Although I did not expect to write a sequel to Thursday’s article, several things have occurred since the commentary was last revised on Thursday afternoon. Suffice it say that the swollen-headed rats among Congressional Republicans who are addicted to the perquisites that come with political power are rather upset that the riff-raff have dared to select a presidential nominee who meets with their condescending, self-righteous disapproval.
Led by the smarmy little devotee of “hard core metal” noise (“music”), United States Representative Paul Davis Ryan, Congressional Republicans have done the bidding of the United States Chamber of Commerce, K Street lobbyists, bankers, multinational corporations, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) while enabling the statist policies of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro at almost every turn. These so-called “wise men” have gutted American manufacturing, shifted thousands upon thousands of America jobs overseas, sent thousands of American military personnel into harm’s way needlessly, and crushed future generations of Americans with a national debt that may yet contribute to the collapse of the country in a manner reminiscent of the fall of Rome. That these political robber barons have the temerity to thumb their noses at the over eighteen million voters who rejected their establishment ways by voting for Donald John Trump (10,717,357) or Raphael Edward Cruz (7,325,796), both of whom ran as anti-establishment candidates, gives new meaning to the word chutzpah.
That is, two-thirds of those who have voted thus far in the Republican Party’s presidential primaries or caucuses this year have rejected “establishment” candidates such as John Ellis (JEB!) Bush and Marco Antonio Rubio. The percentage of anti-establishment votes is actually around seventy percent when one includes the 732,107 votes that were cast for Benjamin Solomon Carson. Thus it is that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Paul Davis Ryan, who represents but a single district in the State of Wisconsin, believes that he has the moral authority to speak down to the voters who are very justifiably angry with how Congressional Republicans have lived in fear of being blamed for government shutdowns and for being called racists if they actually had done something substantive to do what the Constitution authorizes them to do: check and balance the abuse of power by a president who has no regard for the laws of God or men.
What is particularly interesting in Ryan’s condemnation of Donald Trump is the high regard in which he holds the dictatorial Abraham Lincoln, who had as much contempt for the Constitution and for the lives of innocent human beings as our current “soft” dictator, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Ryan believes that Donald John Trump is the antithesis of the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, who used raw terrorism to force the sovereign states of the Confederate States of America back into “communion,” shall we say, with a Federal government that was intent on using their secession as the pretext to increase its size, scope and reach over the lives of ordinary citizens.
To refresh readers’ memories, I am pasting below in Appendix A material published on this site seventy-four months ago that attests to the fact that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist who did not believe in a personal God, which is why he could authorize the use of raw terror against civilian population centers, including the City of Atlanta, Georgia, and the swath of land devastated by William Tecumseh Sherman’s “march to the sea” from Atlanta to Savannah, Georgia, that took place between November 15, 1864, and December 21, 1864. Sherman wrote to Lincoln to present the City of Savannah as a “Christmas gift” to him, which the sixteenth president accepted with gratitude.
The War Between the States was an effort to hold the United States of America together by armed force. It was not an effort to end slavery. Lincoln created the mold by which his successors could ignore the Constitution with impunity and pursue amoral policies with the full support of Congressional enablers. Lincoln’s lawlessness established a precedent that has been followed by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, John Calvin Coolidge (in coming to the aid of Plutarco Elias Calles against the Cristeros and sending American troops to occupy Nicaragua and Haiti to advance the interests of American businesses), Herbert Clark Hoover, many of whose statist policies were adopted but renamed by his successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose “New Deal” helped to create the monstrous Federal bureaucracy that has stifled the country ever since, Lyndon Baines Johnson (the Great Society and War on Poverty), Richard Milhous Nixon (funding for international population “control,” the imposition of wage and price controls), James Earl Carter, Jr., William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, George Walker Bush and, of course, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Abraham Lincoln, who was also invoked by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in his address to a special joint meeting of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, is a model of one thing: totalitarianism.
