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

              October 18, 2011


Still Only Themselves to Blame

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although the administration of Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus has jettisoned a key provision of ObamaCare, the so-called Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program, after its officials came to realize that, contrary to all of their protestations up to this point, that it would not be self-financing and would, once again contrary to all of their previous assertions, be a budget buster that would help to further weaken the national economy, our reigning caesar and his minions are still committed to implementing as much as their socialist program that is amoral from beginning to end.

To wit, President Barack Hussein Obama himself has personally justified a very restrictive conscience clause that would make it impossible for supposedly Catholic institutions (which, of course, are actually in the control of the conciliar revolutionaries) to refuse to provide insurance coverage for "family planning" services, including contraception and sterilization. Coverage would be required for the so-called Plan B emergency contraceptive, a chemical abortifacient, whose over-the-counter sales to women over eighteen years of age was approved by the "pro-life" administration of Caesar Emeritus Georgii Bushus Ignoramus on August 24, 2006 (see FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Older and Bush the Lesser in a Coiffure). Some conciliar "bishops" are aghast that Obama, most of whom supported the general concept of ObamaCare as in accord with their warped understanding of Catholic Social Teaching, has not kept his word to them that he would not force their institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization.

The conciliar officials are worse than fools. Some of them really believed that Barack Hussein Obama was interested in what they had to say to him. Believing in the terminal lunacy that is "dialogue," they believed that they could "reason" with a consummate liar and statist, a man who believes that his ideas are received from "on high" (they actually come from and are inspired by the forces "below"), into providing them with the sort of conscience clause that they could have accepted.

Remember, only several conciliar "bishops," Robert Vasa of Baker City, Oregon, and Walter Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, opposed ObamaCare as a matter of principle because it violates the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity (that lower institutions of social life, starting with the family, must attend to the advancement of temporal well-being; see "Bishop" Nickless on ObamaCare). Most the conciliar "bishops" actually believed that Obama was going to give them a fair hearing. Then again, this is no so remarkable when one considers the fact that Ratzinger/Benedict himself and his own top minions keep insisting that Assisi III, which takes place eight days from day, will be "different" because the leaders of the world's "religions" will be praying to their devils separately before joining the false "pontiff" for concluding ceremonies. We are supposed to believe that this does not offend God by reaffirming the "dignity" of false religions as means of praying to and thus pleasing Him. It's not such a far stretch to recognize that men who believe in the madness of conciliarism and who offend God every day as they stage a liturgical service that is abominable in His sight will be gullible to the wiles of statists who ooze with "compassion" for the poor and the marginalized.

Pity the likes, therefore, of Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley (remember him?--Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions), who actually believed that he was "getting through" to Obama when he had the president's ear at the conclusion of the travesty that took place in the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston, Massachusetts, on Saturday, August 29, 2009, as the late pro-abortion, pro-perversity statist, Edward Moore Kennedy, whose long-held goal it was to see the Community Living Assistance Supports and Services program enacted into law and then implemented, was eulogized as a champion of "social justice" even though he supported the slicing and dicing and the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn.

Remember this scene?


Never mind that this scene took place right near where O'Malley believes is the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament. O'Malley believed that he could "reason" with Obama. To turn a phrase upside down, "No, you can't."

Also "shocked" at Obama's intransigence on the matter of mandating that supposedly Catholic institutions provide coverage for contraception and sterilization is the very man who invited him to speak at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, May 17, 2009, later turning a blind eye and a deaf eye to the pleas of Catholics from around the country who were arrested for protesting the presence of this open, unrepentant support of the chemical and surgical killing of babies at the campus of a supposedly Catholic university, no less one named for Our Lady herself, she who carried the Christ Child in her Virginal and Immaculate Womb for nine months (see (Our Lady Does Not Honor Pro-Aborts, No "Common Ground" Between Truth and Error, Persecuting Those Who Defended Our Lady's Honor, Refusing Any Semblance of Mercy and We Must Belong to Our Lady to Go to Heaven). Jenkins supported ObamaCare. He just didn't believe that the man upon whom he bestowed an honorary doctorate would prove to be so "unreasonable:"

NOTRE DAME, Indiana, September 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the Obama administration prepares to force all Catholic employers in the United States to cover contraception, including abortifacient drugs like Plan B and Ella, the president of the University of Notre Dame is asking what happened to the “cooperation and understanding” between ideological opponents that Obama urged during his commencement speech at the university two years ago.



