Cover-Up.)
Although I had my disagreements with Patrick Joseph Buchanan when I campaigned for him actively in several states, especially all throughout the State of Iowa, from December 8, 1995, to February 12, 1996, until the time at the end of March of 1996 when it was clear that the then Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was going to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, one of the reasons that I supported Pat, other than the fact that he was opposed to baby-killing under cover of the civil law without any exceptions whatsoever, was that he possessed the clarity of mind necessary to communicate his convictions and his grasp of the facts of governance and current events to explode each and every sophistry that President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton would use in a debate. Pat might have lost in 1996 if he had been the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. However, he would have articulated convictions clearly and he would have gotten his facts as straight as an arrow. He would have given Der Schlickmeister from Hope, Arkansas, a good run for his illegally donated from Red China campaign money.
Willard Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has to be coached in order to debate as this art does not come naturally to one who is devoid of any real convictions apart form his belief in the falsehoods of Mormonism. That is why Romney got tripped up on the question of the Benghazi attack. He should have focused on the timeline provided in Patrick Buchanan's column on the same morning as the debate two days ago now. After all, Pat's sister, Angela "Bay" Buchanan, who apostatized and became a Mormon in 1976 at the age of twenty-eight, is working with the Romney campaign.
Obama/Soetoro was grateful for the lifeline that his surrogate campaigner, Candy Alt Crowley, gave him. However, he knows what the truth of the matter is, which is why he tried to spin the narrative for the Kerry Ladka, the man in the audience at Hofstra University Tuesday evening who asked the question about the Benghazi attack, by saying that he, Obama/Soetoro, wanted to make sure that he was getting "real" intelligence information and not disinformation:
President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.
As to Ladka’s question about who turned down the Benghazi security
requests and why, Obama reportedly told him that “releasing the
individual names of anyone in the State Department would really put them
at risk,” Ladka says.
Obama’s retail politics left an impression on Ladka:”I appreciate his
private answer more than his public answer,” he says. Spoken like a very
genuine undecided voter, Ladka says he wasn’t impressed with Romney’s
response to the Libya matter, either. (Libya Question Obama Wouldn't Answer.)
If Obama/Soetoro can tell this "privately" to a mere citizen, why aren't the rest of us entitled to it as well.
There is a little problem with the answer caesar gave to Mr. Kerry Ladka. What's that, you say? Once again, the peanut gallery asks a question. Fine. I'll ignore the empty post office box and answer it for you.
The problem is this: if Obama/Soetoro did not know whether he was getting "real" intelligence, why did he keep insisting for two weeks that the Benghazi attack occurred as a result of a "protest" about the movie trailer for Innocence of Muslims that went bad? He had learned within twenty-four hours that the video had nothing to do with the attack. Why, then, say the following at the United Masonic Nations Organization on Tuesday, September 25, 2012:
That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and
disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I
have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do
with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who
respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as
the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has
welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims
who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of
religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed
because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people
take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among
them . . . .
Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?
And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond..
More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy.
Now, let me be clear: Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad. We do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue, nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks or the hateful speech by some individuals represent the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims, any more than the views of the people who produced this video represents those of Americans. However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. (Remarks by the Caesar to the United Masonic Nations General Assembly, September 25, 2012.)
Those seeking to defend the reigning caesar on the issue of the Benghazi coverup might try to claim that their beloved hero never directly mentioned the video very few people had seen prior to last month in connection with the attack in Benghazi, the implication was clear enough. The video had nothing to do with happened in Benghazi. And to the extent that word about the video might have been responsible for some of the violence in Cairo, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Mohammedan world, no one in the "mainstream media" has yet dared to ask who might have provided funding for the production of Innocence of Muslims and to promote it by means of the video. So few people want to recognize even the possibility that agents of or working with Mossad might have done so.
One fact, however, is inescapable: Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro was told by our intelligence officials within that the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a premeditated terrorist attack. His press secretary, his United Masonic Nations ambassador and others continued to spread the myth of the video being the proximate cause of the Benghazi attack. That was lie from beginning to end, and those who told it knew that it was as the administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. has a "narrative" to sell the American public, that it has killed Osama bin Laden and has thus thwarted terrorist plots around the world, including one foiled just yesterday, Wednesday, October 17, 2012, the Feast of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (see Man Accused of Plot to Blow Up Federal Reserve Bank of New York).
The whole debate about this is the result of a failed American policy in the Middle East premised upon decades of reflexive, robotic support for the murderous policies of the State of Israel and, more recently, the current regime's embrace of the "Arab Spring" that has topped strongmen who, no matter their various crimes, provided some stability to their countries and, in the case of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, were at least minimally protective of Christian minorities living in their midst. It is because of American support for and military involvement in the so-called "Arab Spring" in Libya that hostile forces were more desirous to attack interests of the United States of America in vulnerable locations such as Benghazi, Libya, that the Obama-Biden administration was loathe to provided extra security for in order not to offend the tender sensibilities of the some of the more heavily armed "locals" who don't exactly "cotton" to the sight of "crusaders" in their land.