Yet it is that Paul Davis Ryan, whose knowledge of true history is nonexistent, wants Donald John Trump to bow day and pay homage at the altar of the atheist Lincoln, a man who was personally responsible for issuing orders that took the lives of countless thousands of innocent human beings and dealt a blow to the Constitution, the meaning of whose words are as helpless in the hands of tyrants and positivists as the words of Sacred Scripture are in the hands of Protestants and Modernists, from which it has never recovered. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is but the logical end result of a document framed by men who themselves had no regard for the rights of Christ the King or the authority of His true Church. Lincoln simply took full advantage of that which admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words, the Constitution of the United States of America.
Ryan also wants Trump to worship at the altar of “conservative” demigods Ronald Wilson Reagan, who governed his life by means of astrology, which just happens to be a violation of the First Commandment, and the thirty-third degree Freemason named Jack French Kemp, who was in favor of the social-engineering represented by open borders.
Let me try to get this straight.
Paul Davis Ryan believes that a naturalistic political philosophy, conservatism, is the sole standard of electoral politics and public-policy decision-making.
Ryan, accompanied by other Republican elitists such as columnists George Will and William Kristol and neoconservative war hawks such as John Sidney McCain III and Lindsay Graham, believes himself to be one of the authoritative interpreters and guardians of what “conservatism” represents and who is considered to be “fit” enough to speak in its behalf.
Ryan thus believes that there are fixed, non-negotiable principles that a Republican presidential candidate must adhere to in order to be “worthy” of the supposedly hallowed privilege of being this organized crime family of naturalism’s nominee for the highest elected office in the United States of America.
In other words, Paul Davis Ryan is a self-appointed “pope” (or at least a self-appointed “prefect” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Conservative Faith) who can ignore the fact that nearly eleven million voters have chosen a candidate who fails to live up to his, Ryan’s, arbitrary definition of what constitutes being a “conservative.”
There are several philosophical flaws to what Paul Davis Ryan believes.
First, no “philosophy” or ideology based in naturalism can ever provide any kind of stable foundation for the pursuit of the common temporal good.
How many times must it be necessary for me to reminder the readers of this site that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order?
All right, I will do so again:
Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Second, one of Protestantism’s enduring consequences is the overthrow of the Divinely-instituted, hierarchical authority of the Catholic Church. The result has been the triumph of the reign of a radical egalitarianism and thus the divinizing of man and his beliefs, no matter how erroneous or heretical they may be.
Thus, just as Protestantism (or even Orthodoxy before it) lacks any authoritative teacher to bind all “believers,” who are said to be “equal” to each other and equally able to interpret the words of Holy Writ, so is it the case the naturalistic “philosophies” and/or ideologies lack any single authoritative teacher to bind all adherents.
Who is Paul Davis Ryan to define “conservative” orthodoxy? He is simply one out of many.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of Modernity, whose scions have had to create their own hierarchies of high priests and priestesses to whom citizens are supposed to pay homage and render their obsequious submission.
Third, while “conservatives” have belonged to the Republican Party for a long time, it is not accurate to say that the Republican Party has been or is now institutionally “conservative.”
A Thumbnail Review of Republican Factionalism: 1854 to 2016
The Republican Party began in 1854, running its first presidential candidate, General John C. Fremont, in 1856, who lost to Democratic Party nominee James Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln, who had served precisely one term as a United States Representative from Springfield, Illinois, was its first successful presidential candidate four years later, although he only won because the Democratic Party was split three ways, making it possible to win a majority of the electoral college vote despite garnering only 39.8% of the popular vote. Perhaps it should be mentioned that Lincoln’s election was one of the factors that precipitated the War Between the States.
The Republican Party was composed of a number of factions in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, but it catered mostly to big businesses and was noted for anti-Catholic nativism, noting that it had some prominent Catholic supporters, including the notorious Americanist Archbishop of Saint Paul, John Ireland. The anti-Catholicism of most White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Republicans, though, contributed in large measure to affiliation of Catholic immigrants to this country from Eastern and Southern Europe with the Democratic Party.
