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

                 March 17, 2009

Witnesses For Skulls Full of Mush

by Thomas A. Droleskey

You come in here with a skull full of mush, and if you survive, you'll leave thinking like a lawyer. (The fictional law Professor Charles Kingsfield of The Paper Chase.)


Training young minds to think clearly and logically is one of the principal tasks of an educator. One of the signs of a well-trained mind is clarity of speech and clarity of written expression. Those who are trained to think clearly and logically in the Order of Nature are better prepared to accept and then to start to penetrate the truths contained in the Order of Grace as their minds are enlightened and their wills strengthened by the Sanctifying Grace that was won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Well-trained, disciplined minds do not produce endless streams of "you knows" in conversations. Well-trained, disciplined minds do not contradict themselves in their writing or their speech. A well-trained, disciplined mind that sees the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith, thinking always first and foremost about First and Last Things as these have been entrusted to the care of Holy Mother Church for their infallible elucidation, and is always careful to measure the things of this world in light of the world of the Holy Faith.

True, the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin and of our own Actual Sins blinds our intellects and weakens our wills, making it possible for a well-trained and fairly disciplined mind to have "blind spots" about this or that subject, about this or that person, about this or that area of inconsistency and contradiction in his speech and writing. Quite minimally, however, we are supposed to understand that the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction (that two mutually contradictory statements cannot be true simultaneously) is an immutable truth and that we must be careful in our speech and in our writing to avoid contradicting ourselves.

As one who rejects the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, Scholasticism, in favor of the condemned precepts of the "New Theology," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI contradicts himself as he contradicts the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, starting with the very nature of dogmatic truth, a subject covered in the [First] Vatican Council and in Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Ratzinger/Benedict's tendency to contradict himself within the body of his own writing was observed and analyzed in New Oxford Review, whose editors reject sedevacantism:

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. ... Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!

Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.

Ratzinger says, “The relativists ...[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom ...” Huh?

So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality.... Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. ... The Church remains outside’ the State. ... The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth ...”

Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and ... and one must follow it even against authority. When authority - in this case the Church’s Magisterium - speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” A Contradictory Definition of Relativism (See also: Cardinal Ratzinger's Subjectivism.)


Many conciliar officials, "cardinals" and diocesan "bishops" alike, are awash in conciliarism's oceans of contradiction, uttering absurd and illogical comments almost all of the time. This particular phenomenon is on display now at the conference on the ideology of evolutionism that is being sponsored by the conciliar Vatican and the University of Notre Dame as anyone who dares to contradict those who contradict the true science concerning Special Creation have had their microphones taken away them so that the absurdities of the evolutionists may be propagated without opposition. Those who believe that they are descended from apes will act like apes in seeking to keep anyone possessed of solid Scholastic reasoning and true scientific facts from poking holes in a disproved ideology.

The prevalence of illogic, absurdity, irrationality, emotionalism, sentimentality and contradiction in the speech and writing of most people alive today has many sources, starting with the effects of Original Sin and Actual Sin, as noted above. The Protestant Revolution, however, has played its own contributory role in helping to create a world of illogic and irrationality and emotionalism. If individual "believers," who are in and of themselves the "sole interpreters" of the written Word of God in the Bible, can come to mutually contradictory conclusions concerning the meaning of various Scripture passages, there is no universal standard at all, not even logic on the merely natural level, by which men can agree even on matters pertaining to the Order of Nature. If matters pertaining to the Order of Grace can be relativized into meaninglessness by the rejection of visible, hierarchical society created by God Himself to instruct and sanctify all men, then everything in the Order of Nature will also be relativized into meaninglessness.

Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that the Protestant Revolt spread its illogic into the precincts of philosophy, producing a world of religious indifferentism that can have as its only logical consequence the rise and institutionalization of practical atheism as the "lowest common denominator" of a society:

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 very foundation of the modern civil state, based upon the falsehoods of Protestantism and the multifaceted, inter-related naturalistic forces of Judeo-Masonry that have flowed forth from the so-called "Enlightenment," is absurd and illogical, contrary to the principles of even right reason, no less, of course, the binding precepts contained in the Deposit of Faith

Catholics in the United States of America have found themselves the unwitting victims of the effects of the falsehoods of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry even long before the dawning of the age of conciliarism. The very pluralistic environment of the United States of America accustomed Catholics, immersed in the ways of Protestant emotionalism and sentimentality, into "emoting" rather than thinking, expressing themselves in a welter of contradictions and absurdities that are contrary to right reason and to Divine Revelation. Indeed, it is this pluralism, which is so extolled by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that played a very significant role in the development of the conciliar view of "religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and State," both of which have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church, which never wants her children to live in the fog of absurdity and illogic.

