Determined Not To Accept The Truth of Truth Himself, Christ the King, part two

[Today is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's eighty-eighth birthday. To commemorate this occasion properly, please purchase No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth. Thank you for doing so in a prompt manner!]

So, by another question, Pilate thought to recover the position he had lost. Whether Jesus were king or not, He had enemies clamouring for His blood; whether He were a king or not, He must have done something to provoke this hatred and bitterness. But Jesus, the Hunter of souls, was so easily to be turned aside. Pilate himself had come to Him and asked Him for ‘the things that were to his peace’, and he should not because of a single refusal be rejected. With the love of the Good Shepherd risking all for one lost sheep, while out in the street the wolves were howling, He would press His appeal more home. Pilate had shown that whatever befell he would be a Roman; Jesus would assure him that from His kingship and His kingdom the Roman would not fear. These would bring no danger to the Empire, no danger to himself; the follower of Christ the King would be no less loyal to Tiberius the Emperor. Were it not so, were Christ a rival of Tiberius, the Emperor. Were it not so, were Christ a rival of Tiberius, the battle between them would not last long: ‘Jesus answered” My kingdom is not of this world. If my in kingdom were of this world My servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now my kingdom is not from hence.”

Pilate, in his fancied strength which in reality was weakness, had already offered one face proffered by the Man whom he feared to reverence; he now rejected another. Gradually, the darkness was closing around him; for he chose to ‘love the darkness rather than the light.’ From a doubter who nevertheless suspected where the truth lay, he was fast degenerating into a mere skeptic. He harked back to his former question. Jesus had drawn him away into depths he was unwilling to fathom; Pilate would save himself from being led further:  ‘Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then?’

This time would Jesus would reply clearly and without cavil. He had declared it before when the question had been put merely as an accusation; He would declare it again, that Pilate might understand it in the added light he had received. For still would Jesus fight for the soul of Pilate. He had already appealed to him that he should listen to the voice that spoke within him, that he should be true to himself. He had assured him, further, that to follow the light and accept Him would imply no disloyalty to an earthy chief; he could still be a Roman and yet believe. He would now urge His cause from another angle, the angle from which the heart of a Roman might be most surely reached. For the Roman honoured the nobility of character; the grandeur of Rome herself cast a shadow on all her citizens; and nobility of character is nowhere more manifest than when it pursues a noble cause. Jesus would make this last appeal, to the finest things in Pilate; though twice He would not be the first to yield. We can see the beaten figure rise to full stature, expressing kingship in every gesture despite the bonds and the foulness, as ‘Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am king. For this was I born and for this I came into the world: That I should give testimony to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.’

For a third time Jesus had appealed to the natural honesty of Pilate. From the very nature of His words we may judge what was the character of the Roman Governor; for here as everywhere Jesus adapted Himself to the one to whom He spoke. Jesus who had always shown Himself equal to all, to the simplest and the most subtle in the land, was no less the equal of the Roman. He saw in Pilate one who before all else would be what the world would call, then as now, a gentleman; with a high sense of honour, as men would measure honour, with a desire to be what men would call just and true, strong in the virtues that would make him stand well with his fellow-men, but on that very account stricken with a fatal weakness. Because other men were his standard, because other men were his judges, nothing must be suffered to make him fall in men’s eyes; on the one hand no dishonourable act as they would understand it, on the other not even Truth itself, if it spoke in language different from that which was spoken in his circle. When that came to him, when the voice of Truth threatened to put him out of harmony with the world that was his ideal, then the voice of Truth must be silenced. And that was never difficult. If Truth cannot be contradicted, she can usually be questioned; if she canot be denied, she can at least be made matter of controversy; above all if a question is asked and we do not wait for an answer.

Such was Pilate, eager to stand well before men, and for that ideal willing to sacrifice the one thing that was for his peace. He listened to this King of truth; he felt again the impulse for higher things within him. But as twice before he had failed, so now he escaped by the subterfuge common on to his kind. Truth? ‘Pilate saith to him: What is truth?’ and without waiting for a reply he rose from his seat of justice, passed the King by, and went forth again to the din of the crowd outside. How many are those who, through the ages, have imitated Pilate! It is an easy way to kill conscience, an answer escape form the call to all that is noblest, but in the very act we prove that we are cowards. Thus, in another way, is conscience apt to make cowards of us all. (Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Authorized American Edition published by the Daughters of Saint Paul, pp. 248-251.)

One Catholic politician after another has learned how to soothe their consciences by massaging them by claiming only to be “following the law” as determined by the legal positivists on the Supreme Court of the United States of America and/or by claiming to represent the “will of the people,” upon whom such latter day Pontius Pilates assert that it is “impossible” to impose “their concept of morality.” Yet others have been and continue to be so bold as to claim to be “pioneers” in behalf of “rights” (legal protection for “domestic partnerships,” including for the spiritual, moral, constitutional, legal and social atrocity that goes by the name of “gay marriage”). It is almost certainly the case, for example, that the Supreme Court of the United States of America will invent yet another “right,” that of “gay marriage,” in precisely the same manner that it invented the nonexistent “right” of married couples to purchase contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, which set the stage for Roe v. Wade and Doe v, Bolton, January 22, 1973, Eisenstadt v. Baird, March 22, 1972, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, June 29, 1992, and Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2014. Griswold v. Connecticut, though, was the jurisprudential foundation for them all, however, as the court’s seven justice majority (Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan—then the court’s lone Catholic justice, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg) “found” a “right to privacy” emanating from alleged “penumbras” in the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Obviously, this is exactly what Modernism’s “evolution of dogma” (labeled as “living tradition” by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and as the “hermeneutic of continuity” by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI), a point that was made last on this website in Modernists Say Nothing Original.

Then again, the process of soothing the consciences of Catholic in public life who wanted to remain au courant and not pose as a sign of contradiction by their complete fidelity to the Sign of Contradiction, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church has deep roots in the heresy of Americanism, although the groundwork for moral relativism began a year before the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut as a number of leading Modernists, including the late Father Robert “Father Death” Drinan, S.J., himself met at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, to discuss how the Kennedys could accept the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children under cover of the civil law while still claiming to be “good Catholics” who were simply following their “consciences”:

For faithful Roman Catholics, the thought of yet another pro-choice Kennedy positioned to campaign for the unlimited right to abortion is discouraging. Yet if Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of Catholics John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, is appointed to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, abortion-rights advocates will have just such a champion.

Ms. Kennedy was so concerned to assure pro-abortion leaders in New York, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Dec. 18, that on the same day Ms. Kennedy telephoned New York Gov. David Patterson to declare interest in the Senate seat, "one of her first calls was to an abortion rights group, indicating she will be strongly pro-choice."

Within the first week of her candidacy, Ms. Kennedy promised to work for several causes, including same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In responding to a series of 15 questions posed by the New York Times on Dec. 21, Ms. Kennedy said that, while she believes "young women facing unwanted pregnancies should have the advice of caring adults," she would oppose legislation that would require minors to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. On the crucial question of whether she supports any state or federal restrictions on late-term abortions, Ms. Kennedy chose to say only that she "supports Roe v. Wade, which prohibits third trimester abortions except when the life or health of the mother is at risk." Presumably Ms. Kennedy knows that this effectively means an unlimited right to abortion -- including late-stage abortion -- because the "health of the mother" can be so broadly defined that it includes the psychological distress that can accompany an unintended pregnancy.

Ms. Kennedy's commitment to abortion rights is shared by other prominent family members, including Kerry Kennedy Cuomo and Maryland's former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Some may recall the 2000 Democratic Convention when Caroline and her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy, addressed the convention to reassure all those gathered that the Democratic Party would continue to provide women with the right to choose abortion -- even into the ninth month. At that convention, the party's nominee, Al Gore, formerly a pro-life advocate, pledged his opposition to parental notification and embraced partial-birth abortion. Several of those in attendance, including former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, had been pro-life at one time. But by 2000 nearly every delegate in the convention hall was on the pro-choice side -- and those who weren't simply kept quiet about it.

Caroline Kennedy knows that any Kennedy desiring higher office in the Democratic Party must now carry the torch of abortion rights throughout any race. But this was not always the case. Despite Ms. Kennedy's description of Barack Obama, in a New York Times op-ed, as a "man like my father," there is no evidence that JFK was pro-choice like Mr. Obama. Abortion-rights issues were in the fledgling stage at the state level in New York and California in the early 1960s. They were not a national concern.

Even Ted Kennedy, who gets a 100% pro-choice rating from the abortion-rights group Naral, was at one time pro-life. In fact, in 1971, a full year after New York had legalized abortion, the Massachusetts senator was still championing the rights of the unborn. In a letter to a constituent dated Aug. 3, 1971, he wrote: "When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception."

But that all changed in the early '70s, when Democratic politicians first figured out that the powerful abortion lobby could fill their campaign coffers (and attract new liberal voters). Politicians also began to realize that, despite the Catholic Church's teachings to the contrary, its bishops and priests had ended their public role of responding negatively to those who promoted a pro-choice agenda.

In some cases, church leaders actually started providing "cover" for Catholic pro-choice politicians who wanted to vote in favor of abortion rights. At a meeting at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, Mass., on a hot summer day in 1964, the Kennedy family and its advisers and allies were coached by leading theologians and Catholic college professors on how to accept and promote abortion with a "clear conscience."

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

Mr. Jonsen writes that the Hyannisport colloquium was influenced by the position of another Jesuit, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

Father Milhaven later recalled the Hyannisport meeting during a 1984 breakfast briefing of Catholics for a Free Choice: "The theologians worked for a day and a half among ourselves at a nearby hotel. In the evening we answered questions from the Kennedys and the Shrivers. Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion."  ( See WSJ.com - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma. David Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, ultimately chose another pro-abortion Catholic, Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been the junior senator of the State of New York since January 26, 2009. For a review of David Paterson's moral corruption, see Little Caesars All (Pizza! Pizza!)

Even these notorious Modernist theologians, though, had received inspiration of a sort from two true archbishops, one of the, Francis Cardinal Spellman, had been a prince of the Catholic Church prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. Accompanied by the notorious Kennedy-family sycophant, Richard “Cardinal” Cushing, Spellman used a visit of Puerto Rico to cut the legs out from under the Catholic bishops of Puerto Rico at a time they were opposing a popular referendum to endorse contraceptives and sterilization:

In 1960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. The Catholic resistance was led by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national political party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.

When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U.S.-based contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization experimental programs, became increasingly concerned for their own political futures. Then unexpected help arrived in the unlikely person of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York.

One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions. While on the island, Spellman agreed to meet with CAP's major political rival, Governor Luis Munoz Marin, leader of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and a supporter of federal population control programs for Puerto Rico.

In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics from voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts. Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said.

Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never been a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cushing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might overflow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for the White House.

The national election turned out to be a political disaster for CAP. Munoz and the PDP won by a landslide. Bishop Davis was forced to end the tragic state of confusion among the Catholic laity by declaring just before the election that no penalties would be imposed on those who voted for PDP.  

Two years later, with the knowledge and approval of the American hierarchy and the Holy See, the Puerto Rican hierarchy was pressured into singing a secret concordat of "non-interference" in government-sponsored birth control programs--a sop being that the programs would now include instruction in the "rhythm method." While insisting on their right to hold and express legitimate opposition to such programs, the Puerto Rican bishops promised they would "never impose their own moral doctrines upon individuals who do not accept the Catholic teaching."

When the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo this same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 647-649)

It was five years after this travesty that “Cardinal” Cushing told a Boston radio station that he could not interfere with the “consciences” of state legislators as they considered whether to support or to oppose a bill in the Massachusetts General Court (the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). This made it far easier for the Kennedys and the Careys and Cuomos and the Bidens and the O’Neills, among others, to support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in the 1970s with the full support of the ultra-progressives in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, one of whose leaders, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, another true bishop, invented the “consistent ethic of life” (“the seamless garment) slogan to provide pro-abortion Catholics with the cover of “respectability” as long as they opposed the death penalty and supported one statist measure after another to confiscate wealth and then to redistribute it to the poor while “empowering” illegal immigrants at the same time:

Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. (As a matter of historical interest, the repeal effort was sponsored by a young state representative named Michael Dukakis, who would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the US presidency 23 years later.) In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, "An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,” and effectively scuttled the opposition.

Cardinal Cushing announced:

“My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position—moral beliefs or religious beliefs—upon those of other faiths.”

Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that "I could not in conscience approve the legislation" that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, "I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others."

So there it was: the "personally opposed" argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to "impose" his opinion.

Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. "But my thinking has changed on that matter," he reported, "for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do."

(Notice that the Catholic position is reduced still further here, to a matter of purely sectarian belief—as if it would be impossible for a non-Catholic to support the purpose of the Birth Control law. The cardinal did not explain why that law was enacted in 1899 by the heirs of the Puritans in Massachusetts, long before Catholics came to power in the legislature.)

Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: "If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church."

Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the "personally opposed" politician had his rationale. (Cushing's Use of The "Personally Opposed" Argument.)

Today’s Pontius Pilates had lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s abd 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to support each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

It is no accident that the “peace and justice” crowd at the now-named United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose work had been “divided,” so they say, in 1966 between the so-called National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference, associated with one pro-abortion and pro-sodomite group after another, many of which received funding from both Catholic Charities and the “Catholic Campaign for Human Development (see the following two news stories of the past decade, although like examples abound today all around the world: Signs of Apostasy Abound and Randy Engel on Catholic Relief Services.)

The contemporary American exemplars of the late Joseph Bernardin’s “peace and justice” crowd are, of course, having their day now as one of their very own, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, helps to soothe their consciences by saying not a word in opposition to a child-killing bill then pending in Brazil during his visit there in July of 2013 and refusing to say anything in opposition to a “gay marriage” bill in France or to a bill that legalized after-birth child killing up to the age of eighteen in Belgium last year (see Hitler Prevails After All). And the Argentine Apostate is seeing to it that his upcoming “synod” of the family is going to have the result he has desired all along, namely, that those living in sinful relationships be permitted to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. After all, pro-contraception, pro-abortion and pro-“gay rights” Catholics have had unfettered access to what is believed to be the Most Blessed Sacrament these past fifty years since Griswold v. Connecticut was decided.

There is a perfect logic, therefore, to soothing the consciences of Catholics living in sinful relationships, whether natural or unnatural in character, as the “peace and justice” crowd has always been about indemnification of personal sin while hiding behind the black robes of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America (“the law is the law”) and/or a self-righteous and morally indignant claim to the moral high ground by supporting statist programs for the “poor,” including universal health care coverage, that are premised upon recipients having full access to taxpayer-subsidized “family planning” programs. Personal sin does not matter to Jorge and his fellow revolutionaries as only “social sins” against a false concept of “charity” matters. Nothing else.

Should it come as any surprise to us that one of the most egregious personalities in the entire history of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Godfriend Danneels, who told The New York Times Magazine back in 1994 that he could never refuse to give what he believed to have been Holy Communion to a divorced and civilly “remarried” that lacked a conciliar decree of marital nullity, which is the supposed sine qua non under the false religioussect’s code of canon law, and who has long been a supporter of the Homosexual Collective and everything associated with it (see Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty) used his influence as the conciliar “bishop” of Malines-Brussels, Belgium (a position that he had between December 19, 1979, to January 18, 2010) to attempt to persuade the then King of Belgium, King Baudouin, a member of Opus Dei (see Not The Work of God), into signing a baby-killing bill that had been passed in 1990 by the same Belgian legislature that would endorse after-birth child-killing twenty-four years later:

Two Belgian politicians admit for the first time openly that Cardinal Godfried Danneels tried to convince King Baudouin to sign the law on abortion in 1990. Former politicians Philippe Moureau (PS, Parti Socialiste) and Mark Eyskens (CVP, Flemish Christian Democrats) said this in a documentary for the Flemish Broadcasting Corporation VTM on April 6, 2015 (http://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/135916-25-jaar-abortuswet-boudewijn-onder-druk, at 2:05). According to VTM, cardinal Danneels did not want to comment. 

In 1990, the 14 members of the Belgian Government - a coalition led by CVP-Prime Minister Wilfried Martens, signed one of the most liberal abortion bills in the world. King Baudouin, a devout Catholic, refused to sign this bill into law, and was temporarily considered fictitiously "incapacitated" so that the government could have the bill turned into law. 

Danneels, rabid liberal and a known pedophile-bishop-protector, was picked by Pope Francis as one of his personal choices for the 2014 Family Synod.  (http://www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/cardinal-danneels-family-expert-chosen.html.)

Yes, the “experts” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are men who long ago taught Catholic politician to be latter-day Pontius Pilates, men willing to sacrifice the truth of Truth Himself in order to curry favor with “the people.”

Thus it is that the words from Archbishop Goodier’s The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ are more relevant than ever before:

For a third time Jesus had appealed to the natural honesty of Pilate. From the very nature of His words we may judge what was the character of the Roman Governor; for here as everywhere Jesus adapted Himself to the one to whom He spoke. Jesus who had always shown Himself equal to all, to the simplest and the most subtle in the land, was no less the equal of the Roman. He saw in Pilate one who before all else would be what the world would call, then as now, a gentleman; with a high sense of honour, as men would measure honour, with a desire to be what men would call just and true, strong in the virtues that would make him stand well with his fellow-men, but on that very account stricken with a fatal weakness. Because other men were his standard, because other men were his judges, nothing must be suffered to make him fall in men’s eyes; on the one hand no dishonourable act as they would understand it, on the other not even Truth itself, if it spoke in language different from that which was spoken in his circle. When that came to him, when the voice of Truth threatened to put him out of harmony with the world that was his ideal, then the voice of Truth must be silenced. And that was never difficult. If Truth cannot be contradicted, she can usually be questioned; if she canot be denied, she can at least be made matter of controversy; above all if a question is asked and we do not wait for an answer.

Such was Pilate, eager to stand well before men, and for that ideal willing to sacrifice the one thing that was for his peace. He listened to this King of truth; he felt again the impulse for higher things within him. But as twice before he had failed, so now he escaped by the subterfuge common on to his kind. Truth? ‘Pilate saith to him: What is truth?’ and without waiting for a reply he rose from his seat of justice, passed the King by, and went forth again to the din of the crowd outside. How many are those who, through the ages, have imitated Pilate! It is an easy way to kill conscience, an answer escape form the call to all that is noblest, but in the very act we prove that we are cowards. Thus, in another way, is conscience apt to make cowards of us all. (Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Authorized American Edition published by the Daughters of Saint Paul, pp. 248-251.)

Catholics in public life today have been indemnified in their support for one moral evil after another by various and sundry officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, doing so at the present time with the tacit support of the ever-merciful Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a veritable Judas Isacariot who is selling out the truths of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, including the truth of His Social Reign over men and their nations, to placate his Talmudic friends who have promoted these very evils with such ready abandon for such a long time now.

Pro-abortion Catholics in public life, however, are not the only ones who have let their consciences make cowards of out of them. Far from it! There are numerous priests and presbyters within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have learned to keep their mouths shut—and shut tightly—about the heresies, apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and other outrages that have been emanating from the mouths of conciliar “popes” and their “bishops,” Such men have reassured themselves (or have been reassured by false confessors, especially those in Opus Dei) into believing that silence is a matter of “prudence” in accord with their malformed conscience in order to carry on what they believe to be their priestly ministry and to limit the damage of the men about whom they boast of being so obedient.

This is prudence of the flesh, however, and not prudence of the spirit as nothing other than honor and glory and majesty of God must be defended with firmness and by recognizing that the Catholic Church can never be responsible for the outrages unfolding before our very eyes. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI no less offended the honor and glory and majesty of God and thus hurt the eternal and temporal good of souls than has been done since March 13, 2013, by the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Yet it is that many of those who “knew better,” priest and laity alike, kept quiet as the old German Modernist by way of the “new theology condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Ratzinger/Benedict, publicly esteemed the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands, made constant warfare against the very nature of dogmatic truth and made statements, whether “official” or “unofficial” in his heresy-filled books. Silence. Complete and total silence. Conscience has been used to make cowards of those who have maintained such silence in the past or who might be doing so yet in the midst of Jorge’s more visceral manner of promoting the exact same lies that have been promoted by his predecessors.

Why should non-Catholics in public life have courage to oppose the moral evils of the day without any kind of compromise and without fear of electoral consequences when the conciliar officials fear not the very just judgment of God upon their immortal souls for helping suborn those in public life who promote the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and as they, the conciliar officials, promote egregious heresies and errors that are the work of Antichrist, not of Christ the King?

Remember these words written by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Our Lord wants us to persevere as we continue to make efforts to reform our lives in cooperation with the ineffable graces He won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. He offers to make us sharers in His Easter victory over the power of sin and eternal death if we persevere until the end in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of His Catholic Church: 

[32] But call to mind the former days, wherein, being illuminated, you endured a great fight of afflictions. [33] And on the one hand indeed, by reproaches and tribulations, were made a gazingstock; and on the other, became companions of them that were used in such sort. [34] For you both had compassion on them that were in bands, and took with joy the being stripped of your own goods, knowing that you have a better and a lasting substance. [35] Do not therefore lose your confidence, which hath a great reward.

[36] For patience is necessary for you; that, doing the will of God, you may receive the promise. [37] For yet a little and a very little while, and he that is to come, will come, and will not delay. [38] But my just man liveth by faith; but if he withdraw himself, he shall not please my soul. [39] But we are not the children of withdrawing unto perdition, but of faith to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10: 32-39.) 

Are we willing to suffer reproaches from our relations and friends now for our embrace of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation as we make no concessions to concilairism or the officials of its false church?

Are we willing to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits to maintain our confidence that God does not indeed reward those who are patient in their sufferings for the cause of truth, that He will come to rescue them without delay?

May it be, my good and very few readers (and fewer donors, I should add!), that we will be found not as "the children of withdrawing unto perdition, but of faith to the saving of the soul" as we live always as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

Let us continue to celebrate Our Lord's Easter Victory over the power of sin and eternal death this Easter season will be but a foretaste of the eternal glories reserved for those who bear their fair share of hardship which the Gospel entails with patience and gratitude and love.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Saint Benedict Joseph Labre, pray for us.

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

Saint Benedict Joseph Labre, pray for us.