Ever Anxious To Give Us His Malaise
Thomas A. Droleskey
Although my criticism of the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding is well known (and the cause of much ostracism and ridicule and rejection), I do recognize that there is a certain sense in which God's Holy Providence has sustained the existence of the United States of America, especially when one considers the dunderheads who have served as President of the United States of America and in the Congress of the United States of America and on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. God has indeed shown his patience and benevolence to this country despite the naturalistic morons and nincompoops who have served in public office in this country, men and women who have known nothing of First and Last Things and who thus made it all up as they went along.
Examples of the naturalistic bombast that has poured forth from the mouths of empty-minded office-holders and office-seekers in this country in
Movements to a Dead End, Now and for All Eternity. One of the most famous pieces of ignorant bombast that is reported--and there is some dispute among historians about the matter--to have come out of the mouth of an American president belongs to President William McKinley, who claimed the need to "Christianize" the Filipino people in the wake of the American victory in the unjust and immoral Spanish-American War in order to justify American occupation of the country at a time when European imperialism and colonization controlled most of what is now called the Third World. McKinley was oblivious to the fact that the Filipinos had been Christianized by Spanish missionaries three hundred years before:
William McKinley made his decision to seize the Philippines on his knees as well. Hour after hour, night after night, McKinley walked the floor of the White House, agonizing about America's role in the world and the prospect of making it a colonial power. Later, to a group of ministers, he confided: "I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night." In the end, McKinley decided to take the Philippines and its people, to "uplift and civilize and Christianize them," and then, the problem resolved, he said, he went to bed "and went to sleep and slept soundly." (Presidents and prayer - The Boston Globe.)
We have had Theodore Roosevelt pontificate about his progressivism and Thomas Woodrow Wilson propagate his slogans about the necessity of "making the world safe for democracy" as the justification to involve the United States of America in the unjust and immoral conflict known now as World war I. We have had Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an intellectual lightweight of the first order who was demagogue of heavyweight proportions, give us his New Deal and provoke and Lyndon Johnson give us his War on Poverty and his Great Society, as well as an escalation of American involvement in Vietnam without a policy to win the war, one of the predicates of the Just War Theory, of course. We have had John Fitzgerald, Kennedy, who was amoral in his conduct of foreign policy, overseeing the assassination of Archbishop
Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thuc's brothers on November 1, 1963, lecture us on the "separation of Church and State" and Richard Nixon tell us that actions undertaken by a president are right because the "sovereign" can do as he pleases (presidents are not the "sovereigns" of the United States of America, by the way). And, of course, we have had the former peanut farmer and nuclear physicist named James Earl Carter, Jr., lecture us about our "malaise" in his famous speech of July 15, 1979, a speech that had a few good insights about materialism but was, of course, steeped in old-fashioned American naturalism and religious indifferentism:
First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.
One of the visitors to Camp David last week put it this way: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America.”
We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now. Our fathers and mothers were strong men and women who shaped a new society during the Great Depression, who fought world wars and who carved out a new charter of peace for the world.
We ourselves are the same Americans who just ten years ago put a man on the moon. We are the generation that dedicated our society to the pursuit of human rights and equality. And we are the generation that will win the war on the energy problem and in that process, rebuild the unity and confidence of America.
We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path -- the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem. (American Rhetoric: Jimmy Carter -- "A Crisis of Confidence")
James Earl Carter, Jr., is up to his old, worn tricks, claiming that all opposition to President Barack Hussein Obama is racially motivated, a claim made recently by columnist Maureen Dowd in The New York Times that prompted me to write Why We Must Oppose Naturalism and Naturalists.
Former President Jimmy Carter drew widespread criticism Wednesday for saying in an interview that Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst last week was "based on racism" and that an "overwhelming portion" of similar demonstrations against President Obama are rooted in bigotry.
Obama's supporters have attributed racist motives to some opponents of his health care plan for weeks, but Carter is the highest-profile person so far to push that claim.
While some anti-Obama demonstrators have been seen carrying over-the-top or racially offensive signs, administration critics say Carter is flat wrong to claim that those fringe protesters make up the bulk of Obama's detractors.
"I don't see race as an issue. It's all about the policies that are coming out of the current administration," said Deneen Borelli, a black conservative who spoke at the protest rally held in Washington Saturday. Much of the condemnation of Obama's critics has come as a response to that protest, where tens of thousands demonstrated against big government and over-spending.
