Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                  October 20, 2008

It's Still Absolute Insanity

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Insanity. Absolute insanity. This is what has been wrought by the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the triumph, albeit temporary, of the "Reign of Man" that has been heralded by the scions of Judeo-Masonry and their fellow travelers in the empty, demonic world of naturalism.

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) and his immediate successor, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), condemned the insanity of naturalism in no uncertain terms:

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? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

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.)


Behold the insanity of the injurious babbling exhibited by the vice presidential nominees of the two major organized crime families in the United States of America, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, as one, Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, demonstrates a complete ignorance of both supernatural and natural truths, and as the other, United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., attempts to justify an exercise in judicial positivism by doing the sort of intellectual gymnastics as to make the "Rosemary Woods Stretch" (the position that then President Richard Milhous Nixon's secretary said that enabled her to "accidentally" erase five minutes of an eighteen and one-half minute gap of a recorded conversation in the Oval Office that had information of a possibly incriminating nature to Nixon) plausible:


The Rosemary Woods Stretch


From the absurd to the implausible, here is a transcript of Columbia News Broadcasting System's anchorette Katie Couric's interview with Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973:

Couric Why, in your view, is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Couric: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

Palin: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.


There is nothing of logic or rationality, no less of factual accuracy, contained in Governor Sarah Heath Palin's answers, showing her to be, as so many of us have contended ever since she was selected by United States Senator John Sidney McCain III, R-Arizona, on August 29, 2008, to be his vice presidential running mate, far from a "promising politician" but a vapid and unprepared demagogue who is able to give a good speech to whip up a crowd into a frenzy but who knows nothing of logic and rationality, no less of First and Last Things as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

To Mrs. Palin's first answer:

Sarah Palin: I think it should be a states' issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, also, though, it's no secret that I'm pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that's what I would like to see, um, further embraced by America.


Like her running mate, Senator McCain, Mrs. Palin is at odds with the platform on which she is supposedly running, a platform, we have been assured by certain omniscient folks, that makes it acceptable to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, a patently absurd conclusion as I demonstrated in Facts Are Troublesome Things that the Republican Party's national platform has long called for a no-exceptions amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to protect the inviolability of all innocent human beings. Neither McCain or Palin support their party's call for such an amendment, making that platform plank completely worthless in point of fact as a matter of policy-making should they win the election on November 4, 2008, and absurd as a debating point in behalf of the "acceptability" of the McCain-Palin ticket.

As mentioned in Fallacies Galore four days ago now, human beings do not have, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, any "right" to permit the execution of preborn children under cover of law according to the "will" of the people in a particular state or other political jurisdiction:

No, Senator McCain, decisions concerning the inviolability of innocent human life at any stage from the moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death do not belong to "the states." No human institution of civil governance has any authority from God to enact positive legislation or to render judicial decisions contrary to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. This means, Senator McCain, that the Fifth Commandment is non-negotiable. Human institutions of civil governance may determine the penalties to be imposed upon those adjudged guilty after due process of law of violating the Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against any and all attacks on innocent human life. Such institutions of civil governance do not have any authority to permit the taking of such life. This is not a matter of states' rights, Senator McCain. This is a matter of God's immutable and eternal Law from which no human being may legitimately dissent at any time for any reason.


What applies to John Sidney McCain III applies to his running mate, Sarah Heath Palin, equally. It is absurd and incongruent to claim that one is "pro-life" when one supports the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn babies in even one instance, no less to assert falsely that state legislatures have the "right" to legislate in such a matter as to "permit" any kind of direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings under the cover of the civil law. It is impossible to create a "culture of life" and it is reprehensible to call oneself "pro-life" when one supports any exceptions to the inviolability of innocent preborn life and when one believes that institutions of civil governance can "permit" baby-killing, whether by chemical and/or surgical means, under cover of law.

Then we have Sarah Heath Palin the constitutional scholar:

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.


Please put your hand on your hip and say with me, "Man, this is deep, really deep, isn't it?"

Sarah Heath Palin, far from being a "promising politician," is an ignoramus who gives answers to legitimate questions that would embarrass some of the worst students that I taught in American national government and constitutional law courses over the case of the thirty years of my college teaching, including a student who failed a constitutional law class that I taught at Illinois State University in Normal, Illinois, thirty years ago this semester, a student who had the nerve thereafter to ask for a letter of recommendation from me for his law school application! Even he wouldn't have given such a stupid, dense and uninformed answer as Governor Palin, who shows herself to be absolutely oblivious to the the multiple ways in which she contradicts herself and the allegedly "pro-life" position she claims that she holds.

Right to privacy? Where? (Don't worry, the plagiarist Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is about to be taken to the cyberspace woodshed on this one as well.) Where is this "right to privacy that protects a "right" to "reproductive freedom"? Sarah Heath Palin cannot tell us. She does not know. It's just kind of "there." One of the supreme ironies of this is that she agrees with Joseph Robinette, Biden, Jr., whose commitment to the nonexistent "right to privacy" still causes him to boast of how he was in the vanguard of opposition to the confirmation in 1987 of Judge Robert H. Bork, serving at the time on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Distinct of Columbia, to succeed Associate Justice Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Palin and Biden are in agreement, therefore, that Robert H. Bork was wrong to assert that there is no "right to privacy" found in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Given her inability to identify any Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v. Wade, Sarah Heath Palin does not know that the nonexistent "right to privacy" was invented by a seven to two vote of the justices on the Court in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965. Associate Justice William O. Douglas wrote the Court's majority opinion, joined by Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg in a concurring opinion that argued the entirety of the Bill of Rights, proposed and ratified to limit the power of the Federal government of the United States of America, applied to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's "liberty" and "due process of law clauses." (The Griswold case is one of a long line of Supreme Court cases that sought to "incorporate" various provisions of the Bill of Rights to state governments, starting with the case of Gitlow v. New York in 1925.)

The Griswold case involved a long unenforced Connecticut statute, on the books since 1879, that forbade the use of any drug designed to prevent conception. In other words, the Griswold case struck down all state laws that forbade the sale of contraceptives of any kind to married couples. Justice Douglas, a thirty-third degree Mason and one of the most liberal members in the history of the Supreme Court, argued that the Bill of Rights contained "penumbras" or emanations that flowed from its provisions. The "right to privacy" was "found" in one of this "penumbras" (This is sort of like the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "discovery" of condemned propositions, such as religious liberty, as being compatible with the Catholic Faith.) A subsequent case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, March 22, 1972, struck down all state laws forbidding the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons.

Associate Justice Hugo Black, whose nomination by then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1935 engendered controversy because Black, then a United States Senator from Alabama, had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was no friend of the Catholic Faith. Black was, in addition to being a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, a thirty-third degree Mason whose opinion in the Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education of Totowa, New Jersey, 1947, cited Thomas Jefferson's dictum of a "high wall of separation between Church and State" as he "applied" the First Amendment's "establishment clause" to state governments. Black did, however, understand that the majority in the Griswold case was inventing a "right" that was not to be found in the words of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Black made it clear in his dissenting opinion that he found the Connecticut statute every bit as "offensive" as his brother Justices John Marshall Harlan II, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg. He pointed out, however, that the constitutionality of a law does not depend upon whether he, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, "liked" it. He was concerned as to whether the Constitution of the United States of America prohibited the enactment of a statute, a prohibition he could not find in the words of the Constitution:

The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions.[1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .

I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[16]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat oldfashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions.[17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut,  June 7, 1965.)


Sarah Heath Palin, it is clear, has never read Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, whose majority opniions provided the "theoretical" foundation for the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Her inchoate sense of a "right to privacy" has no constitutional foundation to it whatsoever. It is merely a "feeling" based on her own support for the evil of contraception that denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony.

Some might protest that a putative Vice President of the United States of America doesn't have to know these things. Well, it doesn't hurt to know them, now does it? Have we reached such a state of anti-intellectualism in American discourse, such as it is, that it is considered be utterly unimportant to know something about constitutional history? More to the point, however, what should concern believing Catholics is that Mrs. Palin is called "pro-life" and a "promising politician" even though she supports the very nonexistent "right" that is at the foundation of the Griswold, Roe and Doe cases and as she supports the slicing and dicing of innocent preborn human beings under cover of law when it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. She is an ignoramus, albeit one who can whip up a crowd into a frenzy with her disconnected set of feelings, some of which have kernels of truth while others are nothing other than undisguised viscera.

Not to be outdone in the revival of the late Joe Flynn's game show, It Pays To Be Ignorant, is the self-professed constitutional "expert" and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., a Catholic who is in perfectly standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Biden, who has been on the government dole almost all of his working life, considers himself a constitutional "expert" and a faithful Catholic. He is neither.

This is Biden's answer to Katie Couric's question about Roe v. Wade:

Katie Couric: Why do you think Roe v. Wade was a good decision?

Joe Biden: Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.

And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.

I think the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment … offers a right to privacy. Now that's one of the big debates that I have with my conservative scholar friends, that they say, you know, unless a right is enumerated - unless it's actually, unless [it] uses the word "privacy" in the Constitution - then no such "constitutional right" exists. Well, I think people have an inherent right.


Consensus? Consensus? The direct, intentional killing of an innocent preborn human life in his mother's womb is not a matter of "consensus." The direct, intentional killing of any innocent human life is absolutely prohibited by the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment as they have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church. God demands obedience, not "consensus." And it is the obligation of a Catholic, especially one in public life, to defend the truths of the Faith as the only foundation of personal and social order, refusing at the cost of his very career to make any compromise with grave evils that offend God and wound the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. This is a point that I made in Lest We Forget and Memo to Joseph Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Their Conciliar Enablers and Fact and Fiction two months ago. It is a point that Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., had better learn before he encounters the moment of his own Particular Judgment.

Every abortion, Senator Biden, is a mystical attack on Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn children in the sanctuary of their mothers' wombs. No one but one can assert that he "loves" Our Lord while he supports His mystical dismemberment in the wombs of mothers under cover of law. This is a fact, Senator Biden. There is no excuse for your craven, cowardly acquiescence to relativism and positivism for the sake of the exigencies of your careerism.

Biden the sociological genius is even wrong on the natural level about "consensus." There was no "consensus" on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned the laws of over forty state legislatures by mere judicial fiat. Even many Democrat Party politicians, including one named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and another named Edward Moore Kennedy, were pro-life prior to Roe v. Wade. Consensus? Roe v. Wade created a demand for baby-killing under cover of law in this nation as a logical consequence of the availability of contraception. Biden the sociological genius is just plain intellectually dishonest when he takes cowardly refuge in a claim that Roe v. Wade represented a "consensus" in 1973. It represented no such thing then, and any "consensus" since that time is irrelevant as it exists in defiance of the absolute and immutable Sovereignty of God and His Laws over men and their nations at all times and in all places.

Biden the legal genius demonstrated also in his answer to Katie Couric that he rejects the late Associate Justice Black's reasoning in the Griswold v. Connecticut case, aligning himself with his running mate, United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, D-Illinois, and other positivists who view the Constitution of the United States of America as a "living document." Translation: we can project into the words of the Constitution any meaning we desire. There is word for this exercise in positivism (the assertion that something is so because it has been asserted positively as being so): deconstructionism, that is, to empty words of their plan meaning and substitute instead one's own meaning as suits the circumstances of the times (this is a very close cousin of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's condemned view of how the "particulars" of various expressions of dogmatic pronouncements become "obsolete" over the course of time).

As has been noted on this site any number of times, one of the chief defects of the Constitution of the United States of America is that it admits of no authority above the text of its words, rendering it as defenseless in the hands of legal positivists as the Bible is in the hands of Protestants, rationalists, naturalists or Modernists. It is, as has been noted quite frequently in my work, a relatively easy thing to deconstruct the plain words of a written constitution when one has become accustomed to deconstructing the plain words of Holy Writ, which are entrusted to the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church for their infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.

The Constitution of the United States of America's rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus the authority of the Catholic Church to interpose herself with the civil authorities as an absolute Last Resort following the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention renders it subject to the constantly changing interpretations of arbitrary majorities (popular, judicial, legislative). It is a stepchild of the Protestant Revolt's rejection of the fact that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ established a visible, hierarchical society, the Catholic Church, to safeguard the Deposit of Faith, which includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, to be the one and only teacher and guardian of Divine Revelation.

No amount of meetings of The Federalist Society or other such groups can "save" the Constitution of the United States of America from the onslaughts of judicial positivists of the naturalist "left" or of the naturalist "right." Why should the views of the "framers" on the Constitution be sacrosanct when the authority of the Catholic Church over the Bible itself is rejected by men and their nations? The Constitution is a subject to reinterpretation and "novelty" as Sacred Scripture is to heretics as both reject the simple truth that God has given us His Catholic Church as the ultimate arbiter on all that pertains to the good of souls and to right ordering of nations in light of man's Last End. Why should Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.'s contempt for the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution be surprising when large numbers of people, including many Catholics today, reject the plain meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture as taught by Holy Mother Church.

Biden the legal genius even misrepresents the late Associate Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion for the Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, failing to note that although states may regulate the conditions under which babies are killed in the second and third trimester of their development inside of the sanctuaries of their mothers' wombs, the decision in the Roe case authorized baby-killing under cover of law up to and including the day of birth in the United States of America, a decision that stands to this very day. While the Court upheld a partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions as constitutional eighteen months ago, it did so by recognizing that such a ban does not serve as an impediment to killing babies in the later stages of pregnancy by other methods, thereby upholding Roe's revolutionary dictum that babies may be killed up to and including the day of birth in the United States of America under cover of the civil law:

1. The Casey Court reaffirmed what it termed Roe's three-part "essential holding": First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second, the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering the woman's life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. 505 U. S., at 846. Though all three are implicated here, it is the third that requires the most extended discussion. In deciding whether the Act furthers the Government's legitimate interest in protecting fetal life, the Court assumes, inter alia, that an undue burden on the previability abortion right exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the [woman's] path," id., at 878, but that "[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State ... may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose," id., at 877. Casey struck a balance that was central to its holding, and the Court applies Casey's standard here. A central premise of Casey's joint opinion--that the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life--would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments below. Pp. 14-16.

     2. The Act, on its face, is not void for vagueness and does not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth. Pp. 16-26.

          (a) The Act's text demonstrates that it regulates and proscribes performing the intact D&E procedure. First, since the doctor must "vaginally delive[r] a living fetus," §1531(b)(1)(A), the Act does not restrict abortions involving delivery of an expired fetus or those not involving vaginal delivery, e.g., hysterotomy or hysterectomy. And it applies both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb. Second, because the Act requires the living fetus to be delivered to a specific anatomical landmark depending on the fetus' presentation, ibid., an abortion not involving such partial delivery is permitted. Third, because the doctor must perform an "overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered fetus," §1531(b)(1)(B), the "overt act" must be separate from delivery. It must also occur after delivery to an anatomical landmark, since killing "the partially delivered" fetus, when read in context, refers to a fetus that has been so delivered, ibid. Fourth, given the Act's scienter requirements, delivery of a living fetus past an anatomical landmark by accident or inadvertence is not a crime because it is not "deliberat[e] and intentiona[l], §1531(b)(1)(A). Nor is such a delivery prohibited if the fetus [has not] been delivered "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the [doctor] knows will kill [it]." Ibid. Pp. 16-18. (Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Gonzales v. Carhart, April 28, 2007; see also An Illusion of a Victory.)

Biden the legal genius also tried to be Biden the philosophical genius in his interview with Katie Couric, stating that "people have an inherent right" to privacy.

Inherent right, Joe? Inherent right? How does this "right" inhere in the souls of human beings? From whence does it originate? Do contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave until the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day determine these "inherent" rights? If not them, Joe, who? More accurately, if not them, Joe, Who? Are you saying that God is the author of a "right to privacy" that includes the "right" to frustrate the conception of children in their mothers' wombs and/or to kill preborn children when they "choose" to do so? Rights must originate from somewhere or someone, Joe? From whom? From Whom, Joe?

I can assure you, Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., that true God Who has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church is the author of no such "right to privacy" to prevent the conception or a child or to kill him by chemical or surgical means. I can assure you, Sarah Heath Palin, that your own statement to Katie Couric "I'm all for contraception" (Couric's interview with Palin, which includes more remarkably contradictory statements from the great dim light of the northern lights of Alaska), is quite fallacious. GOD IS NOT FOR CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION, SENATOR BIDEN AND GOVERNOR PALIN. End of discussion. God wants submission to His Holy Truths, not babblings from mindless career politicians who do not submit themselves with humility and docility to the teaching authority of His Catholic Church.

Pope Pius XI, writing in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, put these matters in no uncertain terms:

And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances .

But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:" The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: "Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife."

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

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


Governor Palin and Senator Biden, look at that last paragraph again, especially the last sentence in that last paragraph. These words apply to you and your running mates. None of you have any right from God to "decide" anything on these issues. God has decreed truths that exist in the nature of things and that are protected by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. You have no decision but to obey the solemn teaching authority of the Catholic Church or to risk, quite possibly, he fires of Hell for all eternity:

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


Sarah Heath Palin and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., both support contraception. Both support abortion, the former in one instance, the latter in all instances. Neither is willing to submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. And the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have enabled both of them, Palin by virtue of the fact that she is heralded as "pro-life" even though she supports chemical assassination of children by means of contraceptives and the surgical killing of babies in one instance; Biden by virtue of the fact that he has long been held harmless by high-ranking conciliar officials for his rabid support for Roe v. Wade and his own brand of illogic used to justify this support. This is what the Americanist system of naturalism produces: morons, nincompoops, nitwits, demagogues who speak what comes to their minds without regard for truth, rationality, logic, factual accuracy or simple coherency of communications.

One final example of the sterling intellectual qualities possessed by Sarah Heath Palin and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., will suffice for present purposes.

Anchorette Katie Couric asked Palin and Biden about Thomas Jefferson's views on the First Amendment concerning a "wall of separation of church and state." Neither answered with any understanding of the fact that Thomas Jefferson despised Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and wanted to see the influence of "religion" in public life eradicated over the course of time:


Katie Couric: Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment, building a wall of separation between church and state. Why do you think that's so important?

Sarah Palin: His intention in expressing that was so that government did not mandate a religion on people. And Thomas Jefferson also said never underestimate the wisdom of the people. And the wisdom of the people, I think in this issue is that people have the right and the ability and the desire to express their own religious views, be it a very personal level, which is why I choose to express my faith, or in a more public forum.

And the wisdom of the people, thankfully, engrained in the foundation of our country, is so extremely important. And Thomas Jefferson wanted to protect that.

Biden: The best way to look at it is look the every state where the wall's not built. Look at every country in the world where religion is able to impact ... the governance. Almost every one of those countries are in real turmoil.

Look, the founders were pretty smart. They had gone through, you know, several hundred years of wars - religious wars. And they were in the midst of religious wars in Europe. And they figured it out: The best way to do this is to keep the government out of religion. They took religion out of government. But they didn't mean religion couldn't be in a public place, in the public square.


Both of these candidates for the second highest elected office in the United States of America have not the faintest idea of what they have spoken. Palin has no clue as to Jefferson's hostility to religion, especially the true Faith. Biden, who said recently that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on television in 1929 to address the American people about the stock market crash (Herbert Clark Hoover was president and there were no television networks and no televisions on the market for consumers at that time as only a handful of experimental television stations that broadcast sporadically existed in 1929), conflates history once again by saying that the "founders" had "gone through, you now, several hundred years of wars, religious wars." Huh? You mean to say, Joe, that the "founders" were as old as Noah, that they have lived for several hundred years?

Both Palin and Biden are clueless about the glories of Christendom as summarized succinctly by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 22, 1923:

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.

A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: "When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay."

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)


Sarah Heath Palin, whose duty in life is to be with her children at home and not in public life as makes reparation for the multiple ways she offends God in the manner of her most immodest attire that makes a mockery of Our Lady's Fatima Message (I mean, really, does anyone devoted to Our Lady's Fatima Message want to minimize the offense given to God and to her own Immaculate Heart by Mrs. Palin's indecent attire, including such things as mini-skirts and "go-go boots"? Doesn't the honor and majesty and glory of God matter to anyone any longer?), and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., do not accept these truths as they have never studied them. Both do not realize that Thomas Jefferson, a hateful rationalist who should never be lionized by Catholics for anything whatsoever, hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and wanted all vestiges of Christian "superstition" banished from a 'civilized" society:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813.)

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger Weigthman, June 24, 1826, ten days before Jefferson's death.)


Morons, nincompoops, nitwits, ignoramuses and demagogues. Such are the inevitable results of a constitutional framework and an electoral system premised upon the naturalistic falsehood that it is possible for men to realize personal and social order absent a submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and absent a firm belief in, ready access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.

For the sake of re-emphasis, good readers, here is a summary of the immutable Catholic teaching about the proper relationship between the Church and the civil state, including the civil state's obligation to aid man in the pursuit of his Last End:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)


Yes, my friends, the American system of governance and elections is still one of absolute insanity. An abyss of woe is open from which the only escape is through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by means of our faithful adherence to her Fatima Message, which, among other things, means that each of us, men and women alike, must dress modestly (men as men and women as women without ever once "cross-dressing" as a member of the opposite gender!) and make reparations for whatever sins of thought, word and deed that we have committed against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that have offended Our Lord so greatly and caused so much grief to penetrate Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.

Those who want to get "excited" about this insanity of Modernity and Modernism are free to do so as they remain oblivious to the fact that the more they enable the likes of Sarah Heath Palin and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., with their votes is the more that they will get the likes of Sarah Health Palin (who has broken free of her handlers in recent days and is talking to reporters covering her campaign rather freely, signaling, I believe, the start of the 2012 presidential race) and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.,--or worse--in the future, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, to further coarsen national discourse with the illogic and contradictions of Protestantism and the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry. There is a way out of this idiocy and it starts with recognizing it as idiocy that adds nothing to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and hence Christendom in the world.

Some write to me to ask why I keep writing these articles when so few people read them or agree with, yes, even in sedevacantist circles, where the myths of Americanist nationalism are very much alive and well in some places. The answer is simple: I, a terrible sinner, have much reparation to make for my sins. My work is done for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, given to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The work continues to be done for the honor and glory of God and in the hope that some of it might help at least one or two souls now and again to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and to recognize naturalism as a farce from the devil that is not worth their time or worry. I hope only to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace so that I can behold the glory of the Beatific Vision forever in Heaven in the company of Our Lady and Saint Joseph and all of the angels and saints.  Whether my work is read or accepted is thus very much apart from the point!

We need to pray for the conversion of those in public life who are steeped in the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, and semi-Pelagian errors of Modernity and/or Modernism as we make reparation for our own sins by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. Holy Mother Church has survived the petty tyrants of the past. She will survive the crises of the present moment. We simply need to cleave to the truths of the true Faith as they are protected in the catacombs by true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism whatsoever or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.

The saint we commemorate today, Saint John Cantius, spent many long hours in prayer before the Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament after he had finished his duties as a professor. May it be our desire to spend at least some time with Our Lord in His Real Presence after we have completed our duties each day in anticipation of a Heavenly visit, aided by Our Lady's maternal intercession and protection, that will lat forever!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon! Rescue us from the insanity of the moment!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the after of our death.

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 John Cantius, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints



© Copyright 2008, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.