We see the Protestant-Judeo-Masonic-Americanist illogic at work in the speech and the writing of pro-abortion Catholics in public life, a subject that has been explored in my own speaking and writing endlessly in the past thirty years (see, for example, Memo to Joseph Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Their Conciliar Enablers and Fact and Fiction and Trapped by Apostasy), as these reprobates support the mystical destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn children in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law.

One of the usual canards that is used to justify this support for the mystical dismemberment and destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of preborn children in their mothers' wombs that has taken the lives of over fifty million babies in the United States of America is "I am personally opposed to abortion but cannot 'impose' my concept of morality upon others."

Can you imagine someone saying the he is "personally opposed to the extermination of Jews" but that he could not "impose" his concept of morality upon others?

Can you imagine someone saying that he is "personally opposed to chattel slavery" but that he cold not "impose" his concept of morality upon others?

Can you imagine someone saying that he is "personally opposed to invidious racial segregation and discrimination" under cover of civil law but that the could not "impose" his concept of morality upon others.

People who made such a bifurcation on the killing of Jews (or any other set of innocent human beings) or on chattel slavery or on racial segregation and discrimination would be denounced for their hypocrisy and cowardice. It is, however, "acceptable" in the modern civil state, including in the United States of America, to support the extermination of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law by chemical and surgical means. Those who bifurcate their "personal" beliefs from their public policy positions in this instance are hailed as "free-thinkers" who are acting within the dictates of their "informed consciences."

Pope Leo XIII exploded this shibboleth in Immortale Dei:

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


End of discussion. Morality is not a matter of our personal "concepts." The morality of human acts is a matter of objective truth found in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It is no more "imposed" upon others than are the laws of nature that govern our bodies. Moral truths exist. They are part of the nature of things. While human beings may disagree as to the specific penalties that the civil law may impose upon those found guilty after due process of law of committing heinous crimes in violation of the precepts contained in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, they cannot "disagree" what what is contained within those precepts any more than they can "disagree" about the binding nature of the law of gravity.

Moral truths exist. One either adheres to them and realizes the benefits of a well-ordered life or violates them and reaps the bitter harvest of discord and chaos in one's immortal soul and in the larger life of one's nation. The sloganeering of the modern world, a fruit of the illogic of Protestantism and the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry, a harkening back to the Sophism of ancient Athens in the Fifth Century before the coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is no substitute for natural reason and it is no substitute for the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith that have been entrusted by this Divine Redeemer to His true Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Conciliarism's accommodation to and acceptance of the pluralistic, religiously indifferentist civil state has contributed greatly to the proliferation of confusion in the minds of ordinary Catholics. Even those Catholics who say that they are "pro-life" do not realize that that label is meaningless if they believe that there is a solitary instance in which the civil law can, as a matter of principle, permit the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life. No one who supports a single, solitary abortion, whether chemical or surgical, under cover of the civil law is "pro-life." Such a person is simply less pro-abortion that those who support baby-killing, both chemical and surgical, on a more widespread, if not unrestricted, basis. The principle of non-contradiction teaches us that one cannot say he is "pro-life" when he believes that there are times when direct action may be taken under cover of the civil law to put an innocent human being to death.

Very few people understand this matter. Very few Catholics understand this matter. Very few Catholics in public life who say that they are "pro-life" understand this matter, having been born and brought up in a country full of absurdity and illogic, having been blinded further by the the counterfeit church of conciliarism's embrace of the absurdity and illogic of the modern world. Veritable witnesses for skulls full of mush walk amongst us.

One of those skulls full of mush belong to the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, a fifty year-old Catholic (which means that he received his primary education right during the midst of the conciliar revolution).Mr. Steele gave an interview to a magazine that is not considered by the "mainstream" media to be pornographic but is in fact such a purveyor of gross indecency that I will not provide a "hot link" to its web page or even mention the "journal's" name. Mr. Steele's interview demonstrates the absurdity and illogic of a world that has dethroned the Social Reign of Christ the King and enthroned the supremacy of man and all of his failings as the final arbiter of right and wrong.