"I just see this as the race card being used once again to distract the American people from the core issues," Borelli said.
Adam Brandon, spokesman for protest organizer FreedomWorks, said Carter's comments were "absurd." He noted that the protest featured about a dozen black speakers.
"To say this crowd was racist is absolutely absurd when black speakers were probably the most popular speakers," he said.
"I think it's very destructive for America to suggest that we can't criticize a president without it being a racial act," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told FOX News.
The suggestion that race is behind criticism of Obama has been made by New York Gov. David Paterson and Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Diane Watson of California and Hank Johnson of Georgia, among others.
But a poll released Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports showed that just 12 percent of voters believe that most opponents of Obama's health care reform plan are racist. The survey of 1,000 likely voters, taken Monday and Tuesday, found that 67 percent disagree with that contention, while 21 percent are not sure. The survey had a margin of error of 3 percent.
Carter, though, said in an interview with NBC that race is the driving factor.
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time ... and I think it's bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."
At a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta Tuesday, Carter also said Wilson's outburst -- the South Carolina Republican shouted "You lie!" at Obama during his health care address to Congress -- was racially motivated.
"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
Wilson's eldest son stepped up to his father's defense.
"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," said Alan Wilson, an Iraq War veteran who is running for state attorney general in South Carolina. "He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won't comment on former President Carter, because I don't know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it's just not in him. ... It's unfortunate people make that jump."
South Carolina's former Democratic Party chairman said that he doesn't believe Wilson was motivated by racism, but said the outburst encouraged racist views.
"I think Joe's conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the color of the president," said Dick Harpootlian, who has known Wilson for decades. "I don't think Joe's outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth."
Daniel Hannan, a conservative British politician and member of the European Parliament whose public criticism of the British health care system has drawn international attention, said Wednesday that there's unavoidably some "element of racism" in the most aggressive criticism of Obama. But that's not the majority.
"The overwhelming majority of critics of the president are not motivated by any personal dislike but have reached the view that he's making a mistake and he's indebting the country, that he's enlarging the federal government at the expense of both of the state and of the citizens," Hannan told FOX News. "I hope (Carter) thinks again about that phrase ... It really isn't a race thing."
Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she, too, didn't think Wilson's outburst was race-related.
"I think there's a lot of opposition, visceral opposition to his policies, but the reality is that this president won, he won with an overwhelming majority of support across the board from the American people and not not just from African-Americans, and it is time for us to move on and get down to the business of making the kind of change that the president outlined when he won the election last year," she said.
But several Obama supporters say they worry that racism is not only at the core, but could lead to worse incidents than a shout on the House floor.
People will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, like those subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked, Johnson said. (Carter 'Racism' Claim Draws Widespread Criticism)
Jimmy Carter is as ignorant as an ex-president as he was when he was president of this country from January 20, 1977, to January 20, 1981, serving as an apologist for one leftist dictator after another as his Ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, called Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini a "saint" in the aftermath of the voluntary exile Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on January 16, 1979, and as he, Carter, served as a cheerleader for the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua as moderate opponents to Nicaraguan strongman Anastasio Somoza were ignored in favor of the Cuban-back Communists headed by Daniel Ortega, Ah, Jimmy Carter, the moral voice of America, the man who told us at the University of Notre Dame in 1977 that we had had an "inordinate fear of Communism," the man who told Barbara Walters in an end-of the-year television interview in 1979 that he had learned "more about the Soviet Union in the last three weeks [following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan] than he had in the previous three years," the man who was paralyzed by the Iranian hostage crisis and runaway inflation, ah, yes, Jimmy Carter has concluded that anyone who opposes Barack Hussein Obama is a racist. Jimmy Carter remains as much an ignoramus twenty-eight years, nine months after that glorious day of the end of his term as president of the United States of America as he was during his four nightmarish years in office.
Before making short work of Carter's ignorant statement about those of us who oppose Barack Hussein Obama's statist and pro-abortion policies, perhaps it would be good to ask the former president this pertinent question: Were those of us who opposed him during his quest for the presidency and during his term of office in the White House motivated by anti-Southern sentiments? Was he the infallible repository of political wisdom?
Well, in point of truth, my friends, James Earl Carter, Jr., has always had a difficult time accepting criticism. An American Spectator article in the Fall of 1980 recalled the fact that Carter was livid when he finished third in the Democratic Party primary for Governor of Georgia on September 14, 1966, accusing his opponents of being anti-American. Carter hated criticism and was very thin-skinned, which is why a disreputable magazine took out an advertisement in The New York Times in 1976 during Carter's campaign against then President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., featuring a cartoon drawing of Jimmy Carter looking at himself in the mirror as he shaved, seeing Richard Nixon's reflection in the mirror. The caption read: "If you liked Nixon, you're going to love Carter."
Jimmy Carter, the voice of moral righteousness who almost single-handedly decimated American national security in his term of office, wrapped himself in the American flag during his primary battle with United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy in 1980, accusing the recently deceased Catholic pro-abortion senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of being weak on national security and of being a big-spending liberal. Carter, ever the demagogue, unfurled the flag in the general election against former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan, accusing Reagan of being war-monger who would bring us to the point of nuclear conflagration as he, Reagan, starved the poor and the elderly. Carter seethed with bitterness for a long time against Reagan after his, Carter's, lopsided defeated to Reagan on November 4, 1980.
Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency was the result of the aftermath of Richard Nixon's abuse of presidential power and the weakness of the 33rd degree Mason who succeeded him, Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. That Ford, who prematurely "liberated" Eastern Europe from Soviet domination in his second televised debate with Carter in October of 1976, came from thirty-three points behind Carter to finish four points behind in the national popular vote was a testament to the fact that many people were terrified of Carter's simple-mindedness and absolute inexperience in national governance. Indeed, Johnny Carson summed up Carter's naked ambition to be president when playing his Carnack the Magnificent seer during the Fall of 1976. Holding an envelope to his head in order to "divine" the answer to the question posed therein, Carson said, "Yes and no, pro and con, for and against." He opened up the envelope, saying, "Describe Jimmy Carter's position on three major issues." Carter was a waffler on issues long before the late former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas called then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton "the pander bear" in 1992.
Many Democrats understood how dangerous Carter was, a veritable southern-fried George McGovern who stood a chance to win in the general election in 1976 solely because of Nixon and Ford. That is why a number of old-line Democrats urged Minnesota Senator and former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey to challenge Carter in the Pennsylvania primary. Unbeknownst, though, but to a handful of people was the fact that Humphrey was dying of pancreatic cancer. It is generally considered to be the case that Humphrey used the possibility of his candidacy as a wedge to get Carter to commit to taking on his protégé, Minnesota Senator Walter Frederick "Fritz" Mondale, as his Vice Presidential running-mate (which means that Carter's showcasing of seven possible running-mates was so much window dressing).
Carter appeased Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev prior to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. And, as noted above, the former peanut farmer's approach to the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran was nothing less than insane:
The contrast between the reality and the phantasm could hardly have been greater. At the time of the embassy seizure, the Iran section at the CIA consisted of exactly four people — who, moreover, were fumbling around in the dark since none of them spoke Farsi. In previous years, too, the CIA had failed actively to gather intelligence. Thus it announced in August 1978 — just six months before the revolution! — that Iran “is not in a revolutionary or even prerevolutionary situation.” The intelligence reports from France and Israel, which correctly predicted the imminent overthrow of the shah, were stubbornly dismissed as “alarmist."
The tendency toward wishful thinking continued even after the revolution in February 1979. Whereas Tehran increasingly viewed the U.S. through the darkly hued optic of its paranoid phantasms and loudly demonized America as its Enemy No. 1, Washington plugged its ears and looked back through rose-colored glasses. The American Representative to the UN, Andrew Young, described Khomeini as “some kind of saint,” while National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was favorably disposed toward him, since he seemed to Brzezinski to represented an effective barrier against Soviet influence. “We can get along with Khomeini!” was the motto in that summer of 1979. Businesspeople were encouraged to invest in Iran. Members of Congress were subtly discouraged from making critical comments. Critical journalists who refused to follow the line were denigrated. The following episode, as described by Michael Ledeen and William Lewis, is illustrative of the atmosphere:
There was considerable consternation and disgruntlement in the State Department and the cia when three American newspapers published extensive accounts of Khomeini’s writings. The articles showed that Khomeini’s books revealed him as a violently anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Zionist, and anti-Semitic individual, who offered an unattractive alternative to the shah. Yet as late as the first week in February 1979, when Khomeini was returning in triumph to Tehran, Henry Precht [the head of the State Department’s Iran desk] told an audience of some two hundred persons at the State Department “open forum” meeting that the newspaper accounts were severely misleading, and he went so far as to accuse Washington Post editorial columnist Stephen Rosenfeld of wittingly disseminating excerpts from a book that Precht considered at best a collection of notes taken by students, and at worst a forgery. Precht was hardly an isolated case, for the conviction was widespread that Khomeini’s books were either false, exaggerated, or misunderstood.
Thus, the State Department and the CIA defended their false picture of Khomeini against all intrusion of reality. Remarkably, somewhat later the CIA asked Rosenfeld if he could lend the agency the edition of the book he had cited, since it did not have its own copy. So much for the most omniscient and cunning intelligence agency of the most omniscient and cunning government in the world.
The hostage-taking burst upon such idyllic reveries like a storm. Bowden invokes the shock that this first encounter with real Islamism represented. He describes how “the entire professional frame of reference” of embassy chargé d’affaires Bruce E. Laingen had to be overturned. Before the hostage-taking, Laingen possessed, in Bowden’s expression, “a constitutional bias toward hope.” He strongly believed that “things were getting better [in Iran]” and put all his trust in “the power of polite dialogue between nations.” Laingen was, in Bowden’s words, “bewildered” by the events of November 4. “Why? To what end?” he wrote in his journal four days after the seizure of the embassy, “We have tried by every available means over the past month to demonstrate, by word and deed, that we accept the Iranian revolution, indeed, that we wish it well — that a society strongly motivated by religion is a society we, as a religious nation, can identify with.”
President Carter responded to the challenge by dispatching Ramsey Clark and William Miller, two long-time opponents of America’s alliance with the shah, to Tehran. They brought with them a letter signed by Carter that they were supposed to deliver to Khomeini. It contained the assurance that the shah would remain in the U.S. only for the duration of his illness, as well as an offer to procure access to the shah’s doctors for Iranian representatives. Second, Carter explicitly recognized the independence and territorial integrity of Iran and expressed his willingness to resume arms exports. Third, he politely asked Khomeini to have the hostages released (“I ask that you release unharmed all Americans presently detained in Iran”) and pleaded for dialogue: “I have asked both men to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in Iran and the problems which have arisen between our two countries. The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based upon equality, mutual respect and friendship.”
Thus was the first approach by the American president to the leader of the Iranian Revolution. No one could regard the tone of this letter as provocative — above all, on the background of an act of violence that in other circumstances would have been treated as a declaration of war. What Bowden writes of Precht, the head of the Iran desk at the State Department, applies also to Carter: he “was less concerned with expressing American indignation than with persuasion. He wanted to convince the imam [Khomeini], not confront him.” In light of the content of the Carter letter, it is astonishing that it is precisely the U.S. that is continually blamed for the deterioration of relations between the countries. (Hoover Institution - Policy Review - From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad)
Carter's desire for "dialogue" with the Mohammedan thugs in Iran is eerily similar to the desire on the part of conciliarists such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to engage the Mohammedans in "dialogue" to find "common ground" on various issues in order for the Mohammedans to accept "religious liberty" as a 'fundamental human right." Appeasement is always wrong. It is wrong in the realm of politics and statecraft. It is wrong in the realm of First and Last Things.
Here is news for you, Jimmy Carter: most of us who are opposed to Barack Hussein Obama care not whit about the color of his skin. Those of us who criticize naturalists who belong to either major organized crime family in this country (the Republicans and the Democrats) do not care about the color of their skin.
We did not care about the color of your thin skin, Mr. Former President, when you had the misfortune of selling out legitimate American national security interests in the name of appeasing one Communist dictator after another, a policy that is being aped at this time by Obama himself.
We did not care about the skin color of Ronald Wilson Reagan when we criticized him for nominating the pro-abortion Sandra Day O'Connor to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1981.
We did not care about the skin color of George Herbert Walker Bush when he nominated the pro-abortion David Souter to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1990.
We did not care about the skin color of the pro-abortion William Jefferson Blythe Clinton when he advanced pro-abortion and statist policies throughout the eight years of his morally deformed presidency.
We did not care about the skin color of George Walker Bush when we criticized his promotion of contraception and his failure to reverse the marketing of the human pesticide RU-486 or when we criticized the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, and then criticized the American occupation of that country, criticizing him also for his absurd claim that "Islam is a religion of peace."
We oppose Barack Hussein Obama today because he promotes policies that are opposed to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, to say nothing of how his policies are undermining the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America.
No one who promotes things that are opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity can promote the common temporal good, which must be undertaken in light of man's Last End. It would not matter to us, Mr. Carter, if Barack Hussein Obama, who happens to be half Caucasian, by the way (!), had turquoise skin color. What matters is that his policies are inimical to God's laws and thus detrimental to all social order as they promote things repugnant to the sanctification and salvation of the souls who have been purchased by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity Who had been conceived by the power of God the Holy Ghost in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb.
Catholicism alone is the sole foundation of personal and social order, Jimmy Carter, and you are nothing other than a poster boy for the harm done to men and their nations by the revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church that was instituted by one of the chief villains of the Second Millennium, Martin Luther (who will be, yes, yet again, the subject of tomorrow's commentary on this site).
Pope Saint Pius X made this abundantly clear in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
Pope Saint Pius X put it succinctly in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
. . 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Father Denis Fahey explained the effects of the Protestant Revolt in his The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:
The rending of the Mystical Body by the so-called Reformation movement has resulted in the pendulum swinging from the extreme error of Judaeo-Protestant Capitalism to the opposite extreme error of the Judaeo-Masonic-Communism of Karl Marx.
The uprise of individualism rapidly led to unbridled self-seeking. Law-makers who were arbiters of morality, as heads of the Churches, did not hesitate to favour their own enterprising spirit. The nobles and rich merchants in England, for example, who got possession of the monastery lands, which had maintained the poor, voted the poor laws in order to make the poor a charge on the nation at large. The enclosure of common lands in England and the development of the industrial system are a proof of what private judgment can do when transplanted into the realm of production and distribution. The Lutheran separation of Church from the Ruler and the Citizen shows the decay in the true idea of membership of our Lord's Mystical Body.
"Assuredly," said Luther, "a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion."
The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King by the Protestant Revolt removed the external constraint that the civil potentates of the Middle Ages recognized existed as having been instituted by Christ the King Himself. The Social Reign of Christ the King empowered the Catholic Church, acting judiciously and only as a last resort after the exhausting of her Indirect Powers of teaching and preaching and exhortation, to interpose herself with civil authorities in those grave circumstances when the good of souls demanded her motherly intervention. This is what restrained, although never perfectly and sometimes with great difficulties and conflicts, civil rulers from taking measures injurious to souls and kept those civil rulers from becoming absolute despots.
Father Fahey discussed the purpose of the Social Reign of Christ the King and how its overthrow led to the rise of monarchical absolutism and thus to the reign of the "sovereignty" of man in the modern civil state:
In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual Kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of States came to be sought in a manner calculated to favour the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social life came more and more fully under the influence of the supreme end of man, the vision of God in Three Divine Persons.
Accordingly, Catholic Social Order, viewed as a whole, is not primarily the political and social organization of society. It is primarily the supernatural social organism of the Church, and then, secondarily, the temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of that influence in social institutions. If instead of Catholic Social Order we use the wider but more convenient expression of Kingdom of God, we may say that the Kingdom of God on earth is in its essence the Church, but, in its integrity, comprises the Church and the temporal social order which the influence of the Church upon the world is every striving to bring into existence. Needless to say, while the general principles of social order remain always the same, social structures will present great differences at different epochs. No particular temporal social order will ever realize all that the Church is capable of giving to the world. The theology of history must include, then, primarily, the study of the foundation and development of the Church, and secondarily, the examination of the ebb and flow of the world’s acceptance of the Church’s supernatural mission. . . .
The organization of the Europe of the thirteenth century furnishes us with one concrete realization of the Divine Plan. It is hardly necessary to add that there were then to be seen defects in the working of the Divine Plan, due to the character of fallen man, as well as an imperfect mastery of physical nature. Yet, withal, the formal principle of ordered social organisation in the world, the supremacy of the Mystical Body, was grasped and, in the main, accepted. The Lutheran revolt, prepared by the cult of pagan antiquity at the Renaissance, and by the favour enjoyed by the Nominalist philosophical theories, led to the rupture of that order." (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 10.). . . .
The tide of revolt which broke away from the Catholic Church had the immediate effect of increasing the power of princes and rulers in Protestant countries. The Anabaptists and the peasants in Germany protested in the name of ‘evangelical liberty,’ but they were crushed. We behold the uprise of national churches, each of which organizes its own particular form of religion, mixture of supernatural and natural elements, as a department of State. The orthodox Church in Russia was also a department of State and as such exposed to the same evils. National life was thus withdrawn from ordered subjection to the Divine Plan and the distinction laid down by our Divine Lord Himself, between the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s, utterly abolished. Given the principle of private judgment or of individual relation with Christ, it was inevitable that the right of every individual to arrange his own form of religion should cause the pendulum to swing from a Caesarinism supreme in Church and State to other concrete expressions of ‘evangelical liberty.’ One current leads to the direction of indefinite multiplication of sects. Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, this would, this would give rise to as many churches as there are individuals, that is, there would not be any church at all. As this is too opposed to man’s social nature, small groups tend to coalesce. The second current tends to the creation of what may be termed broad or multitudinist churches. The exigencies of the national churches are attenuated until they are no longer a burden to anybody. The Church of England is an example of this. As decay in the belief of the Divinity of Jesus continues to increase, the tendency will be to model church organization according to the political theories in favour at the moment. The democratic form of society will be extolled and a ‘Reunion of Christendom,’ for example, will be aimed at, along the lines of the League of Nations. An increasing number of poor bewildered units will, of course, cease to bother about any ecclesiastical organization at all. . . . .
The first [political] result was an enormous increase in the power of the Temporal Rulers, in fact a rebirth of the pagan regime of Imperial Rome. The Spiritual Kingship of Christ, participated in by the Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic Church being no longer acknowledged, authority over spiritual affairs passed to Temporal Rulers. They were thus, in Protestant countries, supposed to share not only in His Temporal Kingship of Christ the King, but also in His spiritual Kingship. As there was no Infallible Guardian of order above the Temporal Rulers, the way was paved for the abuses of State Absolutism. The Protestant oligarchy who ruled England with undisputed sway, from Charles the Second’s time on, and who treated Ireland to the Penal Laws, may be cited, along with that cynical scoundrel, Frederick of Prussia, as typical examples of such rulers. Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV of France and Joseph II of Austria, by their absolutist tendencies and pretensions to govern the Catholic Church show the influence of the neighboring Protestant countries. Gallicanism and Josephism are merely a revival of Roman paganism.. . .
The rejection by Luther of the visible Catholic Church opened the door, not only to the abuses of absolute rulers, supreme in Church and State, but soon led to an indifference to all ecclesiastical organizations. As faith in the supernatural life of grace and the supernatural order grew dim and waned, the way was made smooth for the acceptance of Freemasonry. The widespread loss of faith in the existence of the supernatural life and the growing ignorance of the meaning of the Redemption permitted the apostles of Illuminism and Masonry to propagate the idea that the true religion of Jesus Christ had never been understood or been corrupted by His disciples, especially by the Church of Rome, the fact being that only a few sages in secret societies down the centuries had kept alive the true teaching of Jesus Christ. According to this ‘authentic’ teaching our Saviour had established a new religion, but had simply restored the religion of the state of nature, the religion of the goodness of human nature when left to itself, freed from the bonds and shackles of society. Jesus Christ died a martyr for liberty, put to death by the rulers and priests. Masons and revolutionary secret societies alone are working for the true salvation of the world. By them shall original sin be done away with and the Garden of Eden restored. But the present organization of society must disappear, by the elimination of the tyranny of priests, the despotism of princes and the slavery resulting from national distinctions, from family life and from private property.”
The Constitution of the United States of America is defective not because of the specific institutional arrangements created therein. It is defective because it does not recognize the Catholic Church as the true Faith and thus refuses to concede to her the right to intervene with the exercise of civil power when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention. A written document that admits of no higher authority than the words of its own text will be as defenseless in the hands of "liberal" or "activist" judges as the Bible is in the hands of Protestants, who admit of no Divinely-instituted hierarchical authority to guide them in Its interpretation, and/or in the hands of Modernist Catholics, who reject the authority of the Church just as much as do Protestants. Men need the Catholic Church in their own lives and they need her in the lives of their nations.
A civil government founded on the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity is bound to manifest the inherent degeneracy of its false premises more and more over the course of time. Even thoroughly orthodox Catholic scholars of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries did not think critically about the false premises of the American founding, teaching one generation of Catholics after another that the founding principles, crafted by men who were largely abjectly hostile to the Faith and who had contempt for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and for His Most Blessed Mother (see
A Founding Hatred for Christ the King), were perfectly compatible with the Faith. This benign view of things was nothing only than positivism as well-meaning Catholics projected into the minds of the founders a Catholicism that was not there.
Some of us, Mr. Carter, have been just as tough on the likes of George Walker Bush as we are now on the likes of Caesar Obamus. We do not need any more of your malaise than that which you gave us from January 20, 1977, to January 20, 1981. That amount of malaise was quite enough, thank you, sir.
As has been noted in many recent commentaries (Y2K's Lesser Evil Has Brought Us Great Evils,
Socialism, Straight From Your "Pro-Life" Conservative,
Apostasy Has Consequences, Figures of Antichrist,
We Don't Want to Learn Anything,
Living With Murder Quite Comfortably,
Foggy Bottom's Bloody Tradition,
Madness Is Easy to Define,
It Pays to be Ignorant, and
Clueless Is As Clueless Does), the policies of the past eight years made possible the election of the pro-abort named Barack Hussein Obama. The "conservative" "pro-life" President, a man whose administration funded the deaths of countless millions of preborn children by means of abortifacient contraceptives and who presided over a military action that resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, has discredited what is called in naturalistic terms "values voting" even among some of the more "moderate" members of his own political party. There could not be a more cleverly devised trap from the devil as he raises up some naturalists who are openly in support of various evils in order to make those who advance those same evils in more subtle ways seem as though they are the "lesser of two evils." Behold the thoroughly and completely wicked results of such a trap.
In the midst of these events from have brought us from Martin Luther to John Calvin to Henry VIII to Elizabeth I to Thomas Jefferson to Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his open embrace of the "separation of Church and State" to Lyndon Baines Johnson to William Jefferson Blythe Clinton to George Walker Bush to Barack Hussein Obama we must understand that the devil has fought mightily against the Social Reign of Christ the King. He has done so in the United States of America by convincing most Catholics to think and to speak and to act in purely naturalistic terms, losing their minds and all sense of proportion during election campaigns.
Today, good readers, is the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata upon Saint Francis of Assisi. This holy saint, whose principal feast we celebrate in seventeen days, that is, on Sunday, October 4, 2009, bore the brand marks of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on his holy body, a body that he had punished for over twenty years with severe penances as he lived in the most austere poverty imaginable and prayed ceaselessly before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. We must invoke the intercession of this great saint, who was so tenderly devoted to Our Lady, to help us be thoroughly Catholic in how we think and act as we do indeed oppose naturalists without regard to their race or ethnicity or their creed. Saint Francis of Assisi will help us to defend the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church. Are we willing to ask him for this grace? Are we willing to embrace penance and poverty as he did to receive this grace?
We do not look for results in our prayers. We, as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, must be content to make reparation for our sins, which are so very, very responsible for the malodorous state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we spend our time in 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. We are not supposed to see the fruit of our prayers and labors in this life. We should not expect to see such fruit in our lives. It must be enough for us to remember these words of the Divine Redeemer Himself:
So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do. (Luke 17: 10.)
We should also remember as well these words that Our Lady of Guadalupe spoke to Juan Diego atop Tepeyac Hill, never doubting these words for a minute as we trust completely and serenely in her loving, maternal intercession and care for us erring sinners:
Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God. . . . Here I will show and offer my love, my compassion, my help and my protection to the people. I am your merciful Mother, the Mother of all those who love me, of those who cry to me, of those who have confidence in me. Here I will hear their weeping and their sorrows and will remedy and alleviate their suffering, necessities and misfortunes. . . . Listen and let it penetrate into your heart. . . . Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. So do not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else that you need?
Is there anything else that we need? I don't think so. We have Our Lady on our side. This is enough. Her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for this triumph as we never flag in our efforts to restore the Social Reign of her Divine Son, Christ the King, and of herself, Mary our Immaculate Queen, a day when, as the result of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message, the likes of demagogues such as Jimmy Carter either will be converted or consigned to the dustbin of history where they and their insane naturalistic babblings rightly belong.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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 Francis of Assisi, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?