By the turn of the Twentieth Century the Republican Party was led by the progressivist Theodore Roosevelt, a thirty-third degree Freemason, who believed in nationalism as opposed to federalism. A “conservative” faction, led by Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, gained power in 1909 before one of the Republican Party’s great, cataclysmic disputes erupted in 1912 when former President Theodore Roosevelt divided the Republican vote by running on a third party line (Progressive Party, more commonly known at the time as the “Bull Moose Party”) after being thwarted by the Taft forces at the Republican National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, in 1912, from reclaiming the Republican mantle for himself. This resulted in the election of the statist, philandering Governor of New Jersey, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who gave us the Federal income tax, the Federal Reserve System, American interventionism in Mexico in support of one anti-Catholic revolutionary after another, and American intervention in the needless, unjust and immoral World War I, called “The Great War” at the time.
It was during the New Deal of Theodore Roosevelt’s fifth cousin and fellow Freemason, the philandering Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was married to fifth cousin Eleanor Roosevelt the daughter of “Teddy’s” brother James Roosevelt), that the conservative and isolationist wings were most prominent within the party, something that prompted a reaction from Eastern liberal Republicans, who wanted to establish a sort of Whiggish “me too” policy to accommodate the reality of Franklin Roosevelt’s welfare state, while “conservative” Republicans such as 1936 presidential nominee Alfred Landon, Governor of Kansas, opposed the New Deal in its entirety.
World War II helped the cause of the liberal, internationalist wing of Eastern Republicans. It was this wing whose maneuvers made possible the presidential nominations of “me too” presidential candidates as Wendell Wilkie (a registered Democrat until 1939) in 1940, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948, and Dwight David Eisenhower (who had been a registered Democrat until shortly before the Republican National Convention).
Eisenhower’s administration “conserved” Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and consolidated many of its disparate bureaucracies into the monstrosity known originally in 1953 as the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which has been known as the United States Department of Health and Human Services since 1979).
This was all preface to the epic “conservative”-“liberal” Republican warfare that took place in 1964 between the supporters of Planned Barrenhood’s own Barry Goldwater and Planned Barrenhood’s own Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Talk about false opposites! Many “establishment” Republicans walked out the Cow Palace in Daly City fifty-two years ago and openly supported the uncouth, philandering statist named Lyndon Baines Johnson. The 1964 Republican National Convention, which I witnessed live on television, was a raucous event, highlighted by Nelson Rockefeller threatening to slug United States Representative Melvin Laird (R-Wisconsin) when the latter wanted Rockefeller to end his speech to the delegates as he was being booed mercilessly. National Broadcasting Company convention floor reporter John Chancellor was escorted out of the Cow Palace by security guards, a fate that would befall the nefarious Dan Rather at the riotous Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, four years later.
A truce of sorts between the “conservatives” and “me too” Republicans emerged in the administration of President Richard Milhous Nixon. This truce stayed firm until Congressional Democrats, aided and abetted by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, began investigation into the amoral Nixon’s abuse of presidential powers, abuses that had precedent in many previous administrations, although multiple wrongs, of course, can never make any single instance of wrongdoing correct. This truce ended when Nixon’s successor, President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr./Leslie Lynch King, Jr., forged ahead with the giveaway of the Panama Canal, giving the then former Governor of California, Ronald Wilson Reagan, whose televised speech in behalf of Barry Goldwater in October of 1964 launched his political career, an opportunity to oppose Ford, the nation’s only non-elected president, for the 1976 Republican nomination, a battle that left bitter feelings in the Reagan camp.
