Steeped in the Errors of Americanism and Conciliarism Through No Fault of Her Own

As is well-known by now, President Donald John Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who serves on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to replace the late, non-lamented Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The fascists of the organized crime family of the naturalist “left,” knowing that they cannot manufacture the same kinds of untrue charges against Brett Michael Kavanaugh two years ago, are preparing to throw the figurative kitchen sink against Mrs. Barrett, who is a complete child of the conciliar revolution, Americanism and the sort of judicial positivism practiced the late admirer of all things Talmudic, Antonin Scalia and, as such, poses no kind of threat as claimed by the left’s anti-Catholic biases that harkens back to the Know-Nothing bigotry of the Nineteenth Century that was used against the little-educated New York Governor Alfred Emanuel Smith in 1927 and 1928 and against then United States Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) in 1960 until he gave his infamous address to the Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary.

One of the more bizarre attack lines that some are attempting to employ center around the Barrett family’s adoption of two children from Haiti after a powerful earthquake hit that nation in January 12, 2010:

Democrats, the media and activists have ramped up their attacks against Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nomination to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ibram X. Kendi, an American author who became the new director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University in July, railed against Barrett on Twitter for adopting two Black children from Haiti, equating her and her husband to “White colonizers.”

“Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity,” Kendi wrote Saturday.

He was responding to a since-deleted tweet about White parents adopting Black children.

“And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist,” Kendi continued.

“I’m challenging the idea that White parents of kids of color are inherently 'not racist' and the bots completely change what I’m saying to ‘White parents of kids of color are inherently racist.’ These live and fake bots are good at their propaganda. Let’s not argue with them.”

The conservative Barrett, 48, currently serves as a judge on the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. She is a devout Catholic and a working mother to seven children, including two adopted children from Haiti. She previously clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, and is devoted to the literal interpretation of the Constitution known as originalism.

Critics claim her nomination risks an overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion, as well as the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.

“Make no mistake: A vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to eliminate health care for millions of Americans and to end protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions in the middle the COVID-19 pandemic,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted Sunday. (Vicious Attacks Against Amy Coney Barrett Commence .)

So many red herrings, so little time.

First, many of those on the left who support the destruction of innocent preborn babies by chemical and/or surgical means are also expert character assassins who are as unbounded by any kind of moral or ethical compass even on the level of pure naturalism as they are in their support for the global genocide of the preborn. To destroy the lives and reputations of those deemed to be threats to their totalitarian agenda on behalf of a socialist utopia is mandatory and completely justifiable according to the Machiavellian belief that “the ends justify the means.”

Second, most of those who support the destruction of innocent preborn babies view an “unwanted” child as an object to be discarded. They do not look at the preborn child with love, and many of these benighted souls believe that anyone who disagrees with them is but an object for scorn, if not actual physical destruction. Those who do not see in others the Divine impress and who have never learned how to treat others as they would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Flesh will be oblivious to the following injunction in the Sermon on the Mount:

And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, [42] Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. [43] You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: [45] That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

[46] For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? [47] And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? [48] Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5: 41-48.)

Irrationality of a bestial sort replaces any sentiments of affection and pity even on a natural level for those who are the victims of their own iniquities and who are so foolish as to think that they are demigods not subject to the just governance of Christ the King on earth nor His just judgment at the moment of their deaths.

Amy Coney Barrett is just another object to be hated in general because she is said to pose a threat to ObamaDeathCare, which is unconstitutional on its face but passed muster with the Supreme Court of the United States of America twice because of the jurisprudential dishonesty and positivism of Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, and, of course, because she is said to represent another potential vote to overturn 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. As explained most recently in To Fall into the Hands of the Living God Without Having Known Him in Life, the surgical execution of preborn children will remain perfectly legal in forty-four states even in the unlikely event that these decisions are overturned one day. This line of attack has been used ad infinitum for the past thirty-three years since President Ronald Wilson Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to replace Associate Justice Lewis Powell in 1987, and it is not irrelevant to point out that Bork’s chief antagonist during his confirmation hearings at the time was none other than United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Although it is unclear whether the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” will attack Amy Coney Barrett over her Catholic faith once again, acknowledging that her understanding of the Holy Faith is defective as it is based upon a lifelong immersion in the corruption, distortion and misrepresentation of Catholic truth by the conciliar revolutionaries, United States Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), a pro-abort, pro-pervert who has been told by his conciliar “bishop,” Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, not to receive what purports to be Holy Communion at the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, during her confirmation hearings to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago, Illinois, in 2017. Here is a reminder of what happened then:

he religious convictions of one of President Donald Trump’s appeals court nominees featured prominently during a Wednesday confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The two nominees evaluated during the hearing, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen and Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, are nominees to federal appeals courts based in Cincinnati, Ohio and Chicago, Ill. Barrett is a Roman Catholic who has previously written about faith in public life and spoken to Christian legal groups in her capacity as an academic.

A coalition of leftwing groups, including the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), allege that Barrett has advocated prioritizing religious views over established case law when the two conflict in her professional publications.

“Stunningly, Barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the Constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs,” AFJ claims. Legal academics have strongly disputed this characterization of her position.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel, signaled sympathy with those concerns, and referenced a law review article that Barrett wrote in 1998 entitled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which appeared in the Marquette Law Review. Barrett concluded that a Catholic trial judge who is a conscientious objector to the death penalty should recuse himself if asked to enter an order of execution against a convict.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Barrett emphasized that the set of circumstances considered in the article were narrow, and that she participated in death penalty cases as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, but Feinstein remained unpersuaded.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said of Barrett’s writings regarding the professional obligations of Catholic practitioners. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

“It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions, whether it derives from faith or personal conviction,” Barrett said in response to those objections.

She added that she wrote the article 20 years ago as a third year law student in conjunction with a professor, and that she was the junior partner in the project.

Other Democrats were equally forthright in their questioning.

“Ms. Barrett, I think your article is very plain in your perspective about the role of religion for judges, and particularly with regard to Catholic judges,” said Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who shared Feinstein’s concerns.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois took issue with Barrett’s use of the term “orthodox Catholics” as it appears in her article, to the extent that it brands Catholics who do not hold certain positions on capital punishment or abortion as heretical.

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” Durbin asked.

“If you’re asking whether I’m a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my own personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge,” Barrett replied.

Durbin said that some individuals who embrace the term have criticized Pope Francis for alleged deviations from Catholic orthodoxy, prompting Barrett to express her admiration for the pontiff. (Nominee's Religious Faith Dominates Senate Judicial Confirmation Hearing. For my own commentary, please see Dianne Feinstein Leads A New Inquisition, Aided by Richard Joseph Durbin.)

This line of attack is being used quite openly again, including in a column written by a self-identified Catholic in The New York Times on Sunday, September 27, 2020, the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saints Cosmas and Damien, who wrote that Catholicism is incompatible with democracy. While this is a true statement in general terms as modern democracy is premised upon the “sovereignty of the people” and leaves no space for the subordination all that pertains to the good of souls to Christ the King and Holy Mother Church, the author, Elizabeth Bruenig, obviously meant it to convey her abhorrence at any kind of influence that Catholicism, which is the foundation of Western civilization, might have upon public policy and electoral politics:

The United States is unusual among nations: We are a country founded along the contours of a philosophy. That philosophy, liberalism, is the logic that underlies our founding documents and our national ethos of individualism, self-reliance, liberty, equality and tolerance. Whether we live up to those values is another matter; they are our reason for being, and the principles that bind us together.

But liberalism, like any storied philosophy, has its difficulties and points of contention. While liberal societies seek to build legal and cultural climates of toleration for expression and religion (among other things), liberal theorists have long recognized that it’s risky to tolerate notions and movements that could undermine liberal democracy itself. In the case of religious tolerance, liberals have historically grappled with the matter of Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations. In the thought of John Locke, one of liberalism’s earliest architects, willingness to make that distinction was critical to participation in a tolerant society. “Basically,” the political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in a 1999 essay, “Locke drew up a strong civic map with religion within one sphere and government in another. A person could be a citizen of each so long as that citizen never attempted to merge and blend the two.” Locke notably excluded Catholics from the religions meriting toleration because he suspected they could not be trusted to leave their faith in the appropriate sphere.

Locke’s concern was not entirely baseless. Even the most modern and liberal-friendly popes have noted without special fanfare that the teachings of the church pertain to the decisions Catholics make about politics. “The social doctrine of the Church has once more demonstrated its character as an application of the word of God to people’s lives and the life of society, as well as to the earthly realities connected with them,” Pope John Paul II wrote in one exemplary 1987 encyclical.

Generally, contemporary American Catholics aren’t particularly beholden to the church; as I wrote recently, the logic of partisanship has replaced the moral primacy of the faith. That means that, for most Catholics, their religious beliefs never clash with their civic interests in a disruptive way. When they do, the solution is typically some kind of exemption from particular legal or civic obligations. (Catholicism is incompatible with liberalism.)

Although the writer supports the liberal presuppositions of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity and correctly assesses the mind of John Locke, the founder of modern political ideology who did indeed mean to deal a death blow to the influence of religion by replacing it with secularism (see yesterday's republished article from August 13, 2013, Statism to the Naturalist Left, Statismto the Naturalist Right, for a detailed discussion of Locke, whose principles enunciated in The Second Treatise of Civil Government I took especial glee to detail and then eviscerate throughout the course of my college teaching career), the author makes the mistake of the Protestant and Masonic anti-Catholic bigots of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, namely, that Catholics in the United States of America ever posed a “threat” to American “democracy.” This is false as most American Catholics desired simply to have a “place at the table” and to leave their religious faith outside the context of public discourse. The fact that so many Catholics in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world do not take the Holy Faith seriously even in their personal lives is the result of the pull of the democratic ethos and its constituent elements of instability, sovereignty of the people, majoritarianism, egalitarianism and materialism that eroded their sensus Catholicus to such an extent that the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “official reconciliation” with the anti-Incarnational principles of the modern civil state became a de jure endorsement of what had been the case in the United States of America from the very beginning: the subordination of the Holy Faith to the exigencies of the liberal, pluralist society that prizes “toleration,” not fidelity to the Holy Faith above all else.

As we know, however, the liberal concept of “toleration” was the pretext to coopt Catholics into accepting the pluralist paradigm and to leave religious practice and belief in the confines of their homes and churches. The actual liberal intolerance of an adherence to Catholic dogma that lives “deep” within the souls of individual Catholics is based upon a more thorough understanding of what Catholics are supposed to do in public life but have never done at any time in this nation’s two hundred forty-four year history than most American Catholics were ever taught to understand or accept as binding in the United States of America as elsewhere throughout the world: to enunciate clearly the simple truth that Catholicism is the sole foundation of order within individual souls and hence in society itself.

In truth, you see, the anti-Catholic bigots of the past and the present have never learned that Catholics in this country have never posed any kind of threat to the pluralist state of Modernity nor do thy realize that “Second” Vatican Council and its aftermath have ended all possibility, humanly speaking, that any Catholic in public life would actually take his Faith seriously enough to base his public policy decisions in matters pertaining the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, which are, of course, beyond debate in the first place, on what pleases Our Lord, Christ the King, and the good of souls. Almost every Catholic in public life today is a living testament to these facts.

John Yoo, who helped to provide the legal justification, such as it was, for the immoral practice of “waterboarding” during the administration of President George Walker Bush, is clearly of an Americanist mindset even though he may not be a Catholic, and a column he wrote in support of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court  of the United States of America is replete with the sort of shibboleths that run contrary to the actual truth of Catholic Social Teaching as enunciated by our true popes.

Here are a few excerpts from Yoo’s column, which will be interrupted by a few relevant interjections:

Rather than a smooth confirmation of the kind that had greeted Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself in 1993 or Stephen Breyer in 1994, Senate Democrats will likely go to the mat to try to torpedo Barrett.

As they lack a majority in the Senate, Democrats may well try to repeat their Kavanaugh playbook and raise personal reasons to vote against Barrett. They cannot invent believable claims of sexual harassment, or worse, about a devout Catholic mother of seven who adopted two children from Haiti.

So, instead, Democrats will try to turn one of Barrett’s greatest strengths into her weakness – her religious faith.

We sadly saw an early example of this in Barrett’s confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit, when Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., bizarrely declared that "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern," – by which she apparently meant to say that Barrett would allow her Catholic believes interfere with her performance of her judicial duties.

Apparently what was good enough for a President John F. Kennedy or even a Justice Anthony M. Kennedy – that we do not presume that a Catholic has a higher loyalty to the Pope than to the Constitution – is not good enough for a female Catholic judge from Indiana.

Democrats will attack Barrett for her Catholic beliefs because they wish to imply that she would supply a fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. John Yoo on Amy Coney Barrett.)