Fr. John Jenkins and President Obama


The new regulations announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 1, which are part of the new health law, will mandate that private insurers cover sterilizations and FDA-approved birth control, including drugs that function by causing early abortions, without co-pay.

The regulations include a “conscience clause” that defines religious employers as those that “primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets,” a definition that excludes nearly all major Catholic organizations, including universities. Comment from the public on the new regulations is being accepted until tomorrow.

Obama had told Notre Dame graduates in May 2009: “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins, the enthusiastic host of Obama’s speech and honorary law degree at the prestigious Catholic institution, has penned a letter to Sebelius dated September 28 expressing concern at the disparity in Obama’s words and the impending mandate.

“May I suggest that this is not the kind of ‘sensible’ approach the president had in mind when he spoke here,” wrote Jenkins in a Sept 28 letter to Sebelius, calling the provision “narrower than any conscience clause ever enacted in federal law.”

He noted that, instead of being drafted from federal law, the regulation clause is drawn from the narrowest known state definition of “religious employer,” which only three states use.

The university president said that he “still stand[s] by that decision” to invite the deeply pro-abortion president, despite the opposition of over 300,000 petitioning Catholics and 80 active U.S. bishops. However, he observed that under the new regulations, Notre Dame would be forced to “offer our students sterilization procedures and prescription contraceptives, including pills that act after fertilization to induce abortions, and to offer such services in our employee health plans.”

“This would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the Church’s moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and students health care plans in violation of the Church’s social teaching,” wrote the priest. “It is an impossible position.” (Notre Dame President to Obama: What Happened to "Sensible" Approach"?)


Opposition to the killing of babies by chemical and surgical means is not an "ideology." It is the duty of all baptized and confirmed members of the Catholic Church to oppose laws that institutionalize the taking of innocent human lives and/or violate the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. The taking of innocent human life and/or the prevention of the conception of children are prohibited by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and no one on the face of this earth may dissent from those laws legitimately, no less seek to enshrine violations of them in the civil law. John Jenkins cannot speak as a Catholic because he does not think like a Catholic. And the institution he heads, from which I received my master's degree in American Government on January 10, 1974, has been in the vanguard of promoting dissent from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as well as undermining belief in almost every single point contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Cynical, calculating street-wise politician from Chicago that he is, Barack Hussein Obama knows that he will take some heat from conciliar officials for proceeding with ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate. This does not matter to him because he is "darn tooting" proud that he is doing so, knowing that large majorities of Catholics in the United States of America support and use contraception of one kind or another. He knows that there will be some "collateral" damage from some conciliar officials. He is willing to take that heat in order to secure his political base in swing states where the 2012 election will be won or lost (and I still contend that, despite the state of the economy, the election is Obama's to lose, especially if the midget naturalists of the false opposite of the "right" wind up nominating the man whose governorship of Massachusetts gave the country the prototype for ObamaCare, Mitt Romney).