Yet it is that the “Battle of ‘76” resulted in Reagan’s securing the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1980, whereupon another truce within the organized crime family of naturalism of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” arose. This truce involved “social conservatives,” who sought to reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and prevent ratification of the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, “economic conservatives,” who were concerned about supply-side economics and large tax cuts to stimulate an economy suffering from high inflation and unemployment, and “neoconservatives,” a movement that consisted mostly, although not exclusively, of Talmudists who had been Trotskyites turned anti-Communists. These are the folks whose contemporary exponents brought us the “Global War on Terror” in order to make the world safe for the Zionist State of Israel.
The Reagan-era truce was maintained by the fact that each of the competing factions within the Republican Party had one thing in common: a firm opposition to Communism. Anti-Communism was the glue that held the Reagan coalition together. Careerist Republicans, for example, tolerated Reagan’s pro-life rhetoric, but it was shortly after he returned to California on January 20, 1989, that his successor’s handpicked head of the Republican National Committee, Lee Atwater, began to push for the “big tent” philosophy on abortion that has been detailed on this site many times in the past (see The Winner of the 2016 Republican Nomination Will Be . . . . A Naturalist, Gee What A Surprise.)
The apparent end of Communism in Eastern European countries at the end of 1989 and the apparent end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on December 25, 1991, began the process of the emergence of Buchananism, which opposed needless American military interventionism and took a traditionally Republican protectionist stance in opposition to trade deals that surrendered American national sovereignty to bodies of bodies of international governance that were accountable to no one.
Patrick Joseph Buchanan posed a mortal threat to the hegemony of the Republican establishment. He was especially hated by neoconservatives such as William Kristol, the son of original neoconservatives, Irving Kristol, because of his opposition to the blanket support for the policies of the State of Israel demanded of American presidential administrations by Talmudists and their manipulated “Christian Zionist” allies. The neoconservatives so hated Pat Buchanan that they encouraged others, such as Dr. Alan Keyes, William Kristol’s roommate at Harvard University, and United States Representative Robert K. Dornan (R-California), to run for Republican presidential nomination in order to siphon votes away from him in 1996.
Another Republican fault-line that began to form in the 1990s during the administration of President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton divided “me too” statists such as United States Senator Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., a thirty-third degree Freemason, and United States Representative Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-Georgia). It was as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives that Gingrich called Dole, then the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the “tax collector for the welfare state.” Dole was a simple “split the difference” legislative compromiser. Gingrich had his “Contract with America,” and was prepared to shut down the Federal government at the end of 1995 to force Clinton to get serious about reduce the rate of increase in the growth of Federal entitlement programs.
Clinton demagogued the issue, claiming Gingrich and his fellow House Republicans were proposing an absolute cut in entitlement programs. They were not. They were proposing a reduction in the rate of the annual increase of Federal monies allotted to such programs. Undaunted, though, Clinton claimed that Republicans wanted to kill the elderly, starve children, poison the environment and entrap the poor in lives of inescapable poverty. Dole could not stand such a confrontation, a spirit of timidity and cowardice that was exhibited by former House Speaker John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio) and is being exhibited at present by the current House Speaker, Paul Davis Ryan (see Still Enabling Statism).
By the way, the inarticulate, hapless and ever-mercurial Dole defeated Buchanan for the 1996 Republican Party presidential nomination and then proceeded to lose in a landslide to Clinton. His campaign was as much as a joke as that of John Sidney McCain III’s in 2008 and that of Willard Mitt Romney’s in 2012. Dole, McCain and Romney each cared about being “moderate” as it was thought that being “moderate” was the path to electability. Wrong.
Texas Governor George Walker Bush, a neoconservative Protestant Zionist, prevailed over “me too” McCain for the 2000 Republican Party presidential nomination, holding on to defeat then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., in the general election, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, solely because Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader won 97,488 votes in the State of Florida, thereby giving him the Sunshine State’s twenty-five electoral votes and thus the presidency even though he lost the populate vote to the enviromanaic Gore by 547,398 votes.