Here is the relevant section of the interview with Mr. Steele that demonstrates the absurdity and illogic that pass so easily into our popular "discourse" and is mistaken for rational thought, interspersed with my own comments and observations:

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.


Oy. Oy. Oy. Mr. Steele, no one has the "right" to"choose" to do evil. One has the physical ability to do evil. One does not have the moral right to "choose" to commit an evil act.

A child, Mr. Steele, is the logical, natural consequence of the fecundity of marriage. There is no "choice" to be made when a child is conceived. There is only a duty to be fulfilled according to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Your belief is erroneous, it is contrary to right reason and to Divine Revelation. No mother has any "choice" to make upon learning that she carries within her womb a child, not even if that child is diagnosed to have some physical abnormality. The Fifth Commandment's absolute prohibition against the taking of innocent human life carries no options. There is no "choice" at all to be made.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.


Mr. Steele said earlier that his mother had a "choice" as to whether or not to carry him to birth when he was conceived. He said, Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice." Moments later, however, he said that the "individual choice rests in the states," contradicting himself without realizing that he had done so. Such is the mush of the modern mind, deformed by the effects of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry and, now, conciliarism.

Once again, Mr. Steele, no human being has any "right" to "choose" to kill an innocent human being. No group of human beings acting within the context of a legislative body has any "right" to "choose" to do so by enacting unjust and immoral legislation to "permit" the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life whatsoever. Human beings, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, have the obligation to observe faithfully the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and to subordinate civil law thereto in all that pertains to the good of souls.

We do not believe in "states' rights," Mr, Steele, in matters pertaining to the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We believe in God's rights. Period.

Consider, Mr. Steele, these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, and understand once and for all no one and no human institution of civil governance has any right to permit the slaughter of the preborn, whether by chemical or surgical means, under the cover of the civil law:

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


This binds your conscience, Mr. Steele. This binds the conscience of every human being on the face of this earth, including those who serve in the Congress of the United States of America and in state legislatures and in the British Parliament and the German Bundestag and the Polish Sejm and Japanese Diet and the Israeli Knesset and the Spanish Cortes and on courts of every jurisdiction imaginable. No exceptions. Catholicism, Mr. Steele, is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Or, perhaps, Mr. Steele, do you know better than Pope Saint Pius X, who wrote the following in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910?

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 mush in Mr. Steele's "modern mind" was displayed yet again when he raised the specter of the late Lee Atwater's "big tent," meant to "tolerate" a "diversity" of "opinions" about abortion within the ranks of the Republican Party, which has been analyzed on this site several times, including in Bob Dole, part trois:

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?


How so?

You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.


Lee Atwater said it best? No, he did not.

Is the Republican Party's "big tent" large enough to hold those who would contend that Jews must be rounded up and exterminated?

Is the Republican Party's "big tent" large enough to hold those who are racialists who would want to bring back chattel slavery and racial segregation under cover of law?

Is the Republican Party's "big tent" large enough to hold those who are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and other Mohammedans intent upon committing wanton acts of violence against Westerners and Western interests?

Why, then, Mr. Steele, is the Republican Party's "big tent" large enough to hold those who believe in the systematic dismemberment and destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ mystically in the persons of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs?

Why is the killing of the preborn a matter of "opinion" while the extermination of Jews and the enslavement of blacks matters of indisputable moral truth that would--and rightly so--disqualify someone from being "welcomed" in your agency of naturalism, the Republican Party?

Consider well, Mr. Steele, the simple fact that a nation that kills the innocent preborn will never know God's favor, God's blessings upon it. Our current economic crisis is but a small part of the chastisement that must be visited upon this country, which is awash in the blood of the innocent preborn. Nations cannot pursue things that are repugnant to God and thus repugnant to the good of souls and realize material prosperity domestically and security from foreign aggressors:

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.(Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)


Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, was then asked whether the Republican Party was more welcoming to pro-death advocates that the Democratic Party is to those who are "pro-life:"

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?

Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.


This is certainly true. The Republican Party has been very "open" and "tolerant" of those who support the mystical dismemberment and destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs. What Mr. Steele does not realize is that this "tolerance" is abhorrent in the sight of God as no one can claim to love Him as He has revealed Himself to us through the true Church that He created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and to be indifferent about his own sins or those of others, no less to be indifferent about the promotion of sin under cover of law.

It is like this, Mr. Steele: sin--yours, mine, everyone else's--imposed unspeakable tortures and horrors upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death. Sin--yours, mine, everyone else's--thrust those Seven Swords of Sorrow through and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as explained so poignantly by Father Frederick Faber in The Dolors of Mary/The Foot of the Cross. No one can clam to be a "friend" of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ while being indifferent to sin in his own life and/or while being indifferent to its promotion in public life and under cover of the civil law.

Every public servant is supposed to hate sin, especially Mortal Sin, which can be, if not Absolved by a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, the passport to Hell for all eternity and is indeed a source of social disorder and disarray, as firmly as did Saint Louis IX, King of France:

3. Therefore, dear son, the first thing I advise is that you fix your whole heart upon God, and love Him with all your strength, for without this no one can be saved or be of any worth.

4. You should, with all your strength, shun everything which you believe to be displeasing to Him. And you ought especially to be resolved not to commit mortal sin, no matter what may happen and should permit all your limbs to be hewn off, and suffer every manner of torment , rather than fall knowingly into mortal sin. . . .

32. Dear son, freely give power to persons of good character, who know how to use it well, and strive to have wickednesses expelled from your land, that is to say, nasty oaths, and everything said or done against God or our Lady or the saints. In a wise and proper manner put a stop, in your land, to bodily sins, dicing, taverns, and other sins. (Letter to His Son Philip)


You are far from a knowledge, Mr. Steele, of what constitutes the foundation of a just social order. Your answers about the slaughter of the preborn and on the public promotion and "tolerance" of perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments demonstrate that you do not understand that you have a direct, positive obligation by virtue of your Baptism and Confirmation to help those steeped in sin to be converted by means of making a good, full and integral Confession to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

No one is "supportive" of another if he reaffirms him in any way in a life of unrepentant sin. Indeed, one who does that is an enemy of his alleged "friends" as he is refusing to help souls that have been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer by seeking their eternal good, which is premised upon true repentance for their sins and a firm purpose of amendment after making a perfect Act of Contrition and receiving Absolution from a true priest.

Michael Steele, you see, has a mind that is awash in the illogic and absurdity of Modernity and Modernism. He is not alone. Indeed, most people in public life exhibit this illogic and absurdity.

Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, a baptized Catholic who was taken out of the Church by her father when she was twelve years old in 1976, demonstrated this illogic and absurdity in her interview with Columbia Broadcasting System's Katie Couric last year, as I commented upon five months ago in It's Still Absolute Insanity:

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

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

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

: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

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

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

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

Couric: Can you think of any?

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


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

To Mrs. Palin's first answer:

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

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

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

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

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

Then we have Sarah Heath Palin the constitutional scholar:

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

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

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


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

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


Michael Steele. Sarah Heath Palin. Robert Joseph Dole, Jr. George Herbert Walker Bush. George Walker Bush. Each of these allegedly "pro-life" leaders lives in a world of contradiction and illogic and absurdity, a fact that passes unnoticed by so many "pro-life" Catholics who are themselves easily "impressed" by contradiction, illogic and absurdity. It is no wonder, at least on the natural level, why those who are absolutely committed to absolute evil without exception under cover of the civil law, such as the Wizard of Obama, have such a wide appeal as they are logically consistent in their support of evil.

We must come to recognize, good readers, that Catholicism is indeed the one and only foundation of personal and social order, the only means by which the mind can be truly enlightened to judge the things of this passing earth in light of our eternal destiny.  We must strive to make a study of the Catholic Faith and how it applies in daily life a natural and normal part of our daily routine, as Pope Leo XIII explained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10,1890:

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."


Sadly, sophisms are commonplace today even among those who are Baptized and Confirmed Catholics. We must use the minds that God has given us to think critically so as to see through the sophisms and the contradiction and the illogic and the absurdity that constitutes the bulk of "public discourse" today. We must think, act and speak as Catholics at all times, which means that we will attempt, despite our sins and our failings, to be  consistent within ourselves and to be able to recognize and to reject the insanities of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Our Lady has told us that we are in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. Shouldn't this be enough to us as we run to her every day, protected by her Brown Scapular and showing our heart's oblation to her by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit? We have Our Lady. She will shower us with the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross. She has told us that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end.

Why then, are we afraid? Why do we not simply approach her with confidence and ask her to help us to be ready in the midst of persecution to proclaim with love and with courage the very words that were proclaimed by Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., when we was put to death by the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico on November 23, 1927:


Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Our Lady of Fatima, 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 Patrick, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints




© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.