Obama knows that that the conciliar "bishops" are toothless paper tigers. After all, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is his vice president, a man who has retained his "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite his nearly four decades' worth of support for the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. (See Lest We Forget, Memo to Joseph Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Their Conciliar Enablers, Fact and Fiction, Fallacies Galore, Just A Personal Visit and "D" Stands For Demagogue.)  And who is Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services? A pro-abortion Catholic whose political career was advanced in no small measure by the blood money of the late George Tiller (The Killer), Kathleen Sebelius. Nothing has happened to Biden or to Sebelius or to Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi or Richard Durbin or Andrew Mark Cuomo or Mario Matthew Cuomo or Robert Menendez or Thomas Harkin or Charles Rangel or George Pataki or Rudolph Giuliani or David Paterson or Christopher Dodd or Patrick Leahy or Tom Ridge or Arnold Schwarzenegger or Susan Collins or any of the other of the legions of Catholic pro-aborts in public life.

It is furthermore the case that Obama knows full well that his contraception mandate will be declared unconstitutional ultimately by the Supreme Court of the United States, at least as currently constituted. Although Obama believes completely in what he is doing, he is seeking to shore up his political base so that they will sit on their hands in next year's elections, hoping that an invigorated base of "leftists" will help to undo the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. This political theater on the stage of naturalism.

Still and all, however, the conciliar 'bishops" and other conciliar officials have only themselves to blame for this state of affairs, and it is their commitment to the Americanist world view is such a fundamental building block of conciliarism that blinds them to this reality.

The conciliar "bishops" do not realize that a civil constitution whose text refuses to recognize the Social Reign of Christ the King must be at the mercy of whoever controls the levers of civil governance at any point in time. There is no stable, enduring means to enforce moral truth on even the level of the Natural Law as the civil government under a religiously indifferentist constitution admits of nothing higher than the text of its own words as the "final" arbiter of what is considered to be legally permissible.

Leaving aside the specific institutional arrangements found in the American Constitution that are within the competency of men to adopt as they see fit, the fatal flaw of the Constitution is that it refuses to recognize the Catholic Church as the true religion and refuses to admit that her bishops have the right to interpose themselves as a last resort when the good of souls demands their intervention. Such a constitution is as defenseless in the hands of legal positivists on a court and/or in the hands of popular majoritarian sentiment as Sacred Scripture is in the hands of Protestants and Modernist Catholics. Each "individual's" interpretation is as good as another. Who is anyone else to say what a particular passage means? There no ultimate authority to decide the matter permanently. What matters ultimately in such a situation is the mere weight of numbers, which can change with the changing of "opinion" from time to time.

Such is not the foundation of a stable social order or any sense of true justice. God is, after all, a Majority of One, and He has spoken exclusively and definitively through the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. He has taught us through His Catholic Church that men and nations must submit to the Deposit of Faith at all times and that the fate of nations is tied to the extent to which their citizens live in accord with that Deposit of Faith and seek to grow in virtue by means of cooperating with Sanctifying Grace. Any governmental system that ignores these truths or is hostile to them will degenerate into barbarism over the course of time.

Alas, the bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States of America in the Nineteenth Century saw the Constitution as a "protection" to the rights of Catholics. Most of them never stopped to consider the fact that the most of the founders of this nation were naturalists who hated the Catholic Church, men who were willing to tolerate Catholics as citizens in the hope that future generations of Catholics would be so "Americanized" that they would think and speak and act just like other citizens, that is, as naturalists. As has been noted on this site before, one of the chief goals of Horace Mann when he proposed the creation of the first state board of education in 1837 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was to "Americanize" the children of the Irish immigrants who were steeped in the "foreign," 'undemocratic" ways of Catholicism.

Many Catholics did indeed plunge themselves headlong into the "American" (or pluralist) ways of egalitarianism and religious indifferentism and materialism and naturalism to such an extent that they saw electoral politics as the means of upward social and economic mobility at a time when many anti-Catholic nativist organizations were persecuting them quite overtly. Politics, not grace, was the means to overcome the assaults of the nativists. And it was the Democrat Party that opened its doors to the Catholic immigrants in the Nineteenth Century (just has it has done to immigrants in our own day) to provide itself with new voters who would work hard for the election of its candidates. This made possible the rise of Catholics through the ranks of ward and precinct level politics to get elected to citywide and statewide offices in many areas. And it is gratitude to the Democrat Party for its "openness" (which was nothing other than an expression of electoral self-interest) that made so many Catholics, including a lot of bishops, content to think that the policies of the Democrat Party and the teaching of the Catholic Church were one and the same.

As noted in Making the Same Tragic Mistakes Again and Again, Catholics in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries became so wedded to the naturalist entity known as the Democrat Party that their many of their bishops became the ready lap dogs of anti-Catholic Presidents and their administrations:

The American bishops did the bidding of the anti-Catholic Woodrow Wilson over and over again, including forming the National Catholic War Council (which transformed itself over the years into what it is at present, the United States Conference of Catholic "Bishops," whose administrative apparatus in Washington, District of Columbia, is full of statists and supporters of perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) to support the unjust involvement of the United States of America in the war of nationalism being fought in Europe, North Africa and parts of Asia, what is now called World War I. Did it matter to these bishops that the man who fully supported the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico wanted to dismember Catholic nations in Europe and replace them with secular, Masonic republics based on the "principles" of American exceptionalism? No, none of this mattered to the bishops. They supported the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. After all, Catholics "have" to vote, right?

Did it matter to the American bishops that the thirty-third degree Freemason Franklin Delano Roosevelt supported policies in full violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931? No. They supported him. They did his bidding for him. They even convinced the future Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, to approve the silencing of the courageous Father Charles Coughlin, who was using his radio program to criticize the Freemason and statist Roosevelt, daring also to name "names" concerning who was behind the increase of the power of the Federal government of the United States of America, that is, the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who adhere to the Talmud. The American bishops continued to do Roosevelt's bidding for him even though this terrible tyrant, who spied on his enemies and used government agencies to crush them as best he could, appointed a disciple of Margaret Sanger, Rexford G. Tugwell, to be the Governor of the Territory of Puerto Rico who supported a program of "voluntary" sterilization of the Puerto Rican people.


The legacy of the likes of James Cardinal Gibbons, the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore who did the bidding of the anti-Catholic Woodrow Wilson, and Francis Cardinal Spellman, who did the bidding of the Freemason Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Richard Cardinal Cushing, who indemnified the Kennedys at every turn, has been carried on in our own day by "bishops" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have refused to discipline pro-abortion Catholics, first in the Democrat Party and later in the Republican Party, while "teaching" that Catholics must consider a "range" of issues, including "support for the poor," as though government redistributionist policies, each of which is based on false naturalistic principles, designed to deal with social problems that have arisen as a result of contraception and divorce, both of which paved the way for abortion, were compatible with Catholic social teaching.

The Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial that the civil state does indeed have this obligation to recognize her as the true religion and pope after pope in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries warned of the devastating consequences that would occur for men and their societies if the rights of Christ the King were violated.

It is one thing, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas, June 20, 1888, to have to make the best of the reality of the modern civil state in order to continue the work of the Church as she ministers to the sacramental and temporal needs of her children in pluralistic societies while at the same time continuing to teach her children the truth of her Social Teaching and to exhort them to plant seeds for the conversion of their fellow citizens and their nation to the true Faith. It is quite another to admit as a matter of principle that the modern, religiously indifferentist civil state is the ideal form of government in and of itself and that it would be wrong to seek a return to Christendom, which is precisely what has been taught by the conciliar "popes" and their conciliar "bishops." This leaves the conciliar "popes" and "bishops" hamstrung in dealing with the symptoms, such as chemical and surgical abortions, of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as they have accepted the underlying revolutionary principles that brought about the rise of the modern civil state and deification of man.

Pope Leo XIII knew that his own encyclical letters Immortale Dei, November 1, 1900, and Libertas and Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, were not, by and large with a few exceptions here and there, being taught by the bishops of the United States of America to their flocks, which is why he wrote the following in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895:

As regards civil affairs, experience has shown how important it is that the citizens should be upright and virtuous. In a free State, unless justice be generally cultivated, unless the people be repeatedly and diligently urged to observe the precepts and laws of the Gospel, liberty itself may be pernicious. Let those of the clergy, therefore, who are occupied with the instruction of the multitude, treat plainly this topic of the duties of citizens, so that all may understand and feel the necessity, in political life, of conscientiousness, self restraint, and integrity; for that cannot be lawful in public which is unlawful in private affairs. On this whole subject there are to be found, as you know, in the encyclical letters written by Us from time to time in the course of Our pontificate, many things which Catholics should attend to and observe. In these writings and expositions We have treated of human liberty, of the chief Christian duties, of civil government, and of the Christian constitution of States, drawing Our principles as well from the teaching of the Gospels as from reason. They, then, who wish to be good citizens and discharge their duties faithfully may readily learn from Our Letters the ideal of an upright life. In like manner, let the priests be persistent in keeping before the minds of the people the enactments of the Third Council of Baltimore, particularly those which inculcate the virtue of temperance, the frequent use of the sacraments and the observance of the just laws and institutions of the Republic.


How many of the conciliar officials who are most justifiably concerned about the mandate to provide health insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization have read these encyclical letters? How many of them understand that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order? How many of them accept the following truths stated by Pope Saint Pius X in 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." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)


Was Pope Saint Pius X wrong? Must the civil state aid man in the pursuit of his Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son and Holy Ghost for all eternity? The Catholic Church teaches that Pope Saint Pius X was correct, that he was merely reiterating truths that have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to her magisterial authority for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. And it was the rejection of these truths by most, although not quite all, of the American bishops of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries that made it possible for the Americanist spirit to be incorporated into Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, both of which were approved on December 7, 1965, at the "Second" Vatican Council, an Americanist spirit that is deeply embedded in the Modernist heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. This Americanist spirit has so infected the average Catholic in the United States of America that moral pronouncements made by conciliar authorities fall on deaf ears in many instances as he has been taught to accept the Judeo-Masonic lie that "one opinion is as good as another" in a free country, revealing yet again the prophetic nature of Saint Augustine's teaching that "the death of the soul is worse than the freedom of error."

Pope Leo XIII, writing near the end of Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, saw that some of the bishops of the United States of America wanted the Church there to be "different" from how she was in the rest of the world:

But if [the term "Americanism"] this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.


That vision of a "different" Church in America was the vision that would lead to the rise of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, a false entity that has made its "reconciliation" with the false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the modern civil state. All of the well-intentioned efforts of various conciliar "bishops," and quite possibly Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, to oppose such evils as the "Freedom of Choice Act" have been made necessary by surrender to false principles, first by the Americanist bishops of yore and then by the conciliarists themselves. And what an irony it is that FOCA has more of a chance to be stopped by the calculated self-interest of career politicians, including Obama himself, than by the conciliarists' efforts to appeal to "religious liberty" and "states' rights."

We must, of course, pray for our country. We must pray that hideous laws and regulations that have the force of law will be thwarted by the intercession of Our Lady, who is the Patroness of this country under her title as the Immaculate Conception. More importantly, however, we must make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Our Rosaries of reparation will help to unite us more fully to the mysteries of salvation upon which we meditate when we salute Our Lady as Saint Gabriel the Archangel did at the Annunciation and proclaim her to be blessed as Our Lady herself spoke in the Magnificat, asking her to pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths. Each Rosary we pray, especially before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, will help us to see the world more clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and to be more willing therefore to plant some seeds for the conversion of men and nations, including our own nation of the United States of America, to the true Faith, outside of which there is salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Consecrating ourselves as always to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may we see beyond the crises of the moment in order to be calm and still in the crossing of Our Lady's arms and in the folds of her mantle. She will help us to get home to Heaven as we seek to be more zealous in behalf of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of herself, Our Immaculate Queen.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon, a triumph that will be heralded by unceasing shouts of:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Luke the Evangelist, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.