Interjection Number One

It is unclear to me if John Yoo, who is fifty-three years of age, is a Catholic. However, he is neverheless a product of Americanism and its secular counterpart, American "exceptionalism." Anyone who can write that “we do not presume that a Catholic has a higher loyalty to the Pope than to the Constitution” is bereft of any true understanding of the Catholic Faith in general and of Holy Mother Church’s Social Teaching in particular. Our first obligation is always to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy Church, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear throughout the text of Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, and especially in the following two passages:

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

As has been noted on this website endlessly throughout the years, the Constitution of the United States of America admits of no higher authority than its own text, thus making it as subject to deconstruction and misinterpretation as Holy Writ in the hands of Protestants and Modernist Catholics. This is the fundamental flaw of the Constitution that has led inevitably to the steady decline and degeneration that has followed steady since its adoption in 1788. Any government that is not founded on the true Faith will wind up resulting in mere men arrogating unto themselves that which belongs to God, namely, His Sovereignty over men and nations that is the sine qua non for social order. Any Cathholic who asserts that our duty is to a constitution first and to Christ the King and His Catholic Faith second may be in “good standing” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism but is far, far from any understanding of Catholic truth.

Pope Saint Pius X explained that our duty is to build the Catholic Church and he explained also that there is the Faith and her precepts are to guide us in each of our actions, personal and social:

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Accordingly, We first of all declare that all Catholics have a sacred and inviolable duty, both in private and public life, to obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth enunciated by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. In particular We mean those principles which Our Predecessor has most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter "Rerum Novarum." We know that the Bishops of Prussia followed these most faithfully in their deliberations at the Fulda Congress of 1900. You yourselves have summarized the fundamental ideas of these principles in your communications regarding this question.

These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. All who glory in the name of Christian, either individually or collectively, if they wish to remain true to their vocation, may not foster enmities and dissensions between the classes of civil society. On the contrary, they must promote mutual concord and charity. The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen's strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. "The precise opposite is the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion." (Pope Saint Pius X, Singulari Quadam, Sepetember 24, 1912.)

John Yoo, who specialized in amorality during his time in George Walker Bush’s administration, has never seen these quotations, and he would reject them as binding upon any Catholic in public life. His recent column praised Judge Amy Coney Barrett for defying her own mistaken belief that the death penalty is prohibited by the Catholic Faith, a falsehood that was endorsed first by Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1993, on a somewhat qualified basis before being absolutized in the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church and has since become part of what passes for “orthodoxy” in the conciliar universe, by applying it as a Federal judge:

It ignores that Catholic judges, like Catholic politicians, have found themselves on opposite sides of many issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, on which the Church has taken a position. Imagine if Senate Democrats held a similar assumption about the way that Protestants, Jews or Muslims would decide constitutional questions.

In fact, Barrett has written in a nuanced way about this very question. In an early law review article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” she addressed the conflict for a Catholic judge who believes that the death penalty is immoral but who, as an originalist would, also believes the Constitution allows states to impose it in first-degree murder cases.

“Judges cannot --nor should they try to align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge,” she concluded.

As a judge, Barrett has sat on death penalty cases since – she has placed her duty to interpret the Constitution based on its original understanding (which clearly permits the death penalty) first. (John Yoo on Amy Coney Barrett.)

Such utter ignorance.

Pope Leo XII dealt with this sophistry of a supposed dichotomy between “private belief” and public duty as follows in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that applies to Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., just as much as to Judge Amy Coney Barrett:

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

One has a duty to use the true Faith as the basis of public policy in all that pertains to the good of souls as what pertains to the good of souls determines the fate of nations and of the world. 

All efforts to attack Judge Barrett by the use of anti-Catholicism are misplaced as she is, through no fault of her own, a thorough creature of conciliarism to the point of engaging in “ecumenical prayer” and “worship” that is as hideous in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity as is the religiously indifferentist “People of Praise” to which she belongs.

Sadly, however, despite the fact that Amy Coney Barrett is a loving wife and mother and a person of exemplary moral character does not make her qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Judge Barrett is a statist who believes in providing the civil state with broad latitude to curb legitimate liberties by means of lockdowns in times of alleged pandemics, up to and including endorsing the constitutional basis for mandatory vaccinations. It is not to disparage any of her admirable personal qualities or her admittedly keen intellectual abilities to note these facts by way of indicating that she is going to be just another legal positivist in the mode of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and of the other justices serving on the Supreme Court currently with the possible exception of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

Although she did not author the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case of the Illinois Republican Party v. J. B. Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, concerning whether hideous Pritzker had favored the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over its free speech clause by permitting religious services to be conducted in accordance with Pritzker’s executive orders while forbidding the Republican Party of Illinois to hold its annual state convention, Judge Amy Coney Barrett did concur with the decision written by the Seventh Circuit’s Chief Judge, Sara L. Ellis, which gave Pritzker carte blanche to do as he pleased. Here is an excerpt from Chief Judge Ellis’s decision with which Judge Barrett concurred:

The world is currently facing a major global pandemic – one of the most significant challenges our society has faced in a century. There is no cure, vaccine, or effective treatment for COVID-19. As of June 30, more than 126,739 Americans have died due to the virus, 3 including approximately 6,923 Illinois residents. 4

In Illinois, there are more than 143,185 confirmed cases. 5 Despite efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19, many states are experiencing a rise in new cases. Medical experts agree that to stop the spread of COVID-19, people should practice social distancing and wear face coverings when near other people outside their homes. Federal, state, and local governments have enacted measures to reduce the spread of this highly contagious and easily transferable virus while remaining sensitive to economic concerns and citizens’ desire to resume certain activities. In Illinois, following stay-at-home orders, the Governor developed a multi-stage plan to “safely and conscientiously resume activities that were paused as COVID-19 cases rose exponentially and threatened to overwhelm [the] healthcare system.” Doc. 10-1 at 5. On May 29, 2020, the Governor issued an Order related to this plan. The Order provides that “[a]ny gathering of more than ten people is prohibited unless exempted by this Executive Order.” Id. at 6. The Order exempts free exercise of religion, emergency functions, and governmental functions. Relevant here, with respect to free exercise of religion, the Order states that it:

[D]oes not limit the free exercise of religion. To protect the health and safety of faith leaders, staff, congregants and visitors, religious organizations and houses of worship are encouraged to consult and follow the recommended practices and guidelines from the Illinois Department of Public Health. As set forth in the IDPH guidelines, the safest practices for religious organizations at this time are to provide services online, in a drive-in format, or outdoors (and consistent with social distancing requirements and guidance regarding wearing face coverings), and to limit indoor services to 10 people. Religious organizations are encouraged to take steps to ensure social distancing, the use of face coverings, and implementation of other public health measures. Id. at 9.

The Governor issued the most recent executive order, EO 2020-43, on June 26, 2020. That order increases the gathering limit to fifty people but retains the exemption for free exercise of religion. See Doc. 12 at 3, 6. Plaintiffs allege that by merely “encourag[ing]” religious organizations and houses of worship to consult the IDPH guidelines, the Order treats religious speech differently. Plaintiffs contend that the Illinois Republican Party and its local and regional affiliates typically gather in groups greater than ten people for formal business meetings, informal strategy meetings, and other events. (lllinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, June 16, 2020.)

There are several aspects to this decision that reveal Judge Barrett’s susceptibility to legal groupthink.

Judge Ellis’s opinion, with which Judge Amy Coney Barrett concurred, was  premised upon the uncritical acceptance of the facts provided by the Centers for Disease Control that have been debunked by many sources, each of which has discussed the phenomena of inflating the numbers by labeling almost every death in this country as caused by “Covid-19,” killing people, whether by incompetence or malicious  intent, by the use of ventilators when there is no need to use them, the indiscriminate placement of non-coronavirus patients with those who are infected with the virus in hospital wards and nursing homes and the deliberate use of “comfort care” that has only one end: the killing of innocent human beings. To accept uncritically the gratuitous claims of healthcare officials who have been making things up as they go along is jurisprudentially irresponsible.

Moreover, Judge Sara L. Ellis used the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, February 20, 1905, as a precedent for the civil state to impose mandatory vaccinations when a vaccine for the China/Chinese/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus is development with the cells of aborted babies and that contains all manner of poisons that already causing adverse reactions among the volunteers who have receive the vaccinations in various trials (see AstraZeneca Vaccine Trials Suspended after Serious Adverse Reactions and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's. Intertwined History of Myelits and Vaccines):

“Our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’” S. Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (S. Bay II), 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1613 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (quoting Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 38). When state officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 427 (1974)). Over a century ago in Jacobson, the Supreme Court developed a framework by which to evaluate a State’s exercise of its emergency authority during a public health crisis. There, the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a State’s compulsory vaccination law during the smallpox epidemic. See generally Jacobson, 197 U.S. 11. Jacobson explained that “[u]pon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” Id. at 27. The Court reasoned that the Constitution does not provide an absolute right to be “wholly freed from restraint” at all times, as “[t]here are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.” Id. at 26. Therefore, while “individual rights secured by the Constitution do not disappear during a public health crisis,” the government may “reasonably restrict[ ]” rights during such times. See In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772, 784 (5th Cir. 2020). Judicial review of such claims is only available in limited circumstances. See S. Bay II, 140 S. Ct. at 1613–14 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (where state officials do not exceed their broad latitude during a pandemic “they should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people” (citation omitted)); Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 31. If a State implements emergency measures during an epidemic that curtails individual rights, courts uphold such measures unless they have no “real or substantial” relation to public health or are “beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of fundamental rights secured by fundamental law.”

There is no doubt that Illinois is in the midst of a serious public health crisis, as contemplated in Jacobson. See Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker (Elim II), No. 20- 1811, 2020 WL 3249062 (7th Cir. June 16, 2020) (citing Jacobson and explaining that courts do not evaluate orders issued in response to public-health emergencies by the usual standard); Cassell v. Snyders, No. 20 C 50153, 2020 WL 2112374, at *7 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2020) (COVID19 qualifies as a public health crisis under Jacobson). Plaintiffs agree that Illinois has a compelling interest in fighting the pandemic. However, they suggest Jacobson is inapplicable because they do not assert an inherent right to gather but instead request equal treatment when others are permitted to gather. Jacobson draws no such distinction and instead provides for minimal judicial interference with state officials’ reasonable determinations. The Order undoubtedly relates to public health and safety because it minimizes the risk of virus transmission by limiting gathering size. Additionally, the Order still encourages religious organizations to limit indoor services to fifty people and implement other public health measures. Plaintiffs have not shown how this exemption is a plain invasion of their constitutional rights. The Order involves reasonable measures intended to protect public health while preserving avenues for First Amendment activities. Overall, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have a less than negligible chance of prevailing on their constitutional claims because the current crisis implicates Jacobson and the Order advances the Governor’s interest in protecting the health and safety of Illinois residents. (lllinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, June 16, 2020. For a review of the insidious and unconstitutional nature of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, please see Antipapal Appointees Always Advance Antichrist’s Anti-Catholic Agenda.)

By accepting the gratuitous claims made by the statists in the public health community, judges such as Sara L. Ellis and Amy Coney Barrett are simply made of the same cloth as Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., and other current statists on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as they have shown no willingness to even to look at any evidence that refutes those gratuitous claims and thus the need for making Americans prisoners in their own homes as the public health clowns keep changing their mind repeatedly.

Mind you, I do not care one whit about the Illinois Republican Party and consider its equating of political speech with the American concept of the “free exercise of religion” to be thoroughly Judeo-Masonic. However, the Pritzker case shows Amy Coney Barrett to be ready to accept draconian lockdown orders based solely on the word of those who are accustomed to instilling fear in the public and who have long desired to implement a police state in fact if not in name.

Judge Barrett’s concurrence with Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Ellis stands in sharp contrast to clear-sighted jurisprudence of United States District Court Judge William Strickman, who sits on the United States District Court for Western Pennsyvlania, which sits in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the case of County of Butler v. Wolf, September 16, 2020:

Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties. As a general matter, this development has seen a jurisprudential shift whereby federal courts have given greater deference to considerations of individual liberties, as weighed against the exercise of state police powers. That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. While Jacobson has been cited by some modern courts as ongoing support for a broad, hands-off deference to state authorities in matters of health and safety, other courts and commentators have questioned whether it remains instructive in light of the intervening jurisprudential developments….

The Court has reviewed {Lindsay F. Wiley & Stephen I. Vladeck, Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: the Case Against "Suspending" Judicial Review, 133 Harv. L. Rev. F. 179 (2020)} … and finds it both instructive and persuasive. There, the learned professors argue that Jacobson should not be interpreted as permitting the "suspension" of traditional levels of constitutional scrutiny in reviewing challenges to COVID- 19 mitigation measures…. The Court shares [these concerns] …. The Court will apply "regular" constitutional scrutiny to the issues in this case. Two considerations inform this decision—the ongoing and open-ended nature of the restrictions and the need for an independent judiciary to serve as a check on the exercise of emergency government power….

The Court closes this Opinion as it began, by recognizing that Defendants' actions at issue here were undertaken with the good intention of addressing a public health emergency. But even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms—in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble.

There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a "new normal" where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. (County of Butler v. Wolf, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, September 14, 2020.)

I do not know about you. However, I believe that Judge William D. Strickman IV’s jurisprudence in this instance is much better than that of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

It is even a little worse than this as Judge Barrett concurred with the opinion in Price v. City of Chicago, February 13, 2019, which upheld a very restrictive “buffer zone” to “protect” around abortuaries to “protect” women intent on killing their preborn babies from having to listen to sidewalk counselors and/or to receive literature from them about the evils of abortion. The decision centered around interpreting what then Chief Judge Sykes and Judge Barrett said was the controlling Supreme Court case, Hill v. Colorado, June 28, 2000, concerning buffer zones and sidewalk counselors that they were bound to apply in Price v. City of Chicago.

Although the legal arguments contained below may appear very arcane to readers unfamiliar with legal citation and what are considered to be binding precedents, even a simple glance at what follows will demonstrate yet another exercise in the sort of sophistry that governs American legal jurisprudence, so-called, in the Twenty-first Century:

In short, McCullen and Reed have deeply shaken Hill’s foundation.  Yet the case remains on the books and directly controls here. The plaintiffs urge us to follow the Third Circuit’s  lead  in  Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, which reversed the dismissal of a challenge  to  Pittsburgh’s fixed  15-foot clinic buffer zone and  remanded  for  a  case-specific narrow-tailoring analysis  in  light  of  McCullen.  824 F.3d 353, 372–73(3d  Cir.  2016).  The court held that dismissal at the pleading stage was improper based on McCullen’s “important clarification of the rigorous and fact-intensive nature of intermediate scrutiny’s narrow-tailoring analysis.” Id.  at 372. This was so, the court held, notwithstanding circuit precedent that upheld Pittsburgh’s 15-foot buffer zone just a few years earlier.Id.at 367–73 (distinguishing Brown   v.   City   of   Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2009)). We do not regard Bruni’s approach as a viable option here.  As we’ve noted, Chicago’s bubble-zone ordinance is a carbon copy of the Colorado law upheld in Hill except for the smaller   radius   within   which   it   applies.   And Hill’s narrow-tailoring analysis was highly generalized; it did not rest on the specific facts of the case or an evaluation of Colorado’s evidentiary showing. Accordingly, a remand for a case-specific narrow-tailoring analysis would effectively deny Hill’s controlling force. It would also create a circuit split. In Brown, the  predecessor case to Bruni, the Third Circuit upheld a separate provision in Pittsburgh’s  abortion-clinic law establishing an 8-foot no-approach bubble zone within a 100-foot  radius of clinic entrances—“a  virtually verbatim copy of the Hill statute”—without requiring a factual showing from the City.586 F.3d at 273. Bruni left that part of Brown untouched.

Hill directly controls, notwithstanding its inconsistency with McCullen and Reed. Only the Supreme Court can bring harmony to these precedents. The district judge correctly dismissed the facial First Amendment challenge.

D. Due-Process Vagueness Claim

In a cursory final argument, the plaintiffs maintain that Chicago’s   bubble-zone ordinance    is unconstitutionally vague. This argument too is foreclosed by Hill, which rejected a vagueness challenge to Colorado’s bubble-zone law. 530 U.S.  at 732–33. The plaintiffs rely on Justice Kennedy’s dissenting position: “In the context of a law imposing criminal penalties for pure speech, ‘protest’ is an imprecise word; ‘counseling’ is an imprecise word; ‘education’ is an imprecise word.” Id.   at 73 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).   Perhaps he was right, but his view did not carry the day. The judge properly dismissed the due-process vagueness claim.

III. Conclusion

The road the plaintiffs urge is not open to us in our hierarchical system.  Chicago’s bubble-zone ordinance is materially identical to—indeed, is narrower than—the law upheld in Hill. While the Supreme Court has deeply unsettled Hill, it has not overruled the decision. So it remains binding on us. The plaintiffs must seek relief in the High Court. AFFIRMED. Price v. City of Chicago, February 13, 2019.)

Arguments such as these will show to even a casual reader that we have reach a point of utter madness when judges on Federal courts spend lots of verbiage to “protect” expectant mothers from any effort to change their minds about killing their babies.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett could have dissented from the Seventh Circuit’s findings and have written her reasons for doing so. However, she concurred, which might have been because she actually agreed with the tendentious line of casuistry that has nothing to do with the simple fact that abortuaries have no right to exist and wanted the Supreme Court to review the findings in Hill v. Colorado. However, Judge Barrett might have been “playing it safe” with a view to a possible future nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which has indeed materialized. However, if this was the case in Price v. City of Chicago—and I do not know that it was the case, then I, for one, believe that it does not bode well for her decision-making process on the Supreme Court as one who trims his sails to secure his “establishment” credentials before being elevated to the high court may never find the courage to do anything other than equivocate once thereon. To speak the truth on the Supreme Court, it is a pretty nifty thing to have spoken it unequivocally before getting there as it is far easier to equivocate again and again after having learned to so in the past.

Obviously, this is a subjective judgment on my part. Granted.

However, the fact that Judge Amy Coney Barrett so readily accepted Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker’s draconian lockdown order as well as the underlying claims made by public health officials about the “necessity” of such lockdowns when a district court judge several hundred miles away came to a different conclusion in a similar case indicates a lack of intellectual curiosity on Mrs. Barrett’s part to question statist claims uncritically. Given all we know now about the way in which statists have tried to find one pretext after another for curbing legitimate liberties, including by the use of so-called “buffer zones” around baby-killing mills, Judge Barrett’s deference to our statist minders is troubling, to say the very least.

None of this is to impugn Amy Coney Barrett’s personal character, intelligence or virtues as a wife and mother that will continue to be attacked viciously in the coming weeks. However, it is to explain to the few readers of this website that Mrs. Barrett is, through no fault of her own, a captive of both Americanism and conciliarism who will need prayers to rise to the occasion and to make a break with the positivism that she has thus far exhibited as a circuit court judge if she is confirmed by a majority vote in the United States Senate at the end of October and has the opportunity to do away with “precedents” that have no standing in the court of Our Divine Judge, Christ the King.

The madness that passes for jurisprudential decision-making in the United States of America and elsewhere in the so-called “civilized world” is an corruption of true justice, which must be founded in an abiding respect for and adherence to all that is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law on matters pertaining to the good of souls. Men and their nations are in utter states of chaos because they prefer the darkness to the Light of Light Himself, Christ the King, as they believe themselves to be autonomous to “change” that which is immutable, that which has been imprinted on the very flesh of their own hearts. Such foolishness is a cancer upon the body politic, which is why someone ought to inform Amy Coney Barrett that public life must be stained with crime when men and their nations prefer secular forms of governance to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His one, true Church: the Catholic Church:

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.) 

"Stopgap" measures based on the "lowest common" naturalistic denominator will always collapse as they are built on the quicksand of naturalism. The Church Militant on earth can be battered. She will never suffer a final defeat. "Stopgap" measures based on the "lowest common" naturalistic denominator must, because they are based on naturalism, consist of internal contradictions and inconsistencies that render its objectives merely symbolic and rhetorical in nature.

Silvio Cardinal Antoniano explained over four hundred fifty years ago that things repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity can never be the foundation of temporal order:

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, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.) 

It is indeed impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquility by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity.

We must have confidence in Our Lady by consecrating ourselves to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life. The only election that really matters is the one that took place in the Baptismal font when we were elected to be citizens of Heaven. There is only one judicial verdict that matters: that of Christ the King upon our immortal souls at the moment of our Particular Judgment.

This is our destiny, please God and by the graces that flow forth from the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother we persevere to the points of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace.

No matter the results of a particular election or the results of a particular plebiscite, we can be assured that our efforts to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King by means of our total consecration to Him through Mary our Immaculate Queen will help to plant a few seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith as we, recidivist sinners that we are, attempt to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, remembering to say each day:

O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

These are the words spoken by the Mother of God in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, one hundred three years ago. They should be on our lips at all times so that there will come a day when the words uttered by the Cristeros in Mexico and the brave Catholics during the Spanish Revolution will be on the lips of all men and heralded on the flags of all nations:

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, 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.