What I wrote four days ago after the slug fest that was the vice presidential debate between Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Paul Davis Ryan on Thursday, October 11, 2012, is relevant once again:
The government of the United
States of America had no business placing its personnel in Benghazi,
Libya, if it could provide for their safety. Once again, you see, we are
dealing with an administration that is pathologically incapable of
putting these two words together or even admit that they exist,
Ah, you see, admitting that Mohammedans have been
killing Catholics and other Christians since the start of this false
religion by a penultimate blasphemer in his own right, the false prophet
Mohammed, who has been praised so lavishly by President Barack Hussein
Obama, at the beginning of the Seventh Century A.D., they are doing so
now in response to this country's support for the persecution of Arabs
by the State of Israel and for this country's unjust, immoral wars on
the soil of their countries that have resulted in the deaths of scores
upon scores of innocent civilians.
You want to see Mohammedan terrorism stop? Fine.
Get out of Libya, where we never belonged--and into which country John Sidney McCain III advocated the placing of ground stoops.
Get every American out of Iraq, which has been a a
moral, economic and geopolitical disaster from beginning to end that has
not only killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and reignited section and
religious conflicts that were more or less kept in check by Saddam
Hussein to flare in the open again, something that has resulted in
untold violence against Catholics and other Christians there. Large
numbers of Chaldean Rite Catholics have fled from their native land
Get every American of the trap that has been
remains Afghanistan. How many more lives and how much more money must be
spent to prop up the Bag Man in a Karakul Hat,
Hamid Karzai, and to try to succeed at the imperialistic exercise of
social engineering called "nation-building" that the British and the
Soviets attempted and failed to do in the past?
Stay out of Syria.
Iran? So what if they develop a nuclear weapon? So
what? Lots of countries have nuclear weapons today? Vladimir Putin would
never permit the United States of America to attack Iran absent an
imminent threat to this country. The leaders of Israel would do so at
their own peril and without the help--military or financial--of the
United States of America.
Violence abounds in a world where Our Blessed Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ is not King over men and their nations. You
want true prosperity at home and peace abroad?
Stop promoting under cover of the civil law and as a
matter of "human rights" that which is repugnant to the peace and
happiness of eternity.
Start pursuing the common temporal good in light of
the pursuit of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the
Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost
for all eternity in Heaven.
It is up to the Catholic Church to seek with
urgency the unconditional conversion of all men to the true Faith as it
is this Holy Faith is the necessary precondition, although not, to be
sure, an infallible guarantor, of order within the souls of men and
order among men in their own nations and with the other nations of the
world. That this has not been done in the past fifty years as a false
church has made its "reconciliation" with the very principles of
Modernity that have been at the proximate source of our domestic and
international problems today is one of the chief consequences of the
failure to heed Our Lady's Fatima Message.
The errors of Russia that envelop us are not going
to be ended with empty words or new programs or more profligate spending
on those programs.
The errors of Russia that envelop us are not going
to be ended with half-measures and carefully-crafted messages designed
not to "offend" "undecided" voters in "swing" states.
The errors of Russia that have helped to produce a
world of violence and deceit and statism can be stopped only if we stop
offending God and listen to our Heavenly Mother, who is the patroness of
this country under the title of her Immaculate Conception and of the
Americas under the title of Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Pray the Rosary. Make reparation for one's sins.
Pray and work for the conversion of ourselves and our fellow men.
Recognize naturalism for what it is, the Pelagian belief that we are
self-redemptive and that we can, therefore, "will" ourselves out of
whatever problems we face in our own lives an collectively as a nation.
Viva Cristo Rey! (Thursday Night At The Fights.)
What about the domestic issues? Once again, I am glad that you asked.
Forty Years of Playing the Contraception Card
That Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro played the "contraception card" Tuesday night was completely unsurprising. He has been doing so all year long. This, however, is nothing new for the adherents of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" who confederate under the umbrella of the organized crime family of naturalism known as the Democratic Party.
The Democrat Party national platform of 1972, which called for an equal number of women and men to be appointed to Federal positions and for universal health care provided by the Federal government, was one of the most openly ideological national political party platforms in the recent past, calling for "family planning" in one of its planks:
Family planning services, including the education, comprehensive medical and social services necessary to permit individuals freely to determine and achieve the number and spacing of their children, should be available to all, regardless of sex, age, marital status, economic group or ethnic origin, and should be administered in a non-coercive and non-discriminatory manner. (Political Party Platforms.)
Obama/Soetoro, knowing that over eighty-five percent of Catholic women practice some fund of contraception, which has almost universal acceptance among non-Catholic citizens of the United States of America, believes that the issue of denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage is a "winning" one for him, which is why he brought the matter up as he responded to a question about "disparity" in pay between men and women who work at positions that women, who should be at home with their children during their childbearing years or performing the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy as a consecrated religious, should not be holding. This is how he brought up the matter, which prompted Willard Mitt Romney to proclaim himself once again to be a firm supporter of contraception:
Obama: Katherine, I just want to point out that when Governor Romney's campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he supported it? He said, "I'll get back to you." And that's not the kind of advocacy that women need in any economy. Now, there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace. For example, their healthcare. You know a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.