Bush the Lesser used the tragic (and more than a little curious) events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, as his own personal mandate to fulfill the neoconservative plan to redraw the map of the Middle East, starting with the unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq on March 20, 2003, an adventure that needlessly put thousands upon thousands of Americans into harm’s way, devastated the infrastructure of Iraq, destabilized the Middle East, killed untold thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, forced Chaldean Rite Catholics to flee from a place that their ancestors had called home since before Apostolic times. Iraq’s borders were made porous, making it possible for the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which now exercises great influence in Baghdad, to send in all manner of terrorists to attack American troops and Iraqi Christians.
Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with profligate domestic spending, made possible the election of United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro (D-Illinois) against United States Senator John Sidney McCain III (R-Arizona), who is of the “me too” statist, warfare wing of the Republican Party, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Obama/Soetoro won re-election handily on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, because his Republican opponent, the waffler named Willard Mitt Romney, ran a campaign that made McCain’s look competent. Why should voters support milquetoast statists such as Dole, McCain and Romney when they can have the real deal with William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and, now, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?
The Elites Know Best
Yes, despite the efforts of the Tax Enough Already (TEA) Party movement to change Congress with their stunning electoral victories in 2010 and 2014, the Republican establishment ignored the demands that voters were making upon them to provide real resistance to Obama/Soetoro and to refuse to fund his unconstitutional and immoral programs and provide some kind of actual check upon his abuse of the powers of the presidency, including his efforts to stonewall investigations and to use the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate his political opponents. This is what helped to create the environment that has propelled Donald John Trump to have the success that he has achieved during this current election cycle.
Paul Davis Ryan is thus very disingenuous when speaking about “Republican values.” The Republican Party has been riven by internal disputes and debates since its very inception in 1854, and he is not a Divinely-appointed arbiter of what it represents.
The real problem here, of course, is that Ryan and others of his ilk see that their party’s putative presidential nominee has won a good deal of support by using issues and arguments that had been advanced twenty years ago by Patrick Joseph Buchanan. This is what has angered Paul Davis Ryan, who believes himself to be an “enlightened” conservative, as the House Speaker’s “vision” of the United States of America has more in common with Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro than it does with the nearly eleven million voters who have supported Trump.
All of this having been noted, of course, I change nothing of my own criticisms of Trump’s coarseness and his lack of any rudimentary understanding of First and Last Things, to say nothing of the simple fact that he does not know Consitutional history or even its major provisions. This is to take nothing away from Trump’s electoral accomplishments or his ability to get under the skin of professional politicians who have been drinking from the public trough throughout the entirety of their professional lives to point this out clearly. Donald John Trump has done a masterful job of exposing the farce of America’s political establishment, and for that he deserves much credit. That alone, however, does not serve as a solid intellectual foundation for just governance, especially when he boasted yesterday, Sunday, May 8, 2016, Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension and the Commemoration of the Apparition of Saint Michael the Archangel, that he is free to change his mind on such things as taxation and the minimum wage. Donald John Trump does not believe in anything very solidly, and even the little that he does believe is subject to negotiation, compromise and bargaining.
Fighting Supernatural, Not Natural, Forces
My point, however is simple: the American political system has been a farce from its very beginning. We live in a country where men have always been divided by a welter of errors. Error divides. Catholicism unites. Have you read that somewhere before?
It must be remembered that Republican presidential candidates only garnered a majority of the popular vote once since 1988, and that was then President George Walker Bush received 50.7% of the vote to then United States Senator John “Borderless World” Kerry’s 48.3% on November 2, 2004. The electorate has moved to the “left” since President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s forty-nine state landslide on November 5, 1984.
Here’s more cheery news for you.
Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro enjoys an approval rating of 53% in the latest Gallup Poll survey. This should serve as a sobering reminder that only a small sliver of the American electorate have participated thus far in the Republican primary and caucus process.
Republicans such as Paul Davis Ryan believe that someone such as Donald John Trump will lose in a landslide to Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton because he cannot reach out to Democrats, independents and “moderate” Republicans are very satisfied with the state of the country at this time. Even though such Republicans say that they care about “conservative” principles, it their principal goal to conserve themselves in power, and the way to do that, they believe, is to “conserve” the welfare state and adjust to the “reality” of borderless nations.
This is all a farce.
There is no salvation in electoral politics, and a country whose leaders have sought to undermine, if not attack openly, Catholicism in such countries as Mexico, Cuba, and The Philippines by the introduction of Freemasonry and Protestant “missionaries” is not going to be “saved” by any mere mortal at this time, whether of the “left” or of the “right.” We are eyewitnesses to perfect of the inherent degeneracy of the American founding principles just as surely as we ae eyewitnesses to the same process of degeneration that is unfolding with the counterfeit church of conciliarism at this time.
There is one thing, however, that unites the Republican’s establishment critics of Donald John Trump with the object of their derision and scorn: Americanism. See Appendix Cbelow for a summary and critique of Americanism’s basic premises.
Americanism has deep roots on the soil of the former English colonies, and it was given expression in the Seventeenth Century by John Winthrop, a Puritan preacher, who blasphemed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by twisting his words to refer to what became the United States of America over a century and one-half later as the “shining city set on a hill,” a phrase used repeatedly by President Ronald Wilson Reagan and was invoked six days ago now by United States Senator Raphael Edward Cruz as he suspended his campaign.
Reagan invoked the phrase in his farewell address to the nation on January 11, 1989:
And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all. (Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989, Farewell Address.)
Alas, Ronald Wilson Reagan had it wrong. Whatever accomplishments he thought were achieved during his eight years in office were undone in the years thereafter, especially during the presidencies of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, although George Herbert Walker Bush, who really had no use for many of Reagan’s policies, chipped away at a few things during his disastrous one term in office. Nothing is ever “settled” in the United States of America unless it is “settled” on the terms of the false opposite of the “left,” and this is so because everything must fall apart absent the Social Reign of Christ the King. There is a direct line from Martin Luther to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.
The shining city set on a hill." This blasphemous corruption of the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ("You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid") taken from the Sermon on the Mount as recounted in the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (5: 14), to the land settled by the Catholic-hating Puritans, including the John Winthrop who was so praised by the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan? God meant to establish the followers and their false, wicked, diabolical theology and approach to materialism as the "beacon" for the rest of the world? John Winthrop as a "freedom man." No man is a freedom man unless he yokes himself to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as that Cross is lifted high by the Catholic Church, the one and only "shining city that is set on a hill," the one and only beacon to the world.
Pope Saint Pius X explained that the true shining city set on a hill is the Catholic City. None other:
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.)
The city we must build up every day within our own souls is the Catholic City. We must conform everything in our own lives to the immutable truth of the Holy Faith as we seek to cooperate with the graces won for us by Christ the King by virtue of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. The Catholic City can only be built up in the world after we have sought to build it up within the fortress of our immortal souls, which have been redeemed at so great a cost.
To this end, of course, we must be totally consecrated to Our Lord through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
The farces of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are converging to impose upon us an era of persecution and hardship. These forces are driven by principalities and powers, and they will not be defeated in an election. They can be defeated only by the use of supernatural means. Nations whose citizens fail to understand this truth are destined to be governed by tyrants, no matter how “soft” and “tolerant they may seem.
A system of civil governance that fosters conditions that are inimical to man's last end is bound to degenerate over the course of time into a such a state of lawlessness that a "state religion" will be imposed by the brute force of the the civil state, namely, that of statism itself, the worship of the state and of its leaders as omniscient and omnipotent. The antidote to this is not found in any naturalistic philosophy, such as libertarianism or conservatism, but in Catholicism alone. There is no way--as in no way--to retard the evils caused by the separation of Church and State wrought by Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry and their actual, concrete expressions in the American and French Revolutions except by planting the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.
This is the work to which each of us is called. We are called to look beyond the lies of office-seekers steeped in naturalism and are clueless about First and Last Things in order to build up Christendom in our homes, starting with their being Enthroned to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pulsating with the rhythm provided by the liturgical life of the Church, especially (where this is possible) daily Mass in the Catholic catacombs where no concessions are made to conciliarism or its false shepherds who are opposed to the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and animated by fervent family prayer, especially by means of the daily family Rosary and frequent visits to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
We are not called to be worldlings. We are not called to be grubby Calvinist materialists. We are not called to be successful careerists willing to compromise the Faith at any given moment in order to "get ahead." We are called to be faithful to Christ the King and to ever reliant upon Mary our Immaculate Queen, ever desirous of scaling the heights of sanctity, which is the sole foundation of order in the soul and hence of order within society itself.
Pope Pius XI, writing in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, exhorted us to be soldiers in army of Christ the King:
Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?" If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. "With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. "You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men." If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquillity, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent. Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished.
If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth -- he who came to reconcile all things, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, who, though Lord of all, gave himself to us as a model of humility, and with his principal law united the precept of charity; who said also: "My yoke is sweet and my burden light." Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ! "Then at length," to use the words addressed by our predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, twenty-five years ago to the bishops of the Universal Church, "then at length will many evils be cured; then will the law regain its former authority; peace with all its blessings be restored. Men will sheathe their swords and lay down their arms when all freely acknowledge and obey the authority of Christ, and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father". . . .
If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.
Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
We should consider our privilege to run the risk of whatever calumnies may come our way for being steadfast in behalf of the cause of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, offering to the Most Sacred Heart of Our King all of our sufferings and humiliations for reminding everyone, including the apostates in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who believe are the latter-day apostles of the heresy of Americanism, that He must rule over men and nations, making this offering to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
It is time to plant some seeds for this victory now as the hour is very late indeed.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
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 Beloved, 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 Balathasar, pray for us.
Saint Gregory Nazianzen, pray for us.
Abraham Lincoln's Atheism
Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio, and edited by Francis E. Abbott:
Some time since I promised you that I would send you a letter in relation to Mr. Lincoln's religion. I do so now. Before entering on that question, one or two preliminary remarks will help us to understand why he disagreed with the Christian world in its principles as well as in its theology. In the first place, Mr. Lincoln's mind was a purely logical mind; secondly, Mr. Lincoln's was a purely practical mind. He had no fancy or imagination, and not much emotion. He was a realist as opposed to an idealist. As a rule, it is true that a purely logical mind has not much hope, if it ever has faith, in the unseen and unknown. Mr. Lincoln had not much hope and no faith in the unseen and unknown. Mr. Lincoln had not much hope and no faith in things that lie outside of the domain of demonstration; he was so constituted, so organized that he could believe nothing unless his senses or logic could reach it. I have often read to him a law point, a decision, or something I fancied. He could not understand it until he took the book out of my hand, and read the thing for himself. He was terribly, vexatiously skeptical. He could scarcely understand anything, unless he had time and place fixed in his mind.
I became acquainted with Mr. Lincoln in 1834, and I think I knew him well to the day of his death. His mind, when a boy in Kentucky, showed a certain gloom, an unsocial nature, a peculiar abstractness, a bold and daring skepticism. In Indiana, from 1817 to 1830, it manifested the same qualities or attributes as in Kentucky; it only intensified, developed itself, along those lines in Indiana. He came to Illinois in 1830, and, after some little roving, settled in New Salem, now in Menard County and State of Illinois. This village lies about 20 miles north-west of this city. It was here that Mr. Lincoln became acquainted with a class of men the world never saw the like of before or since. They were large men -- large in body and large in mind; hard to whip and never to be fooled. They were a bold, daring, and reckless sort of men; they were men of their own minds -- believed what was demonstrable; were men of great common sense. With these men Mr. Lincoln was thrown; with them he lived, and with them he moved and almost had his being. They were skeptics all -- scoffers some. These scoffers were good men, and their scoffs were protests against theology -- loud protests against the follies of Christianity. They had never heard of Theism and the newer and better religious thoughts of this age. Hence, being natural skeptics, and being bold, brave men, they uttered their thoughts freely. They declared that Jesus was an illegitimate child. They were on all occasions, when an opportunity offered, debating the various questions of Christianity among themselves. They took their stand on common sense and on their own souls; and though their arguments were rude and rough, no man could overthrow their homely logic. They riddled all divines, and not unfrequently made them skeptics, unbelievers as bad as themselves. They were a jovial, healthful, generous, social, true, and manly set of people.
It was here and among these people that Mr. Lincoln was thrown. About the year 1834 he chanced to come across Volney's Ruins and some of Paine's theological works. He at once seized hold of them, and assimilated them into his own being. Volney and Paine became a part of Lincoln from 1834 to the end of his life.
In 1835 he wrote out a small work on Infidelity, and intended to have it published. This book was an attack upon the whole grounds of Christianity, and especially was it an attack upon the idea that Jesus was the Christ, the true and only-begotten son of God, as the Christian world contends. Mr. Lincoln was at that time in New Salem, keeping store for Mr. Samuel Hill, a merchant and postmaster of that place. Lincoln and Hill were very friendly. Hill, I think, was a skeptic at the time. Lincoln, one day after the book was finished, read it to Mr. Hill, his good friend. Hill tried to persuade him not to make it public, not to publish it. Hill, at that time, saw in Lincoln a rising man, and wished him success. Lincoln refused to destroy it -- said it should be published. Hill swore it should never see the light of day. He had an eye on Lincoln's popularity -- his present and future success; and believing that if the book was published it would kill Lincoln forever, he snatched it from Lincoln's hand when Lincoln was not expecting it, and ran it into an old-fashioned tin plate stove, heated as hot as a furnace; and so Lincoln's book went up to the clouds in smoke. It is confessed by all who heard parts of it that it was at once able and eloquent; and, if I may judge it from Mr. Lincoln's subsequent ideas and opinions, often expressed to me and to others in my presence, it was able, strong, plain and fair. His argument was grounded on the internal mistakes of the Old and New Testaments, and on reason and on the experiences and observations of men. The criticisms from internal defects were sharp, strong, and manly.
Mr. Lincoln moved to this city in 1837, and here became acquainted with various men of his own way of thinking. At that time they called themselves Freethinkers, or Freethinking men. I remember all these things distinctly; for I was with them, heard them and was one of them. Mr. Lincoln here found other works -- Hume, Gibbon, and others -- and drank them in. He made no secret of his views; no concealment of his religion. He boldly avowed himself an Infidel.
When Mr. Lincoln was a candidate for our legislature, he was accused of being an Infidel and of having said that Jesus was an illegitimate child. He never denied his opinions nor flinched from his religious views. He was a true man, and yet it may be truthfully said that in 1837 his religion was low indeed. In his moments of gloom he would doubt, if he did not sometimes deny, God.
Mr. Lincoln ran for Congress against the Rev. Peter Cartwright in the year 1846. In that contest he was accused of being an Infidel, if not an Atheist. He never denied the charge -- would not -- "would die first." In the first place, because it could and would be proved on him; and in the second place, he was too true to his own convictions, to his own soul, to deny it.
When Mr. Lincoln left this city for Washington, I knew he had undergone no change in his religious opinions or views. He held many of the Christian ideas in abhorrence, and among them this one, namely, that God would forgive the sinner for a violation of his laws. Lincoln maintained that God could not forgive; that Christianity was wrong in teaching forgiveness.
From what I know of Mr. Lincoln, and from what I have heard and verily believe, I can say, first, that he did not believe in special creation, his idea being that all creation was an evolution under law; secondly, that he did not believe that the Bible was a special revelation from God, as the Christian world contends; thirdly, he did not believe in miracles as understood by Christians; fourthly, