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

         February 18, 2012


Move Along, Nothing To See, Just Another Apostate Or Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Each of the midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" have distinguished themselves as being singularly incapable of grasping the truth that  the Catholic Church has the sole authority to guide men in all matters that pertain to the good of souls, upon which all just social order in this passing, mortal vale of tears must be premised. As go souls, so go nations. Disordered souls lead to disordered nations.

The new midget naturalist front-runner, former United States Senator Richard John Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), is proving himself to be a typical product of the counterfeit church of conciliarism: a man who holds positions that are mutually contradictory and are premised upon one naturalist error after another. This is why, of course, he seems so appealing to Republican voters as most of them hold positions that are just as contradictory as he does.

Let me reprise a bit of what I have written in the past as a way of prefacing how Santorum has demonstrated this penchant consistently after becoming the de facto leader in the now four-ring circus of midget naturalists (and a fifth ring, featuring a formal Catholic apostate, former Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, may yet open up under the big tent before too long if the show goes on beyond "Super Tuesday," March 6, 2012, without a decisive lead in delegates taken by any one of the four current midgets in the circus).

Former Senator Santorum, who is a full-throated supporter of the "global war on terror" and who helped to enable the career of the nefarious former United States Senator Arlen Specter (see Blame George Walker Bush), and former House Speaker Gingrich indicated that neither has any understanding of the simple fact that God's laws trump human laws, and that, regardless as to the pragmatic realities that would make such a prohibition difficult to enact and enforce at this time without a severe social disruption, no human legislature has any right from God to do anything other than to prohibit the sale of pills and devices, many of which are abortifacients, that deny His Sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. No human legislature has any right, no matter United States Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), to permit or condone anything contrary to the immutable precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as to do so is offend God and to harm the good of souls, both temporally and eternally, thus sowing the seeds for the internal decay and self-destruction of society. What is harmful to the eternal good of the souls is, quite necessarily, harmful to the temporal good of men and their nations, which must be pursued in light of man's Last End, namely, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Even some in the secular media understood this soon after various federation of Protestant groups began to endorse the use of a certain type of contraceptive by married couples in "limited" or "extraordinary" circumstances over eighty years ago:



The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1931.)

Pope Pius XI, writing in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, explained that no institution of civil governance has any right to endorse the frustration of the primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children, and that it is not up to the "people," as Dr. Ron Paul explained last evening, to decide the matter. It is up to God, and He has spoken very clearly on this matter, dealing a death blow to anyone, including former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, a Mormon, that those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are entitled to "civil union" benefits or that they should be recognized by law as fit to adopt children to raise in their environment of what is, objectively speaking, eternal death:

49. To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

50. How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

51. Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

52. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)


Neither Santorum or Gingrich understand this. They cannot articulate it. They waffle because, no matter the effectiveness of former Speaker Gingrich's speaking about an anti-Christian bias that exists in the administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus and in the "mainstream" media, they do not want to "offend" those who do not understand that (a) contraception is evil in se and that (b) no one is engaged in a "loving" relationship with another if he is doing anything that impedes the salvation of that person's immortal soul. Indeed, such a person, leaving subjective judgment to God alone, does not love himself as we must will what God wills for us, which is our eternal good, which is absolutely incompatible with a persistence in a lifetime of un rep en ant Mortal Sins. The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is the model of family love, not any kind of "union" that brings together people to live lives of unrepentant sin.

Santorum, who has close ties to an organization that calls itself Opus Dei but is Not The Work of God, attempted to explain why he is opposed to contraception personally while having voted to fund it by means of Title X programs for domestic "family planning services" (read: Planned Parenthood and related merchants of evil that deny the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, kill innocent human babies chemically and lead to licentious patterns of behavior among the young that their programs actually encourage) and by means of voting to fund international "family planning" services. His explanations are filled with sophistry, which means that they are filled with the illogic of rationalization:

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, it's -- look, I'm not going to be responsible for everybody [Santorum supporter Foster Freiss] who's -- you know, anybody -- any supporter of mine and what they say. I mean, that's -- that's -- that's -- I'm not going to play that game.

I mean, the bottom line is my position is very clear. I've had a -- a consistent record on this of supporting women's right to have contraception. I've supported funding for it.

So -- I mean, this is a -- this is a -- in my opinion, this is an attack on someone's religious beliefs because I have a very strong belief, as does my family, in agreement with the Catholic church, somehow or another, that that's -- that's a -- that's something that people should be afraid of, shouldn't be afraid of it.

If you look at my record in the public, I've been clear about -- about that issue. I've had a consistent and long voting record on it. And I think this is the media trying to play -- you know, trying to play gotcha. It's -- it's absurd. (Santorum Defends Moral Versus Political Stance on Contraception.)


"I've had --a consistent record on this of supporting women's right to have contraception. I've supported funding it."

Move along here, folks, nothing to see. Just another midget naturalist apostate who is permitted by the conciliar "bishops" to vote for the funding of Planned Parenthood and related organizations without being reprimanded in the slightest.

Indeed, the likes of Santorum and most other so-called "pro-life" legislators who have supported Title X funding for domestic family planning programs and who have voted for to fund such programs internationally pay no political penalty for doing so as the National Not-So Right to Life Committee takes no stand on contraception, itself, of course, a violation of the absolute Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and thus does not "score" such votes at all, thus artificially inflating the "score" that they assign to the men and women who are heavily funded by its own political action committee. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.

Well, Richard John Santorum, permit me to introduce you to Pope Leo XIII:


Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."(7) Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)


Richard John Santorum has supported evil under cover of the civil law. He cannot even make advertence to the "lesser of two evils" argument because there is no proportional "necessity" to vote in favor of the funding of contraceptives, most of which, contrary to the "pro-life" Santorum's stupid, ignorant and completely self-serving rationalization of an answer to Greta Van Susteren, do indeed ill innocent human beings (see The Pill Kills - 2011 - How The Pill Kills.)

Moreover, Santorum's rationalization of his vote to fund chemical baby-killing potions was premised on the exact same bogus, sophistic "personally opposed to" argument advanced by such unreconstructed, out-and-and-out, full-throated Catholic pro-aborts such as Rudolph William Giuliani, Susan Molinari, Tom Ridge, George Elmer Pataki, Susan Collins, Mario Matthew Cuomo, Andrew Mark Cuomo, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Thomas Harkin, Richard Durbin, Barbara Mikulski, Robert Torricelli, Robert Menendez, Patricia Murray, the late Edward Moore Kennedy, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rick Lazio, James McGreevey, James Florio, Robert Menendez, Jeannine Pirro, Charles Rangel (who is also a Freemason and remains a Catholic in "good standing"), Carolyn McCarthy, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the late Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, John Kerry, Patrick Kennedy, Martin Meehan, Thomas Daschle, Marcy Kaptor, Jack Reed, Donna Shalala, Carole Mosely Braun, Richard Riordan, Gray Davis. Michael Castle, William Clay, Linda Sanchez, Jose Serrano, James Moran, Maurice Hinchey, Sherman Boehlert, Loretta Sanchez, Kathleen Sebelius, Jennifer Granholm and Leon Panetta, among so many others. Personally opposed, Senator Santorum? You've got to be kidding. You are as shallow as a saucer plate.

It got worse in the interview:


SANTORUM: What I was talking about, generally speaking, in that interview, was that the idea -- the whole concept of sexual liberation, sexual freedom has had its down sides, and certainly birth control is part of that with a dramatic increase in sexually transmitted diseases, dramatic increase in out of wedlock births, a dramatic increase in the number of abortions.

I mean, you know, this has -- this has not just been -- you know, not been just, Well, everything's just fine. And I -- I -- that's a -- that's a commentary that I -- again, is not something that is completely out of the mainstream. The bottom line is there are consequences to the sexual revolution that we are living with in America today.

VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of your views on contraception and your religious beliefs -- and everyone comes to the office of the president with certain religious beliefs -- is it something that would in any way -- you know, be -- would it -- I mean, is there any way it would be imposed on the American people? Or is it something that's -- you know, how would we see it in policy, if at all?

SANTORUM: Well, good. I -- you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by -- by -- I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul's campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is -- I think it's -- I think it's Title 10, which is -- which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.

And so, you know, it's funny that on the conservative side, I'm getting ripped for having voted for this. And now all of a sudden, the left is trying to make me out that somehow I -- you know, I want to stop women, or men for that matter, from getting -- you know, doing things and taking things for contraception.

That -- look, I have my own views on these things. They're deeply held beliefs. But not everything that I think is -- that I disagree with morally should the government be involved in. Only when there is -- there are -- there are real consequences to society or to the -- or to the rights of individuals do I -- do I feel a need to speak out. And that's why I do on the issue of abortion because we have another -- we have another person involved in the decision.

But the issue of contraception, that's not the case. It's something that people have a right to do in this country. And it certainly will be safe to do so under the Santorum presidency. (Santorum Defends Moral Versus Political Stance on Contraception.)


And the late United States Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) called the then Governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, a "pander bear" twenty years ago during the Democratic Party presidential nomination process. Clinton's got nothing on Santorum's pandering to women who are upset with him for his ethereal, theoretical opposition to contraception, trying to "prove" that he's going to protect an American "right."

Here's another news flash that you can send along to the former junior United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who endorsed his senior senator, the egregious pro-abort Arlen Specter, in a primary against a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion opponent in 2004, then United States Representative Patrick Toomey, who won election to Specter's seat last year after the latter was defeated in a Democratic Party primary in 2010 following his switching back to the party of his youth (see Blame George Walker Bush): No one, whether he's American or Chinese or French or Persian or Egyptian or Hungarian or Polish or Russian or Japanese or Jamaican, has any right under cover of the civil law to do that which is morally wrong. To claim that one is going to keep "safe" a nonexistent "right" as a matter of principle, which is different than recognizing the practical reality of such an evil's existence and that its eradication will be result of the conversion or the destruction of the country, is to demonstrate oneself to be bereft of any true understanding of law and thus to be disqualified from holding any office of public trust whatsoever.

Mrs. Randy Engel offered the following observations on Santorum's uncertainty concerning whether domestic "family planning" programs are part of Title X, and I thank her for the kind permission she gave to reprint them here:


He thinks !!! He doesn’t KNOW? How prolife is this guy if he does not know the ins and outs of a Title X that has resulted in billions of tax dollars going into antilife coffers? What this blighted ignorance tells me is that the USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] has never pressured or lobbied against Title X programs with any prolife senator. Cardinal Dolan is silent on Title X as is every bishop who has made a public stand on the insurance question.

Once Title X passed and the Congressmen learned that they could vote for birth control and abortifacients without AmChurch’s condemnation, it was only a logical step that they could vote for surgical abortion with impunity.

Compare this with the anti-life organizations which have lived off Title X for more than 40 years. They pressure Congress to keep these funds going. Day in and day out. They have never let up for one moment.

Also this statement makes clear that Santorum is blind to the fact, that with the exception of prophylactics, the Pill, the IUD and all the rest of the chemicals birth prevention doodads are abortifacients.

My answer to the claim that taxpayers need to fund contraceptives, from a political view is this, Prolife groups have over these years given FREE aid to thousands of women to help them bring their babies to term and give them a chance at life including eternal life.

So if tax funs were cut for “birth control” [actually population control] why couldn’t PP and all the huge foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation [origins of the IUD] provide the same “service” for their like-minded anti-life clients leaving the government free to return to a pronatalist policy without which all economic policies are not worth a dime.


Santorum was really one-upped today in stupidity by the Governor of the State of New Jersey, Christopher Christie, a supposedly "pro-life" Catholic Republican, who, while vetoing a bill passed by the New Jersey State Legislature to permit those engaged in perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to "marry," was reported in The New York Times as favoring a voter referendum on the matter:


“An issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,” the governor said in a statement. (Christie Keeps His Promise to Veto Gay Marriage Bill.)


Let the "people" decide, Governor Christie? (See Do You Hear The People Sing?.) Decide what? Hey, Governor, apart from needing to read There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition: A Catholic Man's Lifelong Battle of the Bulge, you ought to to read God Commands, Man Obeys. There is nothing for the "people" to decide, whether by means of their elected representatives in your state's legislature or directly in a voter referendum. There is only God's eternal law to be obeyed.

Christopher Christie went on to describe how he favors "civil unions" for those engaged in acts of unnatural vice and that he wants to appoint a commission to make sure the "rights" of those engaged in such "unions" are respected and protected:


At the same time, Mr. Christie repeated what the State Supreme Court said in 2006 — that same-sex couples deserve the same benefits enjoyed by married couples. Answering testimony that same-sex couples in civil unions had more trouble than married couples in matters like obtaining mortgages and making health care decisions, the governor said he wanted to set up a new ombudsman to make sure gay and lesbian couples did not suffer discrimination.

But he argued that civil unions did not discriminate, saying there had been only 13 complaints about the law since it was passed in 2006, compared with 1,300 complaints about discrimination based on disability and 1,200 based on race. (Christie Keeps His Promise to Veto Gay Marriage Bill.)


Governor Christie, in the event that you missed the passage above, I suggest that you read the following words of Pope Pius XI with great care and deliberation:


51. Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

52. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

I hope--and it is only a hope--that perhaps some of you who think me daft for being a "party pooper" every two years when the mania of the farce of naturalism called elections causes otherwise sane, rational people to lose their minds might come to see that the cavalry is not coming to the rescue. This is because men must be lost in the midst of chaos, intellectually and socially, whenever they do not recognize the simple truth that civil law must be subordinated at all times to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Christ the King to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

May the Rosaries that we pray each day help us to so oriented to the things of Heaven that we come to despite the ways of naturalism and naturalists, becoming apostles only of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen remembering at all times these simple but profound words of Pope Saint Pius X:

. . . . 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.)


We must make sure, therefore, to cleave to true Catholic Faith without making any concessions to concilairism, whose apostate apologists such as Richard John Santorum and Christopher Christie are always seeking to improvise their own reconciliations with the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity.

"Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!"

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Simeon, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.