I think that's a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Because this is not just a -- a health issue, it's an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family's pocket. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.
That's not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country, who rely on Planned Parenthood for, not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That's a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country. And it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work. When we talk about child care, and the credits that we're providing. That makes a difference in whether they can go out there and -- and earn a living for their family.
These are not just women's issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues.
And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when everybody participates and women are getting the same fair deal as men are. (Transcript of Second Debate Between the Mormon Willard Mitt Romney and the Marxist Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Tuesday, October 16, 2012, the Feast of Saint Hedwig, Hoftsra University, Hempstead, Long Island, New York.)
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro left out the simple truth that Planned Parenthood, which owes its origins to the racist and eugenicist by the name of Margaret Sanger (see Why Should Hillary Know More Than Benedict?) and frequently uses coercive methods to convince women to kill their babies and ignores parental notification laws and refuses to report instances of statutory assaults upon girls below the age of eighteen, is the largest single baby-killing factory in the entire world. He also omitted the fact that the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and several formerly Catholic institutions now in conciliar control are suing his administration over the health insurance mandate for contraception and "family planning" services coverage that he believes is a winning issue for him. (The fact that the conciliar authorities are suing on the very false grounds that created the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and United States Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is a separate matter that has been discussed on this site a number of times, including in From John Carroll To James Gibbons To Timothy Dolan.)
Women should not be in the work force to compete with men for positions that demean their femininity by requiring them to adopt masculine characteristics of "toughness" and "competitiveness" in order to "fulfill" themselves as they leave their children, if any, off at the day care center or the school or both, depending upon the ages of the children they have "decided" to accept into this world to the point of their births.
Yet it is that it was over twenty years ago now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing a concurring decision in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992, that was signed by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, on June 29, 1982, explained that women had made their economic decisions on the basis of the abortion if contraception should "fail" them:
Although Roe has
engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable,
representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is
unenforceable. P. 835.
Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without
serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social
developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices
that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in
reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception
should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the
economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their
ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves
human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly
measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who
have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. (Text of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.)
It is wrong for a country for its laws to recognize a nonexistent "necessity" to kill babies in the event that their mothers may continue pursuing their career goals. It is offensive to God and for the whole fabric of the common temporal good of a nation for this to be the case.
Almost no one in the population-at-large knows this. Very few Catholics understand that this is so.
It should continue to come as no surprise that Willard Mitt Romney once again reiterated his support for contraception in an answer unrelated to another question that he had been asked immediately after Obama/Soetoro had finished his disquisition in support of his health insurance coverage mandate for contraception and other "family planning" services.
Romney: I'd just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in
Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or
not. And I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they
could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have
access to contraceptives. And -- and the -- and the president's
statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong. (Transcript of Second Debate Between the Mormon Willard Mitt Romney and the Marxist Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Tuesday, October 16, 2012, the Feast of Saint Hedwig, Hoftsra University, Hempstead, Long Island, New York.)
Romney ain't just a whistlin' Dixie. To amplify this point, you see, his campaign is running an advertisement highlighting his support for contraception, most of which kills preborn babies, and for the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in certain "hard cases:"
Mitt Romney’s campaign, in an effort to appeal to women who hold more
moderate views on reproductive issues, is releasing a new commercial
that highlights his support for contraception and abortion in limited
“You know, those ads say Mitt Romney would ban all
abortions and contraception seemed a bit extreme, so I looked into it,”
says a woman identified as Sarah Minto, who is shown on camera searching
on Google for “Romney on abortion.”
Ms. Minto adds: “It turns out
Romney doesn’t oppose contraception at all. In fact, he thinks abortion
should be an option in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s
The ad is Mr. Romney’s most aggressive attempt to rebut attempts by the Obama campaign to paint him as extreme on women’s rights.
Mr. Romney has long struggled with women. All year polls have shown
President Obama with a sizeable advantage. But as the race tightens in
the final three weeks before the election – and one major poll showing
this week that the Republican nominee is significantly narrowing the
gender gap – the Romney campaign is moving dramatically to showcase its
more moderate positions.
This strategy is not without risk. Many
socially conservative Republicans have long been wary of Mr. Romney, who
as a candidate for United States Senate said that abortion should be
“safe and legal” and touted his pro-gay rights positions.
Reproductive rights have continued to bedevil Mr. Romney over the course of this election. Just last week he raised eyebrows when he denied to the editorial board of The Des Moines Register that he would pursue anti-abortion legislation. “There’s no legislation
with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part
of my agenda,” he said.
Mr. Romney’s advisers have long said that
they believed the election would turn on the economy, and that is where
Ms. Minto ends her statement in the ad.
“I’m more concerned about the debt our children will be left with,” she says as she looks into the camera.
“I voted for President Obama last time. We just can’t afford 4 more
years.” (Romney Ad Touts Moderate Views on Abortion).
Seems to me that I have been trying to convince the "vast" readership of this site that supposedly "pro-life" voters who enable the supposedly "lesser evil" in
the context of election campaigns and then overlook and/or excuse the
evil that they do once in office wind up convincing the
supposedly "lesser evil" that he can get away with almost anything and
still keep the votes. This is very easy to do when people live in states
of apoplexy about a supposedly "greater evil" as they become used to
accepting an increasingly higher dose of the "lesser evil" with each
passing election cycle. Readers will note that the issue of surgical
baby-killing itself did not come up in the debate at all. This is where the inexorable logic of the so-called "lesser evil" winds up: silence about, if not outright acceptance of, increasingly higher doses of evil as the "limits" of what are considered to be "socially acceptable" practices keeps getting expanded as future generations are "educated" in a culture where objective evils are considered to be "new normal" that are beyond any question as they are part of "human rights" and form the very fabric of social, economic, legal and cultural life in a pluralistic nation.
I will keep trying to convince you of this no matter how much you ignore me and no matter how much you think "things" will be "different" once Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is out of office. Men who campaign like Mitt Romney, ladies and gentleman, govern like Mitt Romney, something that I have tried to point out in numerous articles, including Devils Without Tails and He's Just A Mormon, among so many others.
Keep It Catholic At All Times
Indeed, there is no need to "grapple" with the "issues" of the day. The chaos we find abroad in the United States of America and elsewhere is the result, proximately speaking, of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, which has helped to spawn endless types of naturalistic "philosophies" or quasi-salvific "ideologies by which men are supposed to organize their own lives and those of their nations. There is no naturalistic, secular, interdenominational, nondenominational, religiously indifferent, philosophical or ideological manner to "solve" social problems and/or to provide "order" within the souls of men or within a nation-at-large.
Limited civil government is only possible in the properly ordered Catholic state, where citizens would be possessed of the sensus Catholicus and would not look to "government" for the "solutions" to problems that have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in our own Actual Sins. Individual issues that arise would be examined by Catholics in light of First and Last Things as they made honest efforts to apply the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the concrete circumstances in which they find themselves. Catholics can disagree about the application of principles. They are not free to disagree about the fact that the Faith governs all of our actions, both personal and social, at all times.
Pope Leo XIII made it abundantly clear in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, and in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that those who search for merely "natural' solutions to the problems of man search in vain:
The Church, it is certain, at no time and in no particular is deserted by God; hence, there is no reason why she should be alarmed at the wickedness of men; but in the case of nations falling away from Christian virtue there is not a like ground of assurance, "for sin maketh nations miserable." If every bygone age has experienced the force of this truth, wherefore should not our own? There are, in truth, very many signs which proclaim that just punishments are already menacing, and the condition of modern States tends to confirm this belief, since we perceive many of them in sad plight from intestine disorders, and not one entirely exempt. But, should those leagued together in wickedness hurry onward in the road they have boldly chosen, should they increase in influence and power in proportion as they make headway in their evil purposes and crafty schemes, there will be ground to fear lest the very foundations nature has laid for States to rest upon be utterly destroyed. Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.
So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
We do not organize nations around the false principles of naturalism. We do not restore "order" in nations by the false principles of naturalism. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
To wit, a Catholic possessed of the sensus Catholicus would have an understanding of the following basic truths, thereby eliminating most of the "issues" that are raised in the course of elections by naturalists who want to "solve" problems caused by the overthrow of Christendom:
The civil state has an obligation to recognize the true Church and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws.
There are limits that have been revealed positively by God and that exist in the nature of things (the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law) that bind the consciences of all men in all circumstances in all places at all times.
No one, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, may defy the laws of God as they have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church possesses the Divine right to interpose herself with the civil authorities as last resort when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention following the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation.
Each man on the the face of the earth has a solemn obligation to submit himself to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on all that pertains to the good of souls, accepting humbly and in a spirit of docility the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed to us exclusively through the Catholic Church.
Social order depends upon order within the state of the individual souls of men.
Order within the individual souls of men depend upon their having belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace thus being equipped to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and to act according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church.
All of the problems of the world, bar none, are caused by Original Sin and the Actual Sins of men.
The only way to "reform" societies is for men to reform their souls in cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.
The family is the basic unit of society and as such its members (father, mother, children) have an obligation to perform the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy for each other and to provide, as far as is humanly possible, for the spiritual and temporal care of close relatives (grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins) when they are unable to do so.
The virtues are to be cultivated within the family unit as worldliness is eschewed and as parents and children live here on this earth in light of their Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Heaven for all eternity.
Each home should be enthroned to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary as each member within it is totally consecrated to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
As far as is humanly possible in this era of apostasy and betrayal when the availability of true offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass have been limited to a relative handful of locations, families must endeavor to assist at Holy Mass on a daily basis and to spend time as a family, at least on a weekly basis, before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. This is an antidote to worldliness and to naturalism.
Each family must pray at least one set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary every day.
Each family must read about the lives of the saints, preferably in conjunction with the Mass of the day.
Each family must be content to live in accord with the Virtue of Modesty, dressing and speaking as befits redeemed creatures, careful to avoid any degree of participation in cultural fashions or activities contrary to the good of our souls or those of others.
Parents must welcome as many children as God sees fit to send them, refusing to do anything to prevent the conception of children or to conceive children by artificial means if God has seen fit not to bestow upon them any (or with a particular number of) children.
Husbands and wives must understand that a Sacramentally valid, ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluble, and that there is no problem within the family that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer during His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be thrust through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.
Similarly, children must be taught there there is no cross (rejection by friends, a failing grade in a class, ridicule, ostracism, sickness, the death of a parent or other close relative, financial setbacks) that is the equal of what our sins caused Our Lord to suffer as He redeemed us, understanding as well that each cross we are asked to bear has been fashioned for us by the very hand of God Himself for all eternity for His greater honor and glory and for our sanctification and salvation.
Families, in conjunction with Our Lady's Fatima Message, must seek to make reparation for their own sins and those of the whole world, seeking to live in joy as they embrace voluntarily more and more penances to help convert sinners in this life and to come to the aid of the Poor, Suffering Souls in Purgatory.
It is essential for families to get themselves to the Sacred Tribunal of Penance on a weekly basis.
Families must not immerse themselves in the consumer mentality that is abroad in our land, being content with a sufficiency of the means of this world and making certain to give back unto God the first fruits of whatever material benefits He has bestowed upon them.
Parents must understand that they are the principal educators of their children, cooperating with their legitimate pastors and legitimate, truly Catholic schools to help them to be educated in all things, sacred and profane, in light of the Holy Faith.
Those in the civil government must understand that their first obligation is to foster those conditions within their jurisdictions that will be conducive for the sanctification and salvation of the souls of their fellow citizens, seeking to root out those things that are grievously sinful and thus pose a grave, if not fatal, threat to souls and to the commonwealth.
The civil government must pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, doing nothing to interfere with the sanctification and salvation of its citizens.
There has never been a time of perfection in the history of the world, not even in the era of Christendom. Human nature has been wounded by Original Sin. Social conditions will always suffer from the consequences of fallen human nature as manifested in the Actual Sins of men. Be that as it may, however, there is an essential difference between the Christendom of the Middle Ages and our present day: individual men understood that their sins were the source of the problems of the world and that the reform of their societies depended upon the reform of their own lives. They did not look to the "government" to "resolve" problems that they knew were caused by their own sins and those of others. And they understood that they would encounter personal tragedies that were their own responsibilities to address, aided by the Charity of others, starting with that of the Church herself.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, explained the glory of the Middle Ages as the Church provided for the needs of the dependent and the indigent:
There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is -- beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
Yes, Catholics are supposed to understand that social problems are to resolved in the institution closest to those who find themselves in need, starting in the family and then by the Church (whether at the parish or the diocesan levels). The intervention of the civil government comes only as a last resort.
That is, there would be no need for "debates" about "Social Security" or "health care" or even the proper, balanced care of the environment in a Catholic state.
As noted in many articles on this site, including in Conserving The Welfare State, grown children would understand that it is their obligation, not that of the civil government or of the Shady Rest Nursing Home, to care for their elderly parents if they become unable to care for themselves. Grown children are supposed to be the "social security" program for elderly parents. Grown children are supposed to make sacrifices to return to their parents the constant care that was given to them, the children, when they were helpless infants. This is an obligation, not an option, of the Fourth Commandment.
Similarly, a well-ordered Catholic state would be possessed of citizens who understood that the maintenance of physical health is second to the maintenance of their spiritual health. While we have an obligation imposed by the Fifth Commandment to take reasonable care of our bodies and to refrain from engaging in acts of gluttony and/or intemperance in the use of alcoholic drinks or any use of hallucinogenic substances (whose use is designed of their nature to dull the senses and to diminish one's rationality, the subject of a forthcoming article on the evils of marijuana), none of us is going to live forever. The mania to preserve our physical health at all costs has increased in almost exact proportion to the indifference to our spiritual health has decreased in the past forty to fifty years. We are supposed to understand that acute sicknesses and/or chronic diseases as the result of Adam's Fall and that each is sent to us for the honor and glory of God and our own sanctification as we make reparation for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
We live in a world where so many millions upon millions of Catholics, to say nothing of non-Catholics, are inordinately worried about their physical health and who believe that it is the duty of the civil government to provide them with the highest degree of health care imaginable so that their physical lives can be preserved for as long as possible. Such a worry about physical health places the good of the body, which is destined for the corruption of the grave until the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day, over the good of the soul.
Some of the saints punished themselves severely by means of working as hard as they could for the sanctification and salvation of souls, dying at a relatively early age as a result. They did not "kill" themselves. They sought merely to work hard for the honor and glory of God as befits redeemed creatures without thinking about the physical consequences that they would encounter as a result. The glories of Heaven far surpass the pains of this passing, mortal vale of tears. We are not to spend our days inordinately worrying about what is "going to happen to us" if we have a heart attack or a stroke or are diagnosed with cancer. We are to spend our days glorifying God and making reparation for our sins as we prepare for the moment of our Particular Judgments. Indeed, the first call that should be placed for us when we are suffering from some life-threatening episode is to a true priest, not to "911," so that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction may be administered to us. The priority in such a case is the soul, not the body.
As we live in an anti-Catholic world that is in the grip of the devil, who hates God and therefore hates our immortal souls as they are made in the image and likeness of the One he hates, it is the case today that many, although far from all, medical professionals fail to view the human being as a redeemed creature and are thus prone to over treat someone who is near death or to consign to death those whose "profitability" is to be found in the marketing of their spare body parts or who are simply "inconvenient" for those who have to care for them. After all, it is a relatively easy thing for a profession that accepts the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies up to and including the day of birth to carve up human beings who are deemed to be candidates for voluntary or involuntary donation of their body parts and/or to use a morphine drip to slow stop a patient's heart. (For more information on organ transplants and "brain death," please see
Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death (From The Michael Fund Newsletter and Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death", among many other such articles.)
Consider some of the proximate causes of the vast increases in the costs of health care in the past fifty years or so:
Medications are prescribed to treat problems caused by the chemical additives that have been in our foods and in our drinks.
The chemical companies make profits by making products that make us sick.
The pharmaceutical companies make profits by making products designed to "cure" us of the sicknesses caused by the products made by the chemical companies.
Hospital administrators and insurance company/managed care company executives care about the "corporate" bottom line, approving payments for some but not for others, making them the equivalent of the supreme temporal judges as to who will live and who will die.
Some patients or their families bring lawsuits when "things" go wrong, as happens more often than not because there are not a few in the medical professions who are so bereft of their own understanding to treat each patient as they would treat Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself--and of the responsibility they bear on their immortal souls for the proper treatment of the sick and disabled and the dependent--that they are slipshod in the performance of their duties. Other patients or their families bring lawsuits when "things" go wrong not because of gross incompetence or indifference but because of an oversight caused by simple human error. Still others bring lawsuits because they cannot accept the fact of their own mortality, believing that "someone" must be to "blame" for the fact that they have cancer or heart disease or multiple sclerosis or nephritis, thereby refusing to accept the cross that has been sent to them by God to help them to make reparation for their own sins prior to their deaths.
Catholic common sense would prevail in a country governed by the truths of the true Faith. A Catholic physician would use that Catholic common sense to say to a patient, "Look, you're ninety years old. There's no need to have quadruple bypass surgery. It's time for you to prepare for a good, holy and sacramentally provided-for death." Yes, of course, a person has the right to choose a course of medical treatment not prohibited by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. There does come a time, however, when a person should be possessed enough of the sensus Catholicus to accept his mortality and to understand that it is in many cases neither necessary or advisable to do the bidding of the giant hospitals and pharmaceutical companies if other circumstances (a husband or a wife's responsibilities to each other and/or their children, a pastor's responsibilities to his flock when no clear replacement is at hand, etc.) do not obligate one morally to at least consider an extensive course of treatment.
What about those in genuine need of legitimate medical assistance who cannot afford to pay for it? This is what the Catholic Church provided from time immemorial, replete with Catholic doctors, some of whom were members of various third orders of religious communities, who donated their services. The Catholic Church, not the government, used to be the institution which provided the legitimate health care to be given to human beings in the discharge of the Corporal Works of Mercy.
How sad it is that many of the formerly genuinely Catholic hospitals have been merged with secular corporations as the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the "religious" communities associated with it participate in a "bottom line" mentality that is of John Calvin and Adam Smith, not that of Saint John of God and the his Brothers Hospitallers or that of the love given by Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini in her own hospitals. Some of these "merged" conciliar-secular hospitals do hideous things morally and/or play a "shell game" by having the "secular" unit of the hospital kill babies and/or prescribe or dispense contraceptives or deny living human beings food and water while the "conciliar" unit of the hospital plays dumb and denies any knowledge of or control over what happens in that "secular" unit.
To look to the government to "fix" an alleged health-care crisis that has been caused quite specifically by the after-effects of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the infection of the "bottom line" mentality in many formerly Catholic hospitals now in conciliar control is quite misplaced. Alas, the civil state must become the true secular "church," outside of which there can be no personal happiness or social order, once people lose sight of the simple truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
Large numbers of people are, therefore, living in perpetual states of apoplexy, do not realize that they need a King to guide them. And make no mistake about it: people are looking for a king. They want to bestow "royal" status on someone, which is why there is still, sadly, a regal "aura" about the Kennedys, a family whose fortune was made in bootlegging liquor during Prohibition, forty-eight years after the beginning of Camelot.
People can look for their "king" or "secular saviour" in this or that election. They will never find any "solution" to the problems caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins.
A nation whose people who are quite sanguine about the daily slaughter of the preborn by surgical and chemical means will never be able to rest secure that their health or even their very lives will be "safe" in the hands of a health-care network managed and financed by any government.
A people content to spend their lives, objectively speaking, in states of Mortal Sin, oblivious to the harm that they have caused their immortal souls or the imminent peril to which they may have exposed themselves of losing those souls for all eternity. will focus inordinately on the health of the body.
A people unused to making reparation for their own sins and those of the whole world in a joyful embrace of Our Lady's Fatima Message will want anything painful and that demands the least bit of sacrifice from them to be taken away, anesthetized or indemnified by some government agency or program.
A people used to viewing the world naturalistically will continue to recoil from First and Last Things until and unless they are exhorted to quit their sins and to convert to the true Faith, seeing in it the only measure of true health, their spiritual health now and for all eternity:
For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. (1 Cor. 2: 11-15.)
We need a King, we need THE King, Christ the King, to lead us out of the darkness of the forests of naturalism so that we will be able to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and will not be in histrionics every four or eight years as this or that "worst ever" boogeyman and his "hold your nose" opponent view for power in our Judeo-Masonic system of falsehoods that continues to degenerate right before our very eyes. There is no other solution. None. And all I have to do to illustrate this point is to note once again that the millions who were histrionics twelve years ago about the "worst ever" monster that year, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., had to contend eight years thereafter with two horrific terms of the "conservative" socialist and war monger, George Walker Bush, who almost single-handedly made the Marxist nonentity named Barack Hussein Obama electable. (See:
Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils.) It is no different in the year 2012 even as Willard Mitt Romney "etch-a-sketches" himself yet again in the final nineteen days of the campaign.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Annum Sacram, May 25, 1899, explained that Our King is indeed King of all men and nations even if they do not understand or accept his His Kinship over them:
This world-wide and solemn testimony of allegiance and piety is especially appropriate to Jesus Christ, who is the Head and Supreme Lord of the race. His empire extends not only over Catholic nations and those who, having been duly washed in the waters of holy baptism, belong of right to the Church, although erroneous opinions keep them astray, or dissent from her teaching cuts them off from her care; it comprises also all those who are deprived of the Christian faith, so that the whole human race is most truly under the power of Jesus Christ. For He who is the Only-begotten Son of God the Father, having the same substance with Him and being the brightness of His glory and the figure of His substance (Hebrews i., 3) necessarily has everything in common with the Father, and therefore sovereign power over all things. This is why the Son of God thus speaks of Himself through the Prophet: "But I am appointed king by him over Sion, his holy mountain. . . The Lord said to me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Psalm, ii.). By these words He declares that He has power from God over the whole Church, which is signified by Mount Sion, and also over the rest of the world to its uttermost ends. On what foundation this sovereign power rests is made sufficiently plain by the words, "Thou art My Son." For by the very fact that He is the Son of the King of all, He is also the heir of all His Father's power: hence the words - "I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance," which are similar to those used by Paul the Apostle, "whom he hath appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews i., 2).
But we should now give most special consideration to the declarations made by Jesus Christ, not through the Apostles or the Prophets but by His own words. To the Roman Governor who asked Him, "Art thou a king then?" He answered unhesitatingly, "Thou sayest that I am a king" John xviii. 37).And the greatness of this power and the boundlessness of His kingdom is still more clearly declared in these words to the Apostles: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew xxviii., 18). If then all power has been given to Christ it follows of necessity that His empire must be supreme, absolute and independent of the will of any other, so that none is either equal or like unto it: and since it has been given in heaven and on earth it ought to have heaven and earth obedient to it. And verily he has acted on this extraordinary and peculiar right when He commanded His Apostles to preach His doctrine over the earth, to gather all men together into the one body of the Church by the baptism of salvation, and to bind them by laws, which no one could reject without risking his eternal salvation.
But this is not all. Christ reigns not only by natural right as the Son of God, but also by a right that He has acquired. For He it was who snatched us "from the power of darkness" (Colossians i., 13), and "gave Himself for the redemption of all" (I Timothy ii., 6). Therefore not only Catholics, and those who have duly received Christian baptism, but also all men, individually and collectively, have become to Him "a purchased people" (I Peter ii., 9). St. Augustine's words are therefore to the point when he says: "You ask what price He paid? See what He gave and you will understand how much He paid. The price was the blood of Christ. What could cost so much but the whole world, and all its people? The great price He paid was paid for all" (T. 120 on St. John).
How it comes about that infidels themselves are subject to the power and dominion of Jesus Christ is clearly shown by St. Thomas, who gives us the reason and its explanation. For having put the question whether His judicial power extends to all men, and having stated that judicial authority flows naturally from royal authority, he concludes decisively as follows: "All things are subject to Christ as far as His power is concerned, although they are not all subject to Him in the exercise of that power" (3a., p., q. 59, a. 4). This sovereign power of Christ over men is exercised by truth, justice, and above all, by charity.
To this twofold ground of His power and domination He graciously allows us, if we think fit, to add voluntary consecration. Jesus Christ, our God and our Redeemer, is rich in the fullest and perfect possession of all things: we, on the other hand, are so poor and needy that we have nothing of our own to offer Him as a gift. But yet, in His infinite goodness and love, He in no way objects to our giving and consecrating to Him what is already His, as if it were really our own; nay, far from refusing such an offering, He positively desires it and asks for it: "My son, give me thy heart." We are, therefore, able to be pleasing to Him by the good will and the affection of our soul. For by consecrating ourselves to Him we not only declare our open and free acknowledgment and acceptance of His authority over us, but we also testify that if what we offer as a gift were really our own, we would still offer it with our whole heart. We also beg of Him that He would vouchsafe to receive it from us, though clearly His own. Such is the efficacy of the act of which We speak, such is the meaning underlying Our words.
And since there is in the Sacred Heart a symbol and a sensible image of the infinite love of Jesus Christ which moves us to love one another,therefore is it fit and proper that we should consecrate ourselves to His most Sacred Heart - an act which is nothing else than an offering and a binding of oneself to Jesus Christ, seeing that whatever honor, veneration and love is given to this divine Heart is really and truly given to Christ Himself. (Pope Leo XIII, Annam Sacrum, May 25, 1899.)
You show me the candidate who agrees with this, my friends, and I will pray plenty of Rosaries for his accession to the halls of civil power! This is no such person. To enable naturalists is to get, believe or not and golly-gee willickers, Mister Peabody, more naturalists! It's that simple. A "good naturalist" perpetrates, guess what, naturalism, sometimes doing so with greater ease than the "bad naturalist" as the latter will engender more open opposition the former, who is always enabled by a bevy of wishful thinkers and other people who permit themselves into believing that "all is well" because the "bad naturalist" has been vanquished. Such is a formula to live in a perpetual state of apoplexy.
Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, put the matter this way:
The faithful, moreover, by meditating upon these truths, will gain much strength and courage, enabling them to form their lives after the true Christian ideal. If to Christ our Lord is given all power in heaven and on earth; if all men, purchased by his precious blood, are by a new right subjected to his dominion; if this power embraces all men, it must be clear that not one of our faculties is exempt from his empire. He must reign in our minds, which should assent with perfect submission and firm belief to revealed truths and to the doctrines of Christ. He must reign in our wills, which should obey the laws and precepts of God. He must reign in our hearts, which should spurn natural desires and love God above all things, and cleave to him alone. He must reign in our bodies and in our members, which should serve as instruments for the interior sanctification of our souls, or to use the words of the Apostle Paul, as instruments of justice unto God. If all these truths are presented to the faithful for their consideration, they will prove a powerful incentive to perfection. It is Our fervent desire, Venerable Brethren, that those who are without the fold may seek after and accept the sweet yoke of Christ, and that we, who by the mercy of God are of the household of the faith, may bear that yoke, not as a burden but with joy, with love, with devotion; that having lived our lives in accordance with the laws of God's kingdom, we may receive full measure of good fruit, and counted by Christ good and faithful servants, we may be rendered partakers of eternal bliss and glory with him in his heavenly kingdom. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right."
The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over thirteen million of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith. Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that? Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith? Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?
Yes, of course, we beseech Our Lord's Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for mercy for ourselves and for our fellow citizens. Of course. God did, however, send the Black Death as a punishment for sins in the Fourteenth Century. We ought to reckon with the fact that while, yes, God is indeed merciful, He is also most just. Naturalism in and of itself is indeed a chastisement that leaves so many people in the darkness of a forest with seemingly no escape, a chastisement compounded with the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the very revolutionary principles of 1787 and 1789 about which Pope Leo XIII warned us as follows in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times. Will we let her? Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?
These words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae and quoted above, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:
Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
What can be a better description of the Judeo-Masonic electoral system in the United States of America? What can be a better description of the insanity of the naturalism of the "left" and the naturalism of the "right" now on fully display in the histrionics of the 2012 presidential campaign?
With full confidence in Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, may we rise above the histrionics, the silliness, the emotionalism and the apoplexy engendered by naturalism to pray and to work for the restoration of the Catholic City as the fruit of the triumph of that same Immaculate Heart. We may not see the results with our own earthly eyes. Please God and by the intercession of Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace, may it be our privilege to see the results from eternity, where those who have won the only election that matters, God's favor for all eternity, will praise and glorify Christ the King forever in Heaven.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Luke the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.
Blessed Claude de la Colombiere, S.J., pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints