Open Letter to Pretended Catholic Scholars
Thomas A. Droleskey
Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never changed, are not changing and never will change. There are bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death; there are limits which empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not take seriously, but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them. And history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of "humanity" is always, sooner or later, catastrophe.
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively. But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.
The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people's sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and -- at the end of the line -- souls in despair and taking their own lives. All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the "line of God" does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaption to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers! (Giuseppe Cardinal Siri,
Men's Dress Worn By Women.)
Although the late Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, Italy, from May 29, 1946, to July 6, 1987, wrote the words quoted above in an "notification" to his clergy about the harm of women wearing masculine attire, his words have application to the simple truth that false ideas always produce bad consequences. While God does indeed intends to bring good out of the evil done by men, He never positively wills us to commit any evil or positively wills us to believe in false ideas that can lead only to evil consequences. To believe in a falsehood, even if one is sincere in such a belief, is to permit oneself to be led in a thousand different and frequently contradictory directions.
Most Catholics in the United States of America, ignorant of, if not hostile to, the authentic Social Teaching of the Catholic Church, live their entire lives in the trap set for them by the devil in a country whose constitutional system is premised upon the false belief that men of good will can pursue the common temporal good without subordinating themselves to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to His true Church, the Catholic Church, for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, and without individual men having belief in, access to or cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.
To believe this is to believe in a falsehood, a lie. To believe this is to permit oneself to be caught between what are I have described so many times on this website as the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right." Many Catholics, at least those who pay attention to public affairs, fall along these ideological fault-lines as those who leave to the "left" view as villains those who are on the "right," who gladly return fire. This makes for very good political theater. However, it is also a gigantic sideshow from the devil to keep people so ensnared in the issues of the moment that almost no one reflects on root causes, less yet of viewing the world and everything in it through the eyes of the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, and not the false faith of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
For the sake of reiteration, therefore, as I know that people forget and that there might be that new reader to this little-read and much-castigated website, let me explain yet again what I mean by the false opposites of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right":
I refer to the "false opposites" of the "left" and the "right"
because, despite their differences over the powers "government" over
that of the "individual," both the "left" and the "right" reject
Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
The adherents of the "left" and the "right" believe that it is neither
prudent or necessary to acknowledge that the Incarnation of the Second
Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb
of His Most Blessed Mother has changed human history. Such adherents
also reject any suggestions that both men and their nations must be
subordinate to Christ the King and the authority of His true Church on
all that pertains to the good of souls and that the civil government has
an obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last
No matter the differences between "conservatives" and "liberals,"
my friends, they both have one mind and one heart in the belief that
man does not need the teaching and sanctifying offices of the Catholic
Church to guide them in their private and social lives. This is, of
course, the triumph of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism that was
dissected so well by Pope Leo XIII. It matters little as to who is or is
not a formally enrolled member of the "lodges" when most Catholics and
non-Catholics alike are infected with the ethos of naturalism.
Similarly, any civil leader who believes that can, either by
himself or with others, pursue genuine order without the help of Our
Lady and the use of her Most Holy Rosary is a fool. We must give public
honor to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen.
That's the point I try to make repeatedly on this site.
The bifurcation between Catholics of the "left" and Catholics of the "right" in the United States of America is such that the statists on the "left" try to wrap themselves up in the mantle of a perverted and distorted notion of what they think is Catholic Social Teaching as presented by the conciliar "bishops" in this country, many of whom are just unreconstructed socialists who attempt to make various government programs that are said to aid the poor and the suffering appear to be consonant with the Christian precepts of charity. The truth of the matter, of course, is that individual human beings have been charged by Our Lord, Christ the King, to provide for the needs of those who cannot provide for themselves, not wasteful, duplicative government programs that are created in full violation of the Natural Principle of subsidiarity, enunciated very clearly by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931. The very establishment of these programs in this country during the Great Depression and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal" created an entire class of nonelected bureaucratic rulers who have a vested interest in seeing to it that their clients become so dependent upon their programs that they will agitate with great fury if they are threatened in any way so as to scare off elected officials who understand these programs to be boondoggles that enrich only those who administer them.
Even long before the Great Depression and over forty years before the Bolshevik Revolution, Otto von Bismarck, the prototypical socialist and social engineer, sought to make large segments of the German population dependent upon the largesse of the civil state so that the citizenry would be more inclined to look the other way as it, the civil state, increased control of their daily lives over the course of time. The Eurosocialist states are all descended from Otto von Bismarck and Karl Marx, whose "radicalism," as the Freemason Bismarck saw it, he sought to preempt by the creation of his own social welfare state.
"Leftism" in the United States of America has many roots, each of which go back to the Protestant Revolution wrought by Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., against the Divine plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church.
As has been noted many times on this site, one of the proximate root causes of what can be called "liberalism" is the writing of John Locke, whose views were the direct result of the Protestant Revolution that began in England under King Henry VIII in 1534 and resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects in a kingdom that had been Catholic for nearly a millennium. Readers of this site know that I care very much about root causes. Well, permit me to remind you of at least one of the roots of the American "left":
The Protestant Revolt engendered murder and mayhem in
the German states after it was launched by the hideous, lecherous,
drunken Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., on October
31, 1517, when he posted his "ninety-five theses" on the door of Castle
Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther himself was aghast to see the
almost instantaneous moral degeneration of his "evangelicals" into
violent mobs who pilfered and sacked formerly Catholic churches and
lived riotously, oblivious to the fact that he was responsible for this
degeneration by depriving those who followed his revolution against
Christ the King of the Sacraments and of the true teaching that Our King
has entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and
In like manner, of course,
the the Protestant Revolt in England engendered murder and violence,
much of which was state-sponsored as Henry Tudor was responsible between
the years of 1534 and 1547 for ordering the executions of over 72,000
Catholics who remained faithful to the Catholic Church following the
decree that Parliament has passed that declared him to be the "supreme
head of the Church in England as far as the law of God allowed." As was
the case in the German states as princes gave Luther protection so that
they, the princes, could govern in a Machiavellian manner free of any
interference from Rome or their local bishops, so was it the case in
England that the Protestant Revolution provided the receipt for the
unchecked tyranny of English monarchs.
Indeed, the kind of
state-sponsored social engineering that has created the culture of
entitlement in England and elsewhere in Europe has its antecedent roots
in Henry's revolt against the Social Reign of Christ the King and His
Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century.
Henry had Parliament enact
various laws to force the poor who had lived for a nominal annual fee on
the monastery and convent lands (as they produced the food to sustain
themselves, giving some to the monastery or convent) off of those lands,
where their families had lived for generations, in order to
redistribute the Church properties he had stolen to those who supported
his break from Rome. Henry quite cleverly created a class of people who
were dependent upon him for the property upon which they lived and the
wealth they were able to derive therefrom, making them utterly
supportive of his decision to declare himself Supreme Head of the Church
in England. Those of the poorer classes who had been thrown off of the
monastery and convent lands were either thrown into prison (for being
poor, mind you) or forced to migrate to the cities, where many of them
lost the true Faith and sold themselves into various vices just to
survive. The effects of this exercise of state-sponsored engineering are
reverberating in the world today, both politically and economically.
Indeed, many of the conditions bred by the disparity in wealth created
by Henry's land grab in the Sixteenth Century would fester and help to
create the world of unbridled capitalism and slave wage that so
impressed a German emigre in London by the name of Karl Marx. Unable to
recognize the historical antecedents of the real injustices he saw
during the Victorian Era, Marx set about devising his own manifestly
unjust system, premised on atheism and anti-Theism, to rectify social
injustice once and for all. In a very real way, Henry of Tudor led the
way to Lenin of Russia.
The abuses of power by
English monarchs led to all manner of social unrest in England,
especially as those Anglicans who were followers of John Calvin sought
to eradicate all remaining vestiges of Catholicism from Anglican
"worship" and "doctrine" (removing Latin from certain aspects of the
heretical Anglican liturgy, smashing statues, eliminating high altars in
favor of tables, things that have been undertaken in the past forty
years in many formerly Catholic churches that are now in the custody of
the counterfeit church of conciliarism). This unrest produced the
English Civil Wars of the 1640s and the establishment in 1649 of what
was, for all intents and purposes, a Calvinist state under the control
Oliver Cromwell that became a Cromwellian dictatorship between the years
of 1653 to 1660 until the monarchy under the House of Stuart was
restored in 1660. Oh yes, King Charles I lost his head, quite literally,
in 1649 as the "Roundheads" of Oliver Cromwell came to power in 1649
following seven years of warfare between "parliamentarians" and
"royalists." Revolutions always wind up eating their own. The English
monarchy itself was eaten up by the overthrow of the Social Reign of the
King of Kings by Henry VIII of the House of Tudor in 1534.
King James II, who had converted to Catholicism in
France in 1668 while he was the Prince of York under his brother, King
Charles II of the restored monarchy, acceded to the English throne in on
June 6, 1885, following his brother's death, which occurred after
Charles II himself had converted to the the Faith on his deathbed.
Suspicious that the property that had been acquired and the wealth that
had been amassed as a result of Henry VIII's social-engineering land
grab of 150 years before would be placed in jeopardy, Protestant
opponents of King James II eventually forced him to abdicate the throne
in 1688, his rule having been declared as ended on December 11 of that
year. The abdication of King James, whose second wife, Mary of Modena,
had been assigned Blessed Father Claude de la Colombiere as her
spiritual director when she was the Princess of York, is referred to by
Protestant and secular historians as the "glorious revolution,"
so-called because it ushered in the penultimate result of the Protestant
Revolution, the tyranny of the majority.
It was to justify the rise of majoritarianism that John Locke, a Presbyterian (Calvinist) minister, wrote his Second Treatise on Civil Government.
Locke believed, essentially, that social problems could be ameliorated
if a majority of reasonable men gathered together to discuss their
situation. The discussion among these "reasonable men" would lead to an
agreement, sanctioned by the approval of the majority amongst
themselves, on the creation of structures which designed to improve the
existing situation. If those structures did not ameliorate the problems
or resulted in a worsening of social conditions then some subsequent
majority of "reasonable men" would be able to tear up the "contract"
that had bound them before, devising yet further structures designed to
do what the previous structures could not accomplish. Locke did not
specify how this majority of reasonable men would form, only
that it would form, providing the foundation of the modern parliamentary
system that premises the survival of various governments upon the whims
of a majority at a given moment.
In other words, England's "problem" in 1688 was King
James II. The solution? Parliament, in effect, declared that he had
abdicated his throne rather than attempt to fight yet another English
civil war to maintain himself in power as the man chosen by the
parliamentarians to replace him, his own son-in-law William of Orange,
who was married to his daughter Mary, landed with armed forces ready to
undertake such a battle. The parliamentary "majority" had won the day
over absolutism and a return to Catholicism.
Unfortunately for Locke, you see, social problems
cannot be ameliorated merely by the creation of structures devised by
"reasonable men" and sanctioned by the majority.
All problems in the world, both individual and
social, have their remote causes in Original Sin and their proximate
causes in the Actual Sins of men. There is no once-and-for-all method or
structure by which, for example, "peace" will be provided in the world
by the creation of international organizations or building up or the
drafting of treaties.
There is no once-and-for-all method or structure by
which, for example, "crime" will be lessened in a nation by the creation
of various programs designed to address the "environmental" conditions
that are said to breed it.
The only way in which social conditions can be
ameliorated is by the daily reformation of individual lives in
cooperation with the graces won for men by the shedding of the Most
Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the
wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through
the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
And to the extent that social structures can be effective in addressing
and ameliorating specific problems at specific times in specific places
those who create and administer them must recognize their absolute
dependence upon God's graces and that there is no secular,
non-denominational or inter-denominational way to provide for social
order. Social order and peace among nations depend entirely upon the
subordination of the life of every person and the activities of every
nation to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it is exercised by the
There is, therefore, amongst American Catholics who adhere to some kind of "leftist" worldview a belief that it is indeed the role of government to "solve" social ills, most of are the result, over and above the after-effects of Original Sin, the systematic, planned breakdown of the stability of the family that was one of the chief goals of Freemasons in state legislatures, starting in North Dakota, in the late-Nineteenth Century to liberalize divorce laws. This systematic, planned breakdown of the family was expedited by the spread of contraception in the 1920s, leading ultimately to an epidemic of divorce and remarriage as spouses felt "free" to be violate the Sixth Commandment injunction against adultery. Husbands abandoned wives. Wives abandoned husbands. Children became lost and confused. Entire classes of people became dependent upon the largesse of the civil state as a result. And this is to say nothing of the direct effort on the part of Margaret Sanger to break down the stability of the families of black Americans so that they could enjoy the benefits of her sort of social engineering, a fact that has been documented on this site in several articles.
If one believes in the leftist paradigm, however, one will be absolutely convinced that social "problems" are the result of not enough government spending and not enough government programs and not enough government regulations and not enough efforts to direct the daily lives of those who are dependent upon them and, ultimately, of us all as the "experts" and the bureaucrats know better as to how we should live than we do. Former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton said as much in the late-1990s (I believe that it was when making a speech in Buffalo, New York). Let me see if I can find the quote. All right, here it is:
Clinton: "I can spend your money better than you can."
In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999,
Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's
"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right...
But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In
2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for
Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every
parent here to look at the young people here, and
ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run
the risk of squandering this surplus?' "Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999. (Quote and commentary found at: Bill Clinton - Stupid Quotes and Statements.)
This is the arrogance of the left. This is the arrogance of left that is displayed currently by President Barack Hussein Obama. This is the arrogance of the left that has long been the bane of the existence of the bureaucrats who staff the offices of the very misnamed United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, District of Columbia, and in many of the state conferences of conciliar "bishops" throughout the country.
Those on the naturalist "right" believe in a welter of errors of their very own, although they are, by way of emphasis, united with the "left" in believing that Catholicism is not what it is: the one and only foundation of personal and social order.
There are some on the "right" who are "constitutionalists," who believe that all we need is the "correct" interpretation of a document that admits of no higher authority than the words in its text. Unfortunately for the constitutionalists, however, the Constitution was written by men who were either Protestants or Freemasons and thus believed that each individual was his own interpreter of the words contained in Sacred Scripture, a falsehood that led to the proliferation of Protestant sects into the thousands of the deconstruction of the words of Holy Writ in such a way as to deny altogether that they were written under the influence of God the Holy Ghost and that Our Lord is truly the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man. If men can disagree about the plain meaning of the words contained in Sacred Scripture, why should they treat the words of a civil constitution as being more sacrosanct? We need the authority of Holy Mother Church.
Others on the "right" are libertarians, men who believe that the civil state has authority to enact no laws to penalize those who commit acts that we know to be serious violations of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, that men are "free" to live pretty much as they want. Dr. Ron Paul, for example, has stated that state legislatures have the right to restrict, prohibit or permit abortion as the will of the people in a particular state desire, a falsehood as human beings, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil government, has the authority from God to sanction grievous sins under the cover of the civil law.
Still others on the naturalist "right" are reflexive disciples of the so-called "free market," believing in the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith that is so invisible it is but a myth that has permitted the enslavement of us all by means of a monetary and credit system that enriches those who do absolutely nothing other than cook up schemes as to how to make more and more money for themselves at our expense (see A Really Invisible Hand).
Although I will get to a brief precis of some of the errors of the naturalist "right" shortly, what has been presented thus far has been a prelude to providing you with the text of a letter written by pretended Catholic "scholars" to protest the appearance of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, John H. Boehner (R-Ohio), at the commencement ceremonies of The Catholic University of America on Sunday, May 15, 2011. The letter is replete with the shibboleths of the "left," the perversion of Catholic Social Teaching that is the bête noir of the American Catholic "left" and a dogmatic adherence to unjust programs that fund immorality in the name of "helping the poor." Here is the text of the letter
Dear Mr. Speaker,
We congratulate you on the occasion of your commencement address to
The Catholic University of America. It is good for Catholic
universities to host and engage the thoughts of powerful public figures,
even Catholics such as yourself who fail to recognize (whether out of a
lack of awareness or dissent) important aspects of Catholic teaching.
We write in the hope that this visit will reawaken your familiarity with
the teachings of your Church on matters of faith and morals as they
relate to governance.
Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the
Church’s most ancient moral teachings. From the apostles to the present,
the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are
morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in
support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is
among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great
urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in
opposition to it.
The 2012 budget you shepherded to passage in the House of
Representatives guts long-established protections for the most
vulnerable members of society. It is particularly cruel to pregnant
women and children, gutting Maternal and Child Health grants and
slashing $500 million from the highly successful Women Infants and
Children nutrition program. When they graduate from WIC at age 5, these
children will face a 20% cut in food stamps. The House budget radically
cuts Medicaid and effectively ends Medicare. It invokes the deficit to
justify visiting such hardship upon the vulnerable, while it carves out
$3 trillion in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In a
letter speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, Bishop Stephen Blaire and Bishop Howard Hubbard detailed the
anti-life implications of this budget in regard to its impact on poor
and vulnerable American citizens. They explained the Church’s teachings
in this regard clearly, insisting that:
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate
cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice
by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary
military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of
health insurance and retirement programs fairly.
Specifically, addressing your budget, the letter expressed grave
concern about changes to Medicaid and Medicare that could leave the
elderly and poor without adequate health care. The bishops warned
We also fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs
that serve families working to escape poverty, especially food and
nutrition, child development and education, and affordable housing.
Representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Bishops Hubbard and Blaire have now endorsed with other American
Christian leaders a call to legislators for a “Circle of Protection”
around programs for the poor that you, Mr. Speaker, have imperiled. The
statement of these Christian leaders recognizes the need for fiscal
responsibility, “but not at the expense of hungry and poor people.”
Indeed, it continues, “These choices are economic, political—and moral.
As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the
most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal
from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called ‘the least of these’
Mr. Speaker, we urge you to use the occasion of this year’s
commencement at The Catholic University of America to give fullest
consideration to the teachings of your Church. We call upon you to join
with your bishops and sign on to the “Circle of Protection.” It is
your moral duty as a legislator to put the needs of the poor and most
vulnerable foremost in your considerations. To assist you in this
regard, we enclose a copy of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of
the Church. Published by the Vatican, this is the “catechism” for the
Church’s ancient and growing teaching on a just society and Catholic
obligations in public life.
Catholic social doctrine is not merely a set of goals to be achieved
by whatever means one chooses. It is also a way of proceeding, a set of
principles that are derived from the truth of the human person. In
Pope Benedict’s words: “Without truth, charity degenerates into
sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an
arbitrary way... the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point
where it comes to mean the opposite.”
We commend to you the Compendium’s discussion of the principles of
the common good, the preferential option for the poor, and the
interrelationship of subsidiarity and solidarity. Paragraph 355 on tax
revenues, solidarity, and support for the vulnerable is particularly
relevant to the moment.
Be assured of our prayers for you on this occasion and for your faithful living out of your vocation in public life.
Stephen F. Schneck
Director, Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America (Letter to House Speaker John Boehner. This link will take you--surprise, surprise--to the website of the National Catholic Reporter, where you will find the entire list of signatories to his incredible piece of leftist propaganda.)
Let me try to dispense with this sophistry as quickly as I can as it is approaching Midnight, Eastern Daylight Saving Time, on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Wednesday, May 11, 2011.
First, these pretended scholars have not a blessed clue as to what constitutes the authentic Social Teaching of the Catholic Church. They have no authority or expertise to write about it, less yet to lecture Speaker Boehner.
Second, these pretended scholars would be hard pressed to find a single passage in any passage of the Gospel or in any passage from the Acts of the Apostles and the twenty-two epistles found in the New Testament that refers our love of the poor having anything to do with government programs of any kind. There are no such passages.
In this regard, these pretended scholars do not understand or, quite possibly, have never known and might even be arrogant enough not to care about the true purpose of civil government, namely, to foster those conditions in civil society wherein citizens can better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church as civil leaders pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End: the possession of the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.
Who says so? Oh, well, true pope after true pope. Let's just refer to Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, once again:
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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)
Do the pretended scholars who wrote to Speaker Boehner believe this? Of course not. And, sadly, neither does the well-meaning Speaker Boehner as he is as influenced by the precepts of Americanism as they have been. Both the pretended scholars and Speaker Boehner would be aghast that the civil state's first goal is to aid man in effecting his supreme and absolute welfare.
Third, the pretended scholars support one failed government program after another, including Medicaid that funds the chemical assassination of children in all cases and that funds the surgical dismemberment of children in the so-called "hard cases." These programs are not received from the hand of God. They are nothing other massive income redistribution schemes that enrich the pockets of the bureaucrats and empower the lobby groups who benefit from them.
Can government do nothing to assist those who are in genuine need? The Catholic Church teaches no such thing. Pope Pius XI explained this very carefully in Quadragesimo Anno, especially in light of the calamity then facing the world as a result of the worldwide economic depression at the time he wrote. He did note, as alluded to before, that government intervention is a last resort and one to be undertaken for as limited a time as possible in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Such programs are not meant to provide a cradle-to-grave subsidy from the civil state that has brought Greece and Ireland and Portugal to the point of bankruptcy and has brought social unrest to both France and the United Kingdom. Here is what Pope Pius XI wrote:
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on
account of changed conditions many things which were done by small
associations in former times cannot be done now save by large
associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set
aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just
as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish
by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so
also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and
disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association
what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social
activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the
body social, and never destroy and absorb them.
The supreme authority of the State ought,
therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of
lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly.
Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all
those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them:
directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and
necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the
more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations,
in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger
social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more
prosperous the condition of the State. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)
The establishment and institutionalization of the welfare state has indeed destroyed and absorbed the right ordering of social relations, and the pretended scholars who support it as a matter of veritable "received truth" have indeed attempted to lay aside the principle of subsidiarity in favor by making gratuitous claims as how its programs have "helped" the poor. Their contentions fly in the face of authentic Catholic Social Teaching.
Moreover, there is no foundation in the Constitution of the United States of America for most of the cherished programs that have created a ready caste of voters eager to support candidates of the naturalist "left" in the naturalistic farce that are called elections. Just as the old ward-heelers of the Boss System used patronage and other favors to win lasting support from the voters, particularly among the Catholic immigrants to this country in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, who were dependent upon such jobs and favors, so has it become the case that the welfare state has created a class of dependency that provides the "left" with eager supports who can be "mobilized" into demand the continuation of programs that are unjust in se and even unjust to those so aided as they are kept from ever taking responsibility for their own lives. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, which is a mixture of all kinds of truth and error, politicians as early as the 1830s were beginning to learn how to bribe the people with their own money. It is as true today with respect to the welfare state and those who serve as its propagandists bribe their clients with our money.
Fourth, the hubris of these pretended scholars is astounding to behold. Where was their outrage at the invitation extended by "Father" John I. Jenkins, the President of the University of Notre Dame du Lac, to have the notorious pro-abort named Barack Hussein Obama dishonor the Mother of God to speak there on Sunday, May 17, 2009? Where was their sense of outrage? Where? It did not exist. Why? Because these pretended scholars believe in the manufactured " ("A Consistent Ethic of Life that was created by Joseph "Cardinal" in a speech at Fordham University on December 6, 1983, to advance the interests of then New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo and other Catholic pro-aborts in civil office by claiming that to be "pro-life" one must oppose not only abortion but support government redistribution programs for the "poor" and oppose the death penalty and even the use of armed force when justified to defend one's nation. This was and remains nothing other than smokescreen to advance the cause of social engineering in the name of a false gospel of a false religion, conciliarism.
Well, pretended scholars, the Catholic Church rejects your phony "consistent ethic of life" or "seamless garment." She has spoken in no uncertain terms that those who support the taking of innocent human life in the womb under any circumstances for any reason will answer to God no matter his supposed "concern" for the "poor" with taxpayer monies:
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. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Pretended scholars, you want to believe that you can pursue "social justice" while supporting and enabling those who believe in the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn? You believe in a lie that comes straight from the devil and leads to Hell itself. No nation will receive God's favor, no less know authentic social order, if it permits the direct, intentional killing of even one innocent human being under cover of the civil law at any time for any reason. It is impossible to pursue the peace and happiness in the temporal realm by things that are repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity:
he more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns
itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the
latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the
commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the
use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its
own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same
time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations
as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the
City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an
upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore
is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who
think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than
those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let
human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is
impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things
repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
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. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
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.)
What, pretended scholars? You say that Catholics cannot "impose" their "views" on the rest of society? Moral truth is not imposed. It is. It exists. It is up to human beings to recognize it and abide by it as they seek, despite their fallen human natures, to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, on the wood of the Holy Cross that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. It's that simple. God is, you know, simple, that is. Ah, you don't know? That's the problem, pretended scholars. You don't know Who God is and what He has revealed to us through His true Church.
Oh, pretended scholars, you say that Catholics in public life must follow their "conscience" as they seek to do the "will" of the people? Since when, pray tell, do contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection of the dead on the Last Day become the arbiters or moral right and moral wrong? Well, never mind, pretended scholars, as Pope Leo XIII put away this phony refuge of yours over one hundred twenty-five and one-half years ago now: He put away decisively. You have nowhere to hide:
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.)
Although tomorrow's article, which may have to be written at an equally late hour, will deal with the insane arguments taking place between two "scholars" in Italian who have been attempting to explain away or justify a change or "modification" in Catholic Social Teaching by the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes," suffice it for the moment to note here yet again that it is precisely the abandonment of the true teaching of the Catholic Church about her relationship to the civil state that is one of the most fundamental and elementary proofs of the fact that the conciliar church is but the counterfeit ape of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.
Pope Pius XI made it very clear that the teaching enunciated by his predecessors on the civil state was not invented by him, that it is contained in the Deposit of Faith and must be ever held , and he condemned those who would dissent from it as moral, social and, legal modernists:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and
hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority,
the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital
and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between
Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the
different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of
the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the
Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator,
Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In
spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act
as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not
remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements
which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and
particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and
social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn
It is necessary ever to keep in mind these
teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary
to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of
Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct
understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is
particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who
aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in
which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the
wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to
deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
Any questions, pretended scholars?
Remember readers, few in number though you may be, that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order:
. . 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.)
The pretended scholars who wrote to Speaker Boehner do not believe this. Neither does Speaker Boehner, himself the victim of the diabolical trip that is Americanism, a heresy that has been embraced by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his counterfeit church of conciliarism.
We can plant seeds during this Paschaltide for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King and for the eradication of the errors of Modernity that have been embraced so enthusiastically by the Modernists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who believe in falsehoods that have been that are opposed to natural reason and have been condemned most solemnly (and on many occasions) by the authority of the Catholic Church.
Every Rosary we pray can help plant a seed or two to help bring this about. We may not see the fruits of our efforts with our own eyes. We can, however, have confidence in Our Lady's Fatima Message that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end and that our own Rosaries of reparation will indeed help to convert sinners as we seek to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.
We must be calm in the storms that beset us, both ecclesiastically and civilly. The words of Our Lady to Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill are as relevant now as they were in 1531:
Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God. . . . Here I will show and offer my love, my compassion, my help and my protection to the people. I am your merciful Mother, the Mother of all those who love me, of those who cry to me, of those who have confidence in me. Here I will hear their weeping and their sorrows and will remedy and alleviate their suffering, necessities and misfortunes. . . . Listen and let it penetrate into your heart. . . . Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. So do not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else that you need?
As we remain calm in the midst of the storms as we enfold ourselves in the crossing of Our Lady's arms, we should also remember this injunction of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:
We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.
Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.
May we pray to Our Lady for the day when street signs such as the one below, located just east of Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Sunset, Louisiana, will be found in every community and in every country in the whole world:
Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saints Nereus, Achilleus, Pancras and Domatilla, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints