8 Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
August 12, 2009

Das Vierte Reich

by Thomas A. Droleskey

I was hated by a lot of people for a lot of different reasons long before I came to accept the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church that those who defect from even one article of the Faith expel themselves from her maternal bosom and cannot hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks legitimately. One of the reasons that many Catholics and others held me in great disdain was that I was a "pro-life" absolutist, that is, that I refused to accept the "necessity" of legislation that conceded the nonexistent right of the civil law to permit the direct, deliberate taking of any innocent human life for any reason under any circumstances. "Pro-life" incrementalists view absolutists as unreasonable and unrealistic dreamers who let the "perfect" become the "enemy of the good" over and over again.

Dr. Charles E. Rice, a sedeplenist who is one of the foremost experts on the Natural Law alive, writing in the August 27, 1998, issue of The Wanderer, attempted to explain the philosophical and practical flaws of the incremental approach to politics and legislation at a time that I was opposing then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for re-nomination by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York:


Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)

When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.

Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)


There was a time three and one-half years ago now that a well-meaning state legislator, State Representative Roger Hunt, in the State of South Dakota introduced legislation that would have prohibited all abortions except in those cases where it was alleged that a mother's life was threatened by carrying her baby to the point of birth. Apart from the fact that there the "life of the mother exception" is an emotional red herring as medical technology has advanced to such a degree that there are very few circumstances in which it a pregnancy can be said to serve as a "threat" to a mother's life (a preborn child may be taken out of his mother's womb at the point of viability and kept alive in an incubator if a mother's life or health are genuinely at risk), it is never permissible to take any action that has as its sole and direct end the death of an innocent human being. I sent an e-mail to Representative Hunt about the language in his bill, and he wrote back to say that, yes, his legislation did indeed permit "direct" action against a child if a physician believed that such action was "necessary" to "save" the life of the mother. Please see Good Intentions Do Not Redeem Moral Flaws and No Exceptions to Catholicism, Not One, Ever. (There are some important links in these articles to a website that contains information on what would happen in the fifty states if the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, were reversed at some point, something that it is not going to happen any time soon, of course.)

Oh, the howls of protest went up from a lot of people after those two articles, written about two months before I began to write publicly about the plausibility of sedevacantism, were posted on this site. One prominent Catholic said that I had it wrong that "things" were "moving" in the "right direction," that we just had to "live" with the life of the mother exception. I retorted by stating that it is never permissible to admit that the civil law can permit the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life, explaining that one of the factors that contributed to surgical baby-killing on demand in the United States of America was the existence of "exceptions" to the inviolability of innocent preborn life in the laws of most of the fifty states in the 1960s.

That is, advocates of unrestricted baby-killing argued in the 1960s that it was "unfair" to "limit" "access" to baby-killing by means of these exceptions. Only the very wealthy or the very famous, it was argued by the pro-death advocates, could get their doctors to write a note to say that there was some medically or psychologically "necessary" reason to justify killing a baby under the old laws. Baby-killing had to be made "available" to all women in "difficult" circumstances.

Thus it is that was the existence of "exceptions" in state laws in the 1960s that led directly to surgical baby-killing on demand. "Turning the clock back" to the 1960s was not the way to "restore" legal protection to the preborn any more than "turning the clock back" to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 was going to "restore" "tradition," especially when the Faith itself is under such fierce attack by the conciliar revolutionaries in Rome and its satellite chancery offices. It's all or nothing in the Faith, and it's all or nothing when it comes to the defense of the absolute inviolability of innocent preborn life. No part of the truth can ever be sacrificed for the sake of an alleged "incremental" expediency that winds up worsening a situation precisely because any compromise of the truth is itself a lie, something that has great applicability to how many, although not all, in the Motu world deal with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's constant blasphemies against the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Holy Trinity.

Similarly, loads upon loads of people were howling at me from 1995 through 2007 when I pointed out time and time again that the legislation to partially ban partially-birth abortion, thrice vetoed by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and then signed into law by President George Walker Bush in 2003 before being sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, was immoral on its face in that it permitted a "life of the mother" exception and that it made it appear as though killing a baby in the later stages of pregnancy was a greater crime morally than doing so in the earlier stages, which is simply not so.

This is what I wrote at the time in An Illusion of a Victory:

1. The direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being is equally morally heinous no matter the age at which the human being is killed. That is, the killing of six week old child in his mother's womb is the same crime morally as the direct, intentional killing of a ninety year old man.

2. The particular method by which a human being is killed does not make the act of killing any more immoral than the use of another method, admitting that it is permissible in the administration of civil justice for legislators and jurists to take into consideration such methods when legislating and meting out punishments for those adjudged guilty after due process of law of having committed acts that of their nature are in opposition to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

3. Thus it is that the use of the baby-killing method invented by a Dr. Martin Haskell, known "medically" as "intact dilation and extraction," to provide a means of killing a baby that was less "invasive" and thus allegedly less is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means a suction vacuum machine that is twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum cleaner.

4. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of various injections, including that of potassium chloride, into the baby so as to kill it in the womb before it is passed out stillborn or taken out by means of a Caesarian section.

5. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous the the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of what is known as the "hysterotomy," a procedure by which a preborn baby is killed by the use of a procedure similar to a Caesarian section, except that the child's neck is twisted in the womb before it is removed. (The hysterotomy was made famous in the case of Dr. Kenneth Edelin.)

6. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the "dilation and evacuation" method of killing a baby by means of carving up a baby in the uterus and then extracting his remains with forceps.

7. Those, including some conciliar bishops, have said that partial birth abortion is infanticide have missed the point entirely: each and every abortion kills a living baby deader than dead. Each abortion, whether chemically induced or surgically performed, is infanticide. (See Every Abortion Kills a Baby Dead).

8.The Partial Birth Abortion bill that is now the law of the land contains an immoral "life of the mother" exception, meaning that this procedure of killing a baby will still be used. And it will be used not only in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is "endangered." Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?

9. Baby-killers will simply resort to the dilation and evacuation means of killing children if they cannot justify the use of partial birth abortion, meaning, as I have been contended since 1995, that zero babies will be saved by the law and by yesterday's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. Indeed, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy went to great lengths to remind those who challenged the law that the other procedures, which he described in great detail, would remain perfectly legal. Justice Kennedy also explained that baby-killers who "accidentally" turned a dilation and evacuation killing of a child into an intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) killing of a child would face no legal liability:

This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E. If a doctor's intent at the outset is to perform a D&E in which the fetus would not be delivered to either of the Act's anatomical landmarks, but the fetus nonetheless is delivered past one of those points, the requisite and prohibited scienter is not present. 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). When a doctor in that situation completes an abortion by performing an intact D&E, the doctor does not violate the Act. It is true that intent to cause a result may sometimes be inferred if a person "knows that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct." 1 LaFave §5.2(a), at 341. Yet abortion doctors intending at the outset to perform a standard D&E procedure will not know that a prohibited abortion "is practically certain to follow from" their conduct. Ibid. A fetus is only delivered largely intact in a small fraction of the overall number of D&E abortions. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. (Gonzales v. Carhart)


10. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, baby-killers will still be able to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy by the use of the saline solution abortion and the hysterotomy and the dilation and evacuation (and even an actual hysterectomy performed for reasons of killing a preborn child and to honor a woman's elective wishes to render herself sterile from that point forward). The belief that a "victory" was won yesterday is an illusion of the worst sort.


The whole of the "incrementalist" approach to "restoring" legal protection to the innocent preborn is based upon the lie that it is "necessary" to concede in civil law that there are some circumstances in which a baby can be directly targeted for execution. This lie is itself premised upon the false belief that baby-killers will be scrupulous in observing the "exceptions" that the incrementalists get enacted into law. As I noted two years ago:

Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?


Although they would be horrified and outraged to see the dots connected here, "pro-life" incrementalists are of one mind and one heart with President Barack Hussein Obama and his brownshirted apologists in accepting the "word" of those who kill for a living. "Pro-life" incrementalists believe that "exceptions" provisions in legislation designed to "restrict" baby-killing" are enforceable, which they are not. Similarly, apologists for ObamaCare are telling us to "trust" that "end of life" counseling sessions between doctors and their patients on Medicare will not involve euthanasia as part of Caesar Obamus's nationalization of a health-care industry that has been corrupted by insurance companies and hospital administrators and multinational pharmaceutical companies whose officials view human beings in a strictly utilitarian manner.

As noted a few weeks ago in Back Alley Butchers Never Change Their Tactics, the administration of Caesar Obamus, which is becoming "Das Vierte Reich" (The Fourth Reich) in quick order as organized efforts to intimidate opponents to ObamaCare are being encouraged by allies of the reigning "democratically" elected despot (see http://admin.blacklistednews.com/newspublish/home.print.php?news_id=5124), is simply shifting the responsibility for making utilitarian decisions from those who make them at present (those associated with hospitals, hospices, insurance companies, etc., in the private sector) to the government. Life and death decisions made in full violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment are made every day in this country by "health professionals" as patients are starved and dehydrated to death or given increasingly higher doses of morphine in hospices or simply denied payment for treatments on a purely arbitrary basis, to say nothing of the daily slaughter of the preborn by means of surgical and chemical abortions. It's only natural for the government to want to get into this business of death-dealing more than it has in the past.

Although even Republican apologists for ObamaCare such as United States Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), a naturalist of the "conservative" variety, keep insisting that the "end of life" counseling sessions that will take place when patients become eligible for Medicare will not result in "death panels," history teaches us that this is delusional. It is only a matter of time before the brownshirted thugs attempting to intimidate opponents of ObamaCare into silence will have white coats and impressive initials after their last names as they make Jack Kevorkian seem like a rank amateur in putting the innocent to death. The history of the Third Reich and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics teaches us that the end result of a world founded on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles is the supremacy of the state over the legitimate liberty and life of individual human beings.

As the Third Reich, like all other modern civil states, rejected the right of the Catholic Church as having ordained by God Himself to be the ultimate authority on all that pertains to the good of souls, those who wielded power in that regime enacted "racial purity" and "eugenics" laws with complete legal impunity. Who could stop them? They had the legal "authority" under the Constitution of the Weimar Republic to enact "emergency laws." Constitutions that admit of no higher authority than the words of their own text are like silly putty in the hands of a child: instruments that can be manipulated for whatever ends those who hold the reins of power desire. Nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are governed according to the dictates of those who exercise civil power, men who care not for His Sacred Rights or who fear not the moment of their own Particular Judgments.

As Bishop Clemens von Galens noted in one of his sermons against the Nazi eugenics laws on Sunday, August 3, 1941:

“For some months we have been heating reports that inmates of establishments for the care of the mentally ill who have been ill for a long period and perhaps appear incurable have been forcibly removed from these establishments on orders from Berlin. Regularly the relatives receive soon afterwards an intimation that the patient is dead, that the patient's body has been cremated and that they can collect the ashes. There is a general suspicion, verging on certainty. that these numerous unexpected deaths of the mentally ill do not occur naturally but are intentionally brought about in accordance with the doctrine that it is legitimate to destroy a so-called “worthless life”” in other words to kill innocent men and women, if it is thought that their lives are of no further value to the people and the state. A terrible doctrine which seeks to justify the murder of innocent people, which legitimises the violent killing of disabled persons who are no longer capable of work, of cripples, the incurably ill and the aged and infirm!”

I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Munster, in the course of this week.

German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death”. No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the patient had in fact been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Conti, no secret is made of the fact that indeed a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue.

Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the life of any person . . . and fails to inform the authorities or the person whose life is threatened in due time . . . commits a punishable offence”. When I learned of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of Munster Provincial Court and to the Munster chief of police by registered letter, in the following terms:

“According to information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital at Marienthal, classified as ‘unproductive members of the national community’, to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken".

I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police.

I had already written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. The first transport of the innocent victims under sentence of death has left Marienthal. And I am now told that 800 patients have already been removed from the hospital at Warstein.

We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate self­defence to meet violence with violence. In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.

No: these unfortunate patients are to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”.

The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow?

I will not pursue the comparison to the end so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.

But we are not here concerned with pieces of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this function.

No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?

If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!

Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.

Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man's conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!

Sort of sounds like the United States of America today, does it not? And that is precisely the point, my friends. Nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are sometimes formed by the shedding of innocent blood. As all nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are founded on false, naturalistic principles, however, each will wind up shedding innocent blood, sooner or later, as there is no external constraint upon those who exercise power as existed during the era of Christendom in the Catholic Middle Ages. Nearly fifty million babies have been butchered in the United States of America under cover of law by surgical abortion alone, countless millions more as a result of abortifacient contraceptives. "Civil liberty" absent a due subordination of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King must result in an abyss of lawless and corruption, as Pope Gregory XVI noted in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

It is no wonder that the methods of the lawless, godless country where the first concentration camps were started in 1918, Russia under Leninist rule, were adopted by the National Socialists of the Third Reich for their own purposes despite the ideological differences between their brand of socialism and the Bolshevism of Vladimir I. Lenin. Men who reject Christ the King will wind up turning into monsters of one degree or another despite the "nuances" of their naturalistic ideas. Hitlerism was made possible by attacks on the Social Reign of Christ the King made by the Protestant Revolt and Judeo-Masonry. Bolshevism in Russia was in fact funded by Talmudic agents to introduce godlessness into Russia, whose conversion is so near and dear to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The United States of America is simply realizing the result of the false premises of its own founding as the errors of Russia take hold more and more with each passing day. What is happening at present is simply a continuation of the fascism and statism of the previous two presidential administrations (Clinton's and George Walker Bush's). Americans, especially Catholic Americans, have been asleep at the switch as they have placed their trust in career politicians who have been penultimate statists who have equated criticism of their policies with unpatriotic activities. This is a Chastisement, good readers, and there is only one way out of this Chastisement: Our Lady's Fatima Message.

Yes, we are being visited with a Chastisement, my friends, and there is no stopping this chastisement short of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the world's true bishops as Russia is at last consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. We must suffer this Chastisement well in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as we consider it a singular privilege to be alive at a time when our very liberty and our lives might be demanded of us. To quote the words used so frequently by Saint Francis of Assisi, "Deo gratias! Thanks be to God we are alive in this time. Thanks be to God! Deo gratias!

Today is the Feast of Saint Clare of Assisi, who was the first spiritual daughter of Saint Francis of Assisi. Like her master, Saint Clare of Assisi loved Lady Poverty. She eschewed the riches and glories of this world to live in the poverty of the Holy Family in order to seek the conversion of wayward souls back to the practice of the true Faith and to seek the conversion of the lukewarm to the heights of spiritual fervor. Saint Clare spent countless hours before her Beloved, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, and is was while she held a monstrance containing the Most Blessed Sacrament that she was able to turn back the Saracens as they threatened the Convent of San Damiano in 1239, as recorded in the Breviary readings for today:

When the Saracens attacked Assisi, and were fain to break into Clare's monastery, she being sick, caused herself to be carried to the door, and likewise the vessel in which was held the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and there she prayed, saying : O Lord, deliver not unto beasts the souls of them that praise thee, but preserve thine handmaids whom thou hast redeemed with the Precious Blood.  Whereupon a voice was heard which said : I will always preserve you.  Some of the Saracens took to flight, and others who had mounted the wall became blind and fell down headlong.  (First Nocturn)


Imitating Saint Clare and her love of Holy Poverty, we must be detached from the things, people, and places of this world as we seek to do reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, spending much time in fervent prayer before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. Saint Clare, who was canonized just two years after her death in 1253 at the age of fifty-nine, knows full well in Heaven the power of the Rosary and the importance of True Devotion to Mary. We must ask Saint Clare to be poor enough in spirit that we can be rich unto all eternity by accepting all of the penances sent to us in this passing, mortal vale of tears as opportunities to console the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Das Vierte Reich will pass. The Chastisement will be vanquished. These things will happen only when Heaven's Fatima Peace Plan is fulfilled.

We must remember that there can be no true reform of any society unless it is yoked to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as It is lifted high by His true Church, something that is rejected by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have made their "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity. We must remember these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.


Care to disagree with Pope Saint Pius X? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does. Do you?

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now as we ask Saint Clare of Assisi to help us to be more tenderly and faithfully devoted to the practice of Eucharistic piety as we pray in reparation for the sins of the current crop of statists and fascists--and as we pray most fervently for their conversion to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there is no true social order?

Viva Cristo Rey!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, 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 Clare of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.