Showing Libertarianism's True Biases
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Those who exalt the "rights of man" over the rights of Christ the King show their biases every once in a while. Those who reject, completely and utterly, the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that the civil state must recognize her as the true religion and to defer to her in all that pertains to the good of souls, seeking at the same to time to advance the cause of the salvation of the souls of its citizens, show us every now and again that there is no place for public expressions of "denominationalism" in the context of electoral politics. Those who embrace libertarianism, in other words, believe that there is no ultimate authority to which men and their civil society must answer other than themselves and the words of their own constitutions and laws. Men are "free," and there should be as few restrictions on "freedom" as possible.
Alas, as was noted in yesterday's article, Hope Against Hope In But Mere Mortals and Their Dreams, libertarianism's rejection of "limitations" on "freedom" is not in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as those precepts have been entrusted to and taught infallibly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Men are not "free" to do whatever it is they want, no, not even with their own bodies. Men are not the "sovereign" of their bodies. God is the Sovereign of their bodies and souls. Men must act at all times in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been explicated by the one and only true teacher of men on the face of this earth, the Catholic Church. While it is true that the civil state cannot eliminate all of the evil that men do, it is also true that the civil state cannot endorse or be indifferent to the evil that men do, making provisions in its laws and ordinances for the punishment of grievously evil actions that threaten the good of social order and put into jeopardy the spiritual and temporal welfare of others (and thus disordering the whole of society itself).
As I have noted in other articles on this site, there is a distinction between acknowledging the truth that the civil state cannot endorse or be indifferent to the evil that men do and recognizing that it may not be possible at a given time in a given place for the civil state to act as it should for the good of souls. No one, however, is serving the common temporal good of a nation or the eternal good of souls when he asserts as a matter of principle, as opposed to a matter of pragmatic, prudential concessions to the realities of a given moment, that the civil state has no right to impose sanctions, whether criminal or civil, upon those who commit grievously sinful acts that place into jeopardy social order and the good of souls. Such a libertarian contention must be opposed with vigor as erroneous and actually quite demonic as it places individual men on a plane of equality with God, His Laws and His Holy Church.
This all comes to mind, sadly, as a result of the madness inspired by the cult-like adulation being accorded the presidential candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul, a duly elected member of the United States House of Representatives from the State of Texas. Dr. Paul has taken a courageous and principled opposition to the unjust and immoral American invasion and occupation of Iraq. He is also an advocate of reducing the size and scope of the Federal government of the United States of America. Dr. Paul has been censored by the mainstream media, especially by the Fox News Channel, because of his opposition to the Iraq War and because of his ability to articulate his positions coherently in a way that resonates with voters. All well and good. As a Protestant and as a libertarian, however, Dr. Ron Paul takes positions that are odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church and thus are at odds with the common temporal good of civil society as well as the eternal good of souls.
I do not harbor any delusions about "getting through" to those who believe quite mistakenly that Dr. Paul is "our only hope," a blasphemous assertion that arrogates unto a mere mortal the ability to retard the prevailing evils of the day that have their proximate origins of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as a result of the Protestant Revolt and the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry. I do want, however, to leave behind a "permanent record" of how the madness and insanity of the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, semi-Pelagian principles underlying the Modern civil state, especially as exemplified by the founding principles of the United States of America, have caused at least some Catholics to subordinate the immutably binding truths of their Holy Faith to the emotions and electoral exigencies of a given moment in time.
Emotionalism and irrationality are two of the principle byproducts of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. Just look at how many female voters who voted in the New Hampshire Democrat Party primary reacted to United States Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's display of tears at a diner in the Granite State on Monday, January 7, 2008. Many of those female voters believed that Mrs. Clinton was showing her "human" side at long last, causing them to switch their votes for the "historic" candidacy of United States Senator Barack Obama so that they could cast their votes for the "historic" candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who said at her election night rally that the voters of New Hampshire had helped her to discover "her voice." This is madness. And anyone who thinks that naturalism of the "right" or of the "libertarian" bent is going to stop this madness is as out of touch with true reality, that provided by the eyes of the true Faith, as the lemmings on the naturalist "left" who vote almost purely on the basis of how they "connect" with a candidate who is promising "change."
Although Dr. Paul has many interesting things to say, for which he should be commended, his overall view of the role of the civil state and of human liberty is flawed. It is not the basis for the "reform" of society. It is not the basis for stopping the tide of naturalism of "left" that tends in the direction of statism at home and internationalism or globalism or imperialism abroad. A return to "constitutional" principles may sound legitimate. The sad truth is, however, that the Constitution of the United States of America is the instrument that has resulted in delusional belief that men can organize themselves socially without subordinating themselves at all times and in all places without any exception to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and that men can pursue be virtuous in their own lives and civically without having belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. Turn the clock back to 1776 or 1787, my friends, and you will get to where we are in 2008 sooner or later. As a priest in a Motu community mentioned some seven years ago now, "We are witnessing at present the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of the founding principles." Flawed premises always result in bad results. Period.
Pope Leo XIII noted this quite explicitly through his pontificate, doing so in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.
So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue.
Americanists and conciliarists and libertarians just scoff at this clear explication of Catholic truth. Any Catholic who is a true patriot, that is, one who wills the good of his country, which is her Catholicization in all aspects of her national life without any exception whatsoever, will recognize the simple fact that Catholicism is the one and only means by which human beings may order their own lives individually and to provide the foundation for a just social order that keeps uppermost in mind the pursuit of man's Last End.
Dr. Paul, however, has a libertarian bias in favor of the separation of Church and State. He has said that he is "uncomfortable" with talking about religion in public, a manifestation of the American and Judeo-Masonic ethos of religious indifferentism, and he invoked the Soviet sympathizer and penultimate socialist Sinclair Lewis recently to say that,
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Dr. Paul was commenting late last month on pre-Christmas television commercial taped by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee which was set against a background that showed the frame of a "cross" created visually by centering Huckabee in front of bookshelf. Mind you, I carry no brief for Mike Huckabee, a Baptist who is enamored of the "left behind" mythology. And while I admit quite readily that fascism has come to the United States of America, it is not the result of the cross, Dr. Paul. It is the result of the worship of the mythologies of the American founding that you yourself extol as the foundation of "civil liberty."
Those who disagree with those mythologies, Dr. Paul, are denounced in the most strident terms possible as unpatriotic and un-America. I have news for you, Dr. Paul, the standard of what it is to be a true American is to embrace with love Our Lady of Guadalupe's mission for the conversion of the Americas to the Catholic Faith, without which no one and no nation is truly free.
Dr. Paul, the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is the only and only standard of true liberty, personal and social. It is the means by which we have been freed from the power of sin and eternal death. The Cross of the Divine Redeemer must be emblazoned the flags of every nation, accompanied by the images of His Most Sacred Heart and that of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.
Sin, Dr. Paul, is not a human "right." No one has the moral or civil "right" to sin. One has the physical ability or potentiality to choose to commit a sin. One has no "right" to commit a sin. The civil state has no authority founded in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to reaffirm people in their sins, no less to extol them as a "civil right" or to be indifferent to the harm that sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance do to the common good of society. Sin is what caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the God-Man, to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be thrust through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow. The Cross of the Divine Redeemer is the means of our liberation from the power of sin and eternal death. Each man and each nation should be proud to raise this standard of true liberty, indeed, the very foundation of civilization itself, as high as possible.
Yet, Dr. Paul, you say that people have the "right" to do with their bodies as they please. You are wrong. We are not "sovereign" over our bodies, which must be subjected at all times to God's eternal laws. Each of us is a sinner. None of us is any better than our fellow sinners. Each of us is in need of availing ourselves of the ineffable Mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance to be washed free of any Mortal Sins committed after Baptism and to receive Sanctifying Grace to be strengthened in a our daily battle against our Venial Sins and faults. It is wrong to assert over and over again that people have the "right" to do with their bodies as they please. They have no such right.
A woman, for example, has no "right" founded in the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law to use contraceptives of any kind. Pharmaceutical companies have no "right" to manufacture or to distribute contraceptives for sale. Physicians such as yourself, Dr. Paul, have no "right" to prescribe contraceptives of an type. Why? Because God says so, that's why. It's that simple. The Catholic Church, which alone speaks for God as He has revealed to her everything pertaining to His Divine Positive Law and the precepts of the Natural Law that flow therefrom, has explicated this for all men quite clearly.
Yet you, Dr. Paul, have admitted prescribing the "birth control pill," denying thereby God's absolute Sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of marital relations and participating in the deaths of countless numbers of innocent human beings. You may not believe that "the pill" works as an abortifacient. As noted a few days ago in Secular Saviors to the Naturalist Right, Secular Saviors to the Naturalist Left, medical and scientific evidence proves that your own "judgment" in this matter is wrong. You have therefore slapped God in the face by participating in the grave evil of contraception, which is in se a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, and have wounded Him mystically in the persons of the preborn children who have been killed as a result of the prescriptions that you wrote during your years of medical practice. This is not a matter of the application of the moral principles of what is "extraordinary" or "ordinary" medical care to patients. This is an easy matter: God forbids contraception. Dr. Paul, you are not above God's law.
Mind you, as noted before, each of us is a sinner. I am a terrible, terrible sinner, something that I never write gratuitously and that I express publicly for the sole purpose of acknowledging the fact that I have much in my life for which to make reparation before I die, explaining thereby that I am absolutely no better than anyone else (and, indeed, am a whole lot worse than most, I am afraid to admit). However, it is one thing to be sin and to be sorry, to seek out the Mercy of the Divine Redeemer, to receive Absolution for his sins and to do penance for them, trying to living penitentially as the totally consecrated slave of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to claim that one's objectively sinful actions are not sinful at all and are permitted in the name of "liberty." It is even worse to promote the "right" to sin and to believe that grievously sinful actions (abortion, which you, Dr. Paul, contend could be permitted by state legislatures in accord with the "will" of the people, perversity, contraception, pornography, blasphemy) are the "right" of human beings that must not be "interfered with" by the civil state.
Pope Pius XI, writing in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, condemned the contraceptive practices that you have endorsed in your medical practice and which you have refused to stop as a public servant (including your support for the so-called "Plan B Emergency Contraceptive"):
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.
There are times, Dr. Paul, when the authority of government must step in to stop people from doing those things that are offensive to God and thus harmful to themselves, both temporally and eternally, and harmful as well to the common temporal good of society. You invoke "states' rights," as alluded to earlier, to deal with the daily slaughter by surgical means of innocent preborn babies in the United States of America each and every day. Dr. Paul, this is not even good American "constitutional" theory. A solid case can be made on the sole grounds of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that the inviolability of innocent preborn life is protected by the terms of our naturalistic Constitution. Even if one does not accept that view of constitutional theory, it is not a violation of "states' rights" for a national or central government to seek to stop the shedding of innocent blood as soon as possible, which is what a no-exceptions amendment to the Constitution of the United States was aimed to accomplish. A violation of "states' rights"? State governments have no "right" to violate the law of God, Dr. Paul. And, indeed, do not the vaunted states have a constitutional role to play in the ratification of amendments (either by means of state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions as would be specified by the Congress of the United States according to the terms of Article V of the Constitution)?
No, Dr. Paul, although you are personally opposed to abortion, you have also personally participated in chemical abortions and have participated in the very contraceptive mentality that has resulted in surgical abortions, the social and spiritual consequences of which cannot even begin to be detailed here. No one has the "freedom" or the "liberty" to commit these grave crimes against God and man.
Furthermore, Dr. Paul, you err most grievously in your stand concerning perverse "unions." Although you noted quite correctly in your recent interview (a link to which was sent to me by a reader of this site) with John Stossel, himself a professed libertarian, of ABC News that it was not until a little over a hundred years ago in the United States of America that civil governments began to issue "marriage licenses" (actually, the practice of the civil marriage license began in Protestant England under Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753), explaining that the civil government has no role to play in marriage, your acceptance of the heresy of "religious liberty" led you to tell Mr. Stossel that it is up to individual "religions" to determine who to "marry," meaning that those engaged in unrepentant perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments could be "married" privately by a religious denomination of their choosing. This is not so.
Religious "freedom" or religious "liberty" is a shibboleth. There is no such liberty. Pope Pius VII explained this in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814:
But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."
While the Catholic Church teaches that it may be necessary to tolerate the private holding of false religious beliefs, adherents of false religions do not have a "right" to propagate their false beliefs publicly or to do anything in any way that is contrary to common moral good of society. Endorsing any sort of "union" between members of the same gender, no matter what nomenclature might be used to describe such an illicit relationship, is contrary to God's laws and must be forbidden by the civil state. The toleration of false religious beliefs does not mean that the civil state must be indifferent to false practices endorsed by those religions that give credence to one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, of which the Sin of Sodom is one.
Indeed, the Catholic Church has long taught that the civil state should take severe measures against those caught in the Sin of Sodom. Pope Saint Pius V put the matter this way in
Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568:
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.
The civil state has no "right" to interfere with "free association," some starry-eyed libertarians contend? Then Pope Saint Pius V must have had it wrong when he said that the death penalty was to imposed by the secular authority "as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss." And lest someone try to disprove this point by quoting some isolated passage from Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, it should be pointed out that Pope Saint Pius V was a Dominican and thus was very well versed in the Summa and its provisions concerning the authority and the limits of the civil state, and had the grace and the guidance of the Holy Ghost as he sat on the Chair of Peter.
I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that the civil authority has the absolute right to stop "free associations" that come to public light, no less are "endorsed" by a false religion (including those instances where conciliar "priests" have "blessed" perverse unions), that are gravely harmful to the common moral good of society. This is not Puritanism, thank you very much. This is Catholicism, as Pope Pius XI noted in Casti Connubii, December 30, 1931:
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.
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.
It is not enough to say that the "fight for marriage" must be fought at the state level and that a recognition of the decisions of some state legislatures and state courts in favor of perverse "unions" or "marriages" must not be imposed upon other states. One must reject the contention that any social body, whether public or private, can confer any kind of "recognition" to "unions" between those engaged in perversity. Alas, you see, one who embraces the false notion of "religious liberty" cannot bring himself to admit that the civil state has the right to prohibit the practices of false religions that are grievously injurious to the temporal good of citizens and place into jeopardy their own eternal good, which it has a positive obligation under God's immutable laws to foster.
Dr. Paul, you seem to be ambivalent about whether perverse behavior is sinful, as you indicated in an interview given to John Lofton five months ago now:
Is homosexuality a sin? Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
Does he believe God says homosexuality is a sin? “Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.” I point out that, Biblically-speaking, all human beings are made in God’s image but not all are God’s children; some people are children of the devil. For example, in John 8:44ff, Jesus tells some folks they believe He is not God because their father is the devil.
Re: Paul having said that President Clinton’s “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy concerning homosexuals in our military is “a decent policy” and that he, as President, would retain it, I ask him, why, instead, wouldn’t he have said something like this:
Unrepentant homosexuals and adulterers, and others in these kinds of categories, are not decent people, they are people with flawed characters. Therefore, to the extent humanly possible, as President, I would attempt to seek to bar such persons of poor and bad character from our military.
Paul says well, for every homosexual problem we have in our military we also have a heterosexual problem. I agree saying fine, so both types should be banned. I ask: why not try — as far as is humanly possible — to ban from our military all homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators? He says: “Well,…we’re all imperfect, we all sin. If the heterosexual or the homosexual sins, that to me is a category dealing with their own soul. Since we can’t have only perfect people go in the military, I want to separate the two because I don’t want to know the heterosexual flaws or the homosexual flaws….For the practicality of running a military, I’d just as soon not know every serious thing that any heterosexual did or any homosexual did. And those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and every one of us have those imperfections and we all are sinners.”
I reply: “Well, we’re all sinners but some people do work harder at their sin than others. Some are repentant sinners fighting their sin; and others like unrepentant homosexuals are marching down Main Street saying that they are proud that they are homosexuals — these are not people who are merely sinners.”
I ask: If we both want people in our military of good moral character, how do we find out before they go in if they in fact are of good moral character? Isn’t it better to find this out before people are in our military?
Paul: “Well, I think it’s virtually impossible if you are looking for perfection in good moral character —”
Me: “I’m not” [looking for perfection.]
Paul: “Maybe you’re looking for perfection — you have to define good moral character —”
Paul: “And that means people don’t lie, cheat, steal, murder, they don’t beat their wives, and they’ve taken care of their kids.”
Paul: “And so if you can find people like that then you know they may not be perfect but they would be of moral character that could be in our military.”
I tell him I believe God will not bless any military that’s full of unrepentant homosexuals, adulterers and fornicators. He does not reply to this observation.
Dr. Paul is wrong on many counts, starting with his assertion that people are born with perverse inclinations. He is just as wrong about this as he is in his fallacious contention that the birth control pill does not act as an abortifacient in many instances. The contention that perverse inclinations are something that people are "born with" is asserted in the Catechism of the Conciliar Church, to be sure. However, this assertion is without scientific foundation. The Catholic Medical Association has done an excellent study to refute this assertion, maintaining that such inclinations are acquired, not innate, that can be changed with God's grace and intensive therapy. (See: HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOPE: Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association. There is much good work being done by ordinary Catholics who remain in the conciliar structures, believing that those structures can be "reformed." They are wrong about this. One must be able, however, to recognize, accept and applaud valid, if not groundbreaking, research being done by our fellow Catholics in these important areas, including the bioethical issues raised by the rise of medical technologies that could not have been imagined as late as a half century ago.)
Dr. Paul has reached his conclusion anecdotally, not scientifically. He is wrong about why people are inclined to acts of perversity: they have chosen to be this way. The Homosexual Collective has spread all manner of propaganda to convince people that their behavior is innate, not acquired, seeking to brainwash children in public and in parochial schools about the fact that it is just as normal to be "perversely" inclined as it is to for a man to be attracted to a woman and vice versa. (See Randy Engel's The Rite of Sodomy.) Those who succumb to this propaganda are part of the problem, not part of the solution, which is to be found in seeking the conversion of all men and nations to the Catholic Church.
Moreover, Dr. Paul is wrong in endorsing the wretched William Jefferson Blyth Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with respect to perverts, both those who are merely perversely inclined and those who engage in perverse acts, in the armed forces of the United States of America. A nation must be served by men of upright moral character. Perverse inclinations demonstrate a grave disorder that disqualifies one from service in the military, to say noting of what Dr. Paul is oblivious to, that is, placing such men in what are near occasions of sin for them. No, anyone perversely inclined and/or engaged in perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments does not belong in the military forces of any nation.
What about those who engage in natural vices against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? Well, the codes of conduct for the various branches of the armed forces of the United States of America have long established that such vices can be grounds for discipline and possibly court-martial proceedings. The fact that such vices have been on the rise in recent years is because of the integration of women in the armed forces with men. Women do not belong in the armed forces with men. They do not belong in combat. God did not make women to serve in combat.
Yes, God made an exception with Saint Joan of Arc, who dressed as man so as to protect her chastity. In normal circumstances, however, women are not meant to serve in the active duty or reserve military next to men, no less to serve in combat positions. An article I wrote in 1993 for The Wanderer, "Dressed to Kill", discussed this in great detail. While it is sadly the case that many men in the military act immorally without the near occasions of sin represented by women in their work environment, the problem of an increase in natural vice in the armed forces of the United States of America is directly traceable to the feminism and egalitarianism of the anti-Incarnational ethos of Modernity and the rise of the religiously indifferentist, civilly pluralistic state.
This is "our hope" for the United States of America, my friends? A man who believes that the issue of perversity is "too complex" to determine whether it is a sin? Oh, please, ladies and gentlemen, where have you left your sensus Catholicus? Is not the Sin of Sodom one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?
Similarly, Dr. Paul would not restrict pornography, which is again considered to be a "right" of free people. Dr. Paul believes that attempting to enforce virtue would lead to "totalitarianism." Talk about confusion. That which is contrary to the good of souls has no right to be brought before the eye of man, no less favor with the protection of the law. Once again, popes, true popes (not the false ones who have made their "reconciliations" with the false principles of Modernity and are thus fawned over by many Catholic libertarians for having done so), have spoken on this matter clearly: nothing contrary to the good of souls may be sanctioned by the civil state or favored with the protection of the laws:
So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.
Whether or not you realize it, Dr. Paul, this binds yours conscience. This binds the consciences of all men on the face of this earth, including that of the conciliar Modernists themselves. This is not totalitarianism. This is the proper exercise of the authority of the Social Reign of Christ the King as the one and only foundation for the just society is the right ordering of souls in accordance with the truths of the Catholic Faith and by means of a fervent cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. I want to hear just one libertarian Catholic say publicly that this is not so, that the Catholic Faith is not the one and only means of personal and social order. Come on, just one. Come on and out and say that the true Faith is not essential to personal salvation and thus essential to social order, making, therefore making liars out of the true popes of the past who gave us such eloquent defenses of the immutable rights of Christ the King.
Pope Gregory XVI, who is never cited by the conciliarists at all, explained the matter this way in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine."We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.
You see, ladies and gentlemen, Catholic popes have condemned the very spirit underlying libertarianism. The Catholic Faith is only guide to our salvation and to social order, not a "philosophy" that exalts the "rights" of man over the binding laws of the Blessed Trinity--God, the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. How much clearer does it have to be for people see that men do not have the right to speak and to print at will those things that are offensive to God, contradictory of His truths or actually supportive of sins of various types?
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Libertas, June 20, 1888, explained that the civil state had to suppress evils contrary to the good of souls:
We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which -- as We have before said and must again and again repeat -- it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often to discover it and make it known.
A like judgment must be passed upon what is called liberty of teaching. There can be no doubt that truth alone should imbue the minds of men, for in it are found the well-being, the end, and the perfection of every intelligent nature; and therefore nothing but truth should be taught both to the ignorant and to the educated, so as to bring knowledge to those who have it not, and to preserve it in those who possess it. For this reason it is plainly the duty of all who teach to banish error from the mind, and by sure safeguards to close the entry to all false convictions. From this it follows, as is evident, that the liberty of which We have been speaking is greatly opposed to reason, and tends absolutely to pervert men's minds, in as much as it claims for itself the right of teaching whatever it pleases -- a liberty which the State cannot grant without failing in its duty. And the more so because the authority of teachers has great weight with their hearers, who can rarely decide for themselves as to the truth or falsehood of the instruction given to them.
Admitting that it may not be possible at a particular in time, such as ours at present, to realize this in concrete terms, it is nevertheless necessary to articulate these truths clearly so that people will not be under any false impression that they are "free" to do things contrary to right reason, the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law--and thus contrary to the good of their own immortal souls and to the good of society. Indeed, we have a positive obligation to explicate these truths clearly. Those who support the very errors enumerated by the true popes are, all "good" intentions to the contrary notwithstanding, enemies of the just social order.
Pope Leo XIII explained our duties as Catholics quite clearly in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:
Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.
Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters, for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.
As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men." This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.
Hence, they who blame, and call by the name of sedition, this steadfastness of attitude in the choice of duty have not rightly apprehended the force and nature of true law. We are speaking of matters widely known, and which We have before now more than once fully explained. Law is of its very essence a mandate of right reason, proclaimed by a properly constituted authority, for the common good. But true and legitimate authority is void of sanction, unless it proceed from God, the supreme Ruler and Lord of all. The Almighty alone can commit power to a man over his fellow men, nor may that be accounted as right reason which is in disaccord with truth and with divine reason; nor that held to be true good which is repugnant to the supreme and unchangeable good, or that wrests aside and draws away the wills of men from the charity of God.
Hallowed, therefore, in the minds of Christians is the very idea of public authority, in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the Divine Majesty, even when it is exercised by one unworthy. A just and due reverence to the laws abides in them, not from force and threats, but from a consciousness of duty; "for God hath not given us the spirit of fear."
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." 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."
Wherefore, to love both countries, that of earth below and that of heaven above, yet in such mode that the love of our heavenly surpass the love of our earthly home, and that human laws be never set above the divine law, is the essential duty of Christians, and the fountainhead, so to say, from which all other duties spring. The Redeemer of mankind of Himself has said: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." In like manner: "I am come to cast fire upon earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?'' In the knowledge of this truth, which constitutes the highest perfection of the mind; in divine charity which, in like manner, completes the will, all Christian life and liberty abide. This noble patrimony of truth and charity entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Church she defends and maintains ever with untiring endeavor and watchfulness.
But with what bitterness and in how many guises war has been waged against the Church it would be ill-timed now to urge. From the fact that it has been vouchsafed to human reason to snatch from nature, through the investigations of science, many of her treasured secrets and to apply them befittingly to the divers requirements of life, men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by this delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled; from nature, they maintain, we must seek the principle and rule of all truth; from nature, they aver, alone spring, and to it should be referred, all the duties that religious feeling prompts. Hence, they deny all revelation from on high, and all fealty due to the Christian teaching of morals as well as all obedience to the Church, and they go so far as to deny her power of making laws and exercising every other kind of right, even disallowing the Church any place among the civil institutions of the commonweal. These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them. Whence it comes to pass that in many countries Catholicism is either openly assailed or else secretly interfered with, full impunity being granted to the most pernicious doctrines, while the public profession of Christian truth is shackled oftentimes with manifold constraints.
Under such evil circumstances therefore, each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith inviolate in the depths of his soul, avoiding all risks, and arming himself on all occasions, especially against the various specious sophisms rife among non-believers. In order to safeguard this virtue of faith in its integrity, We declare it to be very profitable and consistent with the requirements of the time, that each one, according to the measure of his capacity and intelligence, should make a deep study of Christian doctrine, and imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be of those matters that are interwoven with religion and lie within the range of reason. And as it is necessary that faith should not only abide untarnished in the soul, but should grow with ever painstaking increase, the suppliant and humble entreaty of the apostles ought constantly to be addressed to God: "Increase our faith.''
But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. Now, faith, as a virtue, is a great boon of divine grace and goodness; nevertheless, the objects themselves to which faith is to be applied are scarcely known in any other way than through the hearing. "How shall they believe Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Since, then, faith is necessary for salvation, it follows that the word of Christ must be preached. The office, indeed, of preaching, that is, of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely, of the bishops whom "the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God.'' It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all that pertains to morals and faith.
Some have argued with me by saying that "Ron Paul is not running for pope." This old line, which was used against me when I was running against then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the New York State Right to Life Party's senatorial nomination in 1998, is nothing other than a sophomoric red herring used by Americanists to justify their own immersion in the fraud that is American electoral politics. No candidate for running for elected office is "running for pope." He is running for the Divine favor with every word he speaks. He is running for Heaven, in other words. Every word he speaks must be true. He must never utter falsehoods of fact, many of which are momentary mistakes and can be corrected easily, of course, or, much more importantly, base his entire worldview upon false philosophical premises that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and have been proved to be in actual point of fact disastrous for the right ordering of men and their nations. Those who reaffirm people in false premises are doing grave damage to society, misusing the power of speech that God gave them to reaffirm people in error. Although I am not for one moment judging Dr. Paul's subjective culpability for the errors that he propagates, the plain truth of the matter is that he is steeped in erroneous views that his current platform as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of American is permitting him to broadcast far and wide. That Catholics are enabling--and apologizing for, if not openly justifying--these erroneous views is so very sad.
Indeed, Catholics must take all leave of their senses to look the other way as Dr. Paul states that human beings have the "right" to take hallucinogenic substances as long as they do not "hurt" anyone else. No such "right" exists.
Our bodies at the temples of the Holy Ghost. We do not have any moral "right" to pollute our bodies with substances that are in se hallucinogenic and thus meant to deprive us of our rational faculties and to lose grip with reality itself as we become addicted to the "pleasure" provided by such stimuli. We are not meant to spend our lives in the pursuit of a never-ending "high" produced by hallucinogenic substances. It is a Mortal Sin against the Fifth Commandment to pollute one's body in this way. We are to spend our lives doing God's will for in the particular states-in-life in which we find ourselves, offering up whatever pains and difficulties, whether physical or emotional or both, to Him through His Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We are not, under any circumstances, to "escape" from reality by the use of hallucinogenic substances.
Marijuana, for example, is addictive of its very nature. It saps the ability of people to concentrate on their work and to focus on their responsibilities. It is indeed the "highway" to all other hallucinogenic substances. Marijuana and heroin and other hallucinogenic substances are different from wine and other alcoholic beverages which, when consumed in moderation, do not produce a lessening of one's rational faculties. Drinking alcoholic beverages to the point of getting drunk is itself a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, and a grave threat to public order, which is why there are laws against driving while under the influence of alcohol. Those who use hallucinogenic substances make themselves a threat to others, they are incapable over the course of time of performing well in their chosen profession or vocation and those who are married wind up destroying their families, resulting in grave social disorder, including violent crimes committed by those in various states of delusion produced by hallucinogenic substances. The civil state has the authority and the obligation to make sure that such substances are indeed criminalized and that those who take them are penalized according to the exigencies of varying circumstances.
Dr. Paul argues that existing drug laws have been a failure, which is indeed true. They have been a failure, however, not because it is impossible enforce them. Existing drug laws have been a failure because there is a demand for them produced by the fact that people are seeking to "escape" from the reality of their own lives and/or the world rather than to accept everything that happens to them as coming from the hand of God Himself, Who provides them with all of the sufficient graces necessary to offer up their crosses to Him through His Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. In other words, the demand for hallucinogenic drugs is just another manifestation of what happens in a world where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not recognized as King and His Most Blessed Mother is not honored publicly as our Immaculate Queen, especially by means of public Rosary Processions organized by the civil state.
There are those who may retort by saying that all of this may very well be true, but that Representative Paul has at least a few important things right and is being denied access to much of the "mainstream" media because he is articulating a principled opposition to the Iraq War and the entire direction of American foreign policy as well as opposing the involvement of the Federal government in areas where it has no authority, constitutional or otherwise, to act. My response is quite simple: lots of people get some of the "details" of current problems. This does not mean that we should be enabling them by overlooking (or making excuses) for the very false premises upon which they seek to reaffirm men in the delusional belief that they have the "liberty" to do with their bodies as they see fit and that the civil state has no obligation to repress those things that are grievously injurious to the good of souls and thus disruptive of social order itself.
To point all of this out yet again is not disparage the good intentions of Dr. Paul. It is to point out that he is sadly mistaken, and that his recent quotation of the Soviet sympathizer and socialist Sinclair Lewis demonstrates a fundamental libertarian bias against the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as It must be lifted high by the Catholic Church as the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Dr. Paul, along with all other libertarians and Americanists and conciliarists, rejects this beautiful, eloquent summary of Catholic Social Teaching contained in Paragraph Three of Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
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."
Unfortunately, sharing the bias of the American founders themselves, Dr. Paul believes, as do most other libertarians, that the organization of the civil state around a particular religious denomination is a recipe for tyranny. He is so tragically mistaken. The organization of the civil state around the true religion, Catholicism, is the necessary precondition, although far from an absolute guarantor (given the vagaries of fallen human nature), of the establishment and maintenance of a just social order.
Pope Leo XIII explained in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that it was the Catholic Church that provided the foundation social order in the Middle Ages, and that it was the rejection of her authority that resulted in the rise of naturalism and the anti-Incarnational civil state that dances to the tune of the deification of man and his "rights:"
Admirably, according to his wont, does St. Augustine, in many passages, enlarge upon the nature of these advantages; but nowhere more markedly and to the point than when he addresses the Catholic Church in the following words: "Thou dost teach and train children with much tenderness, young men with much vigor, old men with much gentleness; as the age not of the body alone, but of the mind of each requires. Women thou dost subject to their husbands in chaste and faithful obedience, not for the gratifying of their lust, but for bringing forth children, and for having a share in the family concerns. Thou dost set husbands over their wives, not that they may play false to the weaker sex, but according to the requirements of sincere affection. Thou dost subject children to their parents in a kind of free service, and dost establish parents over their children with a benign rule. . . Thou joinest together, not in society only, but in a sort of brotherhood, citizen with citizen, nation with nation, and the whole race of men, by reminding them of their common parentage. Thou teachest kings to look to the interests of their people, and dost admonish the people to be submissive to their kings. With all care dost thou teach all to whom honor is due, and affection, and reverence, and fear, consolation, and admonition and exhortation, and discipline, and reproach, and punishment. Thou showest that all these are not equally incumbent on all, but that charity is owing to all, and wrongdoing to none." And in another place, blaming the false wisdom of certain time-serving philosophers, he observes: "Let those who say that the teaching of Christ is hurtful to the State produce such armies as the maxims of Jesus have enjoined soldiers to bring into being; such governors of provinces; such husbands and wives; such parents and children; such masters and servants; such kings; such judges, and such payers and collectors of tribute, as the Christian teaching instructs them to become, and then let them dare to say that such teaching is hurtful to the State. Nay, rather will they hesitate to own that this discipline, if duly acted up to, is the very mainstay of the commonwealth."
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.
Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.
The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.
And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.
Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named -- and for the time being they are greatly in favor -- it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony. They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government. If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State.
Their object in uttering this cry is to be able to violate unpunished their plighted faith, and in all things to have unchecked control. And as the Church, unable to abandon her chiefest and most sacred duties, cannot patiently put up with this, and asks that the pledge given to her be fully and scrupulously acted up to, contentions frequently arise between the ecclesiastical and the civil power, of which the issue commonly is that the weaker power yields to the one which is stronger in human resources.
Accordingly, it has become the practice and determination under this condition of public polity (now so much admired by many) either to forbid the action of the Church altogether, or to keep her in check and bondage to the State. Public enactments are in great measure framed with this design. The drawing up of laws, the administration of State affairs, the godless education of youth, the spoliation and suppression of religious orders, the overthrow of the temporal power of the Roman Pontiff, all alike aim to this one end -- to paralyze the action of Christian institutions, to cramp to the utmost the freedom of the Catholic Church, and to curtail her ever single prerogative.
Now, natural reason itself proves convincingly that such concepts of the government of a State are wholly at variance with the truth. Nature itself bears witness that all power, of every kind, has its origin from God, who is its chief and most august source.
The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.
The tyranny of the modern state is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King. The Catholic Church kept the civil potentates of the Middle Ages in line, although not without difficulty frequently and not without some of those potentates making war against her (see King Philip IV of France and his attack upon Pope Boniface VIII). The removal of the check provided by the Catholic Church in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King is what produced monarchical tyranny in Protestant Europe (and prompted some Catholic potentates, such as Louis XIV in France and Joseph of Austria, to act tyrannically, knowing that they could take advantage of the Church's weakened position following the Protestant Revolt by threatening to take their kingdoms or empires out of the Church and into Protestantism) and thus the tyrannical monster state of the French Revolution and of Bolshevism and of most of the governments of the world today, including that of the United States of America.
Pope Pius XII, while admitting the imperfections of Christendom, explained how the convulsions produced by the overthrowing of the Chair of Peter resulted in darkness descending upon the world:
The denial of the fundamentals of morality had its origin, in Europe, in the abandonment of that Christian teaching of which the Chair of Peter is the depository and exponent. That teaching had once given spiritual cohesion to a Europe which, educated, ennobled and civilized by the Cross, had reached such a degree of civil progress as to become the teacher of other peoples, of other continents. But, cut off from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not a few separated brethren have gone so far as to overthrow the central dogma of Christianity, the Divinity of the Savior, and have hastened thereby the progress of spiritual decay.
The Holy Gospel narrates that when Jesus was crucified "there was darkness over the whole earth" (Matthew xxvii. 45); a terrifying symbol of what happened and what still happens spiritually wherever incredulity, blind and proud of itself, has succeeded in excluding Christ from modern life, especially from public life, and has undermined faith in God as well as faith in Christ. The consequence is that the moral values by which in other times public and private conduct was gauged have fallen into disuse; and the much vaunted civilization of society, which has made ever more rapid progress, withdrawing man, the family and the State from the beneficent and regenerating effects of the idea of God and the teaching of the Church, has caused to reappear, in regions in which for many centuries shone the splendors of Christian civilization, in a manner ever clearer, ever more distinct, ever more distressing, the signs of a corrupt and corrupting paganism: "There was darkness when they crucified Jesus" (Roman Breviary, Good Friday, Response Five).
Many perhaps, while abandoning the teaching of Christ, were not fully conscious of being led astray by a mirage of glittering phrases, which proclaimed such estrangement as an escape from the slavery in which they were before held; nor did they then foresee the bitter consequences of bartering the truth that sets free, for error which enslaves. They did not realize that, in renouncing the infinitely wise and paternal laws of God, and the unifying and elevating doctrines of Christ's love, they were resigning themselves to the whim of a poor, fickle human wisdom; they spoke of progress, when they were going back; of being raised, when they groveled; of arriving at man's estate, when they stooped to servility. They did not perceive the inability of all human effort to replace the law of Christ by anything equal to it; "they became vain in their thoughts" (Romans i. 21).
With the weakening of faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the darkening in men's minds of the light of moral principles, there disappeared the indispensable foundation of the stability and quiet of that internal and external, private and public order, which alone can support and safeguard the prosperity of States.
It is true that even when Europe had a cohesion of brotherhood through identical ideals gathered from Christian preaching, she was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality.
The belief that the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is associated with fascism or any other form of tyranny is one that was expressed rather openly by some of the leading American founders, which is why these men, no matter their "good intentions," must never be extolled as they dared to blaspheme Our Lord and to disparage His very Redemptive Act. How can we extol men who hated Our Lord? How?
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)
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.)
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."—James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr„ April I, 1774
". . . Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."—James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."—-James, Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785
There is also this testimony to American Judeo-Masonic anticlericalism and anti-Catholicism as found in the Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836:
When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.. . .
In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the only true standard of human liberty:
Crucifix, The Church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome, Italy, Sunday, May 22, 2005.
Saint Paul himself explained that we should glory in nothing but the Cross, which is and will always be the means by which men are freed from the tyranny of sin and the power of eternal death, not a Constitution that makes no provision for Christ the King or the authority of His true Church:
But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6: 14.)
Catholics who are subordinating the truths of the Holy Faith to try to square them with libertarianism's bias against the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and against the confessionally Catholic state stand condemned as Modernists by Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:
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 theological modernism.
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)
Catholics are bound to adhere to all that is contained in the great Social Encyclical Letters of the true popes, as Pope Pius XII made clear in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Pope Pius XII reiterated less than four months before he died:
Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions -- such as those which concern social and economic matters -- in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.
This opinion -- it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence -- is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:
"The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so-called 'strictly religious matters'; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.
"By God's appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end."
This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: "All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad -- that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law -- fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church."
Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation. (Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958.)
Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger uses his Modernist application of Hegelianism to exempt himself from all this, believing that truth is never perfectly apprehended by the human mind and that our perception of truth changes over time in light of the circumstances of the moment. Such Modernist reasoning, however, was itself condemned by both Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. Some libertarian Catholics adopt this Hegelian methodology to "explain away" the Social Teaching of the Church. Some libertarian Catholics simply dare to reject the Social Teaching outright as though it is entirely irrelevant, preferring to follow various libertarian "philosophers" and economists to form their judgments about the nature of human liberty and the authority of the civil state. In either case, however, the immutable truths of Catholic Social Teaching remain forever binding upon the consciences of every man on the face of this earth. Those who are ignorant of it, uninterested in learning about it, or actually defiant of do themselves and their fellow citizens and their nations much harm.
It is undoubtedly the case, as noted above, that Dr. Ron Paul is being censored by the "mainstream" media and has been, most certainly, the victim of vote fraud. Why not? A system that is based on fraudulent, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles is going to produce fraudulent vote counts. Why be surprised? Why be shocked? Why be more outraged by this than by a libertarian, who later back pedaled a little bit when confronted with the reality of what he had said, quoting a Soviet sympathizer who hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy Cross, the very Instrument upon Which was wrought our salvation by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood?
Look, I was the victim of vote fraud when I ran against Senator D'Amato in 1998? An attorney on Long Island told me that his "buff card," the document that carries the registration of the voter and his enrollment in a political party in the State of New York, was missing from his election precinct. An attorney in the Bronx told me that he could not pull down the lever of an old-fashioned voting machine to vote for me, that it was locked in the "up" position. Others throughout the State of New York reported similar problems. Was I shocked? Did I make requests of millionaires to fund an investigation? Of course not. I expected fraud to occur. Our Judeo-Masonic system of naturalism is fraught with fraud from beginning to end.
What can we do in the public realm? How about speak the truths of the Catholic Faith clearly and unequivocally? As noted above, the lemmings produced by American public and conciliar schools are going "ga-ga" over their "historic" candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama. One of these two, most likely Clinton, is going to be the next President of the United States of America thanks in no small measure to the policies of President George Walker Bush (Bush 41 gave use Clinton 42; Bush 43 may very well give us Clinton 44). The hour is late. Naturalism of any stripe is not what people need to hear. People need to hear Catholicism. They need to hear the fact that both men and nations need to subordinate themselves at all times to the Catholic Church. They need to be reminded of these stirring words contained in Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique:
This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo.
Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of The Sillon in France contained in Notre Charge Apostolique has application to the very spirit of interdenominationalism or non-denominationalism that is at the heart of Americanism and hence conciliarism's own view of the world:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.
This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism.”
Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them - their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them - a "generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can" When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man - when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.
We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.
Once again, I do not expect that many who read this article, which is just a continuation of two of the past three articles on this site, written this time with Dr. Paul in mind in light of his truly blasphemous invocation of the words of Sinclair Lewis, will agree with its contents. So many are overwrought with emotion and the "rush" of the moment that they will "shoot the messenger," which is perhaps one of the reasons we are getting less donations than usual at the present time (you can't go much lower than zero). All well and good. I do hope, however, that readers in future years will look at the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church with greater respect and submission, coming to understand it is really true that everything must be subordinated to the true faith as Silvio Cardinal Antoniano stated in the Sixteenth Century:
The 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 (quoted in Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
People are either going to accept the fact that it is "impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquility by things repugnant or opposed to the pace of happiness of eternity" or they will not. Most Catholics, quite sadly, do not accept this, preferring to believe a libertarian's claims that men are "free" to do with their bodies as they want, an utterance which is an abject lie straight from the devil that leads men and nations further and further into his clutches.
Perhaps this testimony from Blessed John Southwell, a martyr for the Faith in the horror that remains Protestant England, will help to fortify us in our resolve to pray, to think, to speak and to act as Catholics at all times without counting the costs in human terms:
Good people, I was born in Lancashire. This is the third time I have been apprehended [he as not counting his re-apprehensions], and now being to die, I would gladly witness and profess openly my faith, for which I suffer. And though my time being short, yet that [i.e., what] I shall be deficient in words, I hope I shall supply with my blood, which I will most willingly spend to the last drop for my faith. Neither in my intent in coming into England, nor practice in England, was to act anything against the secular government. Hither I was sent by my lawful superiors to teach Christ's faith, not to meddle with any temporal affairs. Christ sent his apostles; his apostles their successors; and their successors me...My faith and obedience to my superiors is all the treason charged against me; nay, I die for Christ's law, which no human law, by whomsoever made, ought to withstand or contradict.. To follow His holy doctrine and imitate His holy death, I willingly suffer at present this gallows [looking up) I lon on as His Cross, which I gladly take to follow by Dear Saviour... How justly I die, let them look to who have condemned me. It is sufficient for me that it is God's will; I plead not for myself (I came hither to suffer) but for you poor persecuted Catholics I leave behind. (Dr. Malcolm Brennan, Martyrs of the English Reformation, Angelus Press, 1991, pp. 156-157.)
As Blessed John Southwell noted before his execution at the hands of the horrible, bloodthirsty Protestants of England, Catholics will never interfere in those matters of the temporal order that belong solely to the province of the civil state. They will, however, prefer death rather to arrogate unto the state or to "the people" any false "right" to act in ways that are contrary to the good of souls. This is what people need to hear in the year 2008, my friends, not the lie that "the people" can do whatever it is they want with their bodies.
We have a way out of all of this mess, however: Home enthronement to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, replicating Christendom in our homes, especially by our attentiveness to assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds and by our fervent praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. We can replicate Christendom in our own homes by our patient endurance of each and every cross that comes our way, considering it be pure gain, as Saint Paul notes, to glory in the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, the one and only means of true liberty for men in this life and our very passport to Heaven itself:
According to zeal, persecuting the church of God; according to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame. But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ. Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ: And may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ Jesus, which is of God, justice in faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death,
If by any means I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead. Not as though I has already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend, wherein I am also apprehended by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended. But one thing I do: forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before, I press towards the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, this also God will reveal to you.
Nevertheless whereunto we are come, that we be of the same mind, let us also continue in the same rule. Be ye followers of me, brethren, and observe them who walk so as you have our model. For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; Whose end is destruction; whose God is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things. But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ,
Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory, according to the operation whereby also he is able to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3: 6-21):
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, 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.
The Holy Innocents, pray for us.
Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
A painting of the Catholic martyrs of Gorkum, The Netherlands, who were tortured and executed in 1572 by Dutch Calvinists, the theological soul-mates of the "Pilgrims" who came to North America less than half a century later who were so "grateful" that they had had a bountiful harvest in a land where there was no Catholic Mass. (Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel, Monroe, Connecticut, the Feast of Saint Cecilia, Thursday, November 22, 2007.)
Here is a description of their martyrdom as found at the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site:
The year 1572, Luther and Calvin had already wrested from the Church a great part of Europe. The iconoclastic storm had swept through the Netherlands, and was followed by a struggle between Lutheranism and Calvinism in which the latter was victorious. In 1571 the Calvinists held their first synod, at Embden. On 1 April of the next year the Watergeuzen (Sea-beggars) conquered Briel and later Vlissingen and other places. In June, Dortrecht and Gorkum fell into their hands and at Gorkum they captured nine Franciscans. These were: Nicholas Pieck, guardian of Gorkum, Hieronymns of Weert, vicar, Theodorus van der Eem, of Amersfoort, Nicasius Janssen, of Heeze, Willehad of Denmark, Godefried of Mervel, Antonius Of weert, Antonius of Hoornaer, and Franciseus de Roye, of Brussels. To these were added two lay brothers from the same monastery, Petrus of Assche and Cornelius of Wyk near Duurstede. Almost at the same time the Calvinists laid their hands on the learned parish priest of Gorkum, Leonardus Vechel of Bois-le-Duc, who had made distinguished studies in Louvain, and also has assistant Nicolaas Janssen, surnamed Poppel, of Welde in Belgium. With the above, were also imprisoned Godefried van Duynsen, of Gorkum who was active as a priest in his native city, and Joannes Lenartz of Oisterwljk, an Augustinian and director of the convent of Augustinian nuns in Gorkum. To these fifteen, who from the very first underwent all the sufferings and torments of the persecution, were later added four more companions: Joannes van Hoornaer, a Dominican of the Cologne province and parish priest not far from Gorkum, who, when apprised of the incarceration of the clergy ot Gorkum, hastened to the city in order to administer the sacraments to them and was seized and imprisoned with the rest, Jacobus Lacops of Oudenaar, a Norbertine, who after leading a frivolous life, being disobedient to his order, and neglectful of his religious duties, reformed, became a curate in Monster, Holland and was imprisoned in 1572; Adrianus Janssen of Hilvarenbeek, at one time a Premonstratensian and parish priest in Monster, who was sent to Brielle with Jacobus Lacops; and lastly Andreas Wouters of Heynoord, whose conduct was not edifying up to the time of his arrest, but who made ample amends by his martyrdom.
After enduring much suffering and abuse in the prison at Gorkum (26 June-6 July) the first fifteen martyrs were transferred to Brielle. On their way to Dortrecht they were exhibited for money to the curious and arrived at Brielle 13 July. On the following day, Lumey, the commander of the Watergeuzen, caused the martyrs to be interrogated and ordered a sort of disputation. In the meantime the four other martyrs also arrived. It was exacted of each that he abandon his belief in the Blessed Sacrament and in papal supremacy. All remained firm in their faith. Meanwhile there came a letter from William of Orange which enjoined all those in authority to leave priests and religious unmolested. Nevertheless Lumey caused the martyrs to be hanged in the night of 9 July, in a turfshed amid cruel mutilations. Their beatification took place on 14 Nov., 1675, and their canonization on 29 June, 1865. For many years the place of their martyrdom in Brielle has been the scene of numerous pilgrimages and processions. The Martyrs of Gorkum
One will notice that the Calvinists, ever eager to make a buck--or the Dutch equivalent thereof, charged admission for the curious to see the martyrs, who would not renounce their belief in the Blessed Sacrament and in papal supremacy. It is that very truth of papal supremacy that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is prepared to "discuss" with the heretical and schismatic Orthodox on the basis of The Ravenna Document. Today the Orthdox and tomorrow the descendants of the Dutch Calvinists and all other Protestants.
Remember this and remember it well: where there is no Mass there is no Christianity. We must seek to plant the seeds for the Catholicization of the United States of America, never ever seeking to lionize people who rejected the true Faith and whose heresies helped to pave the way for the social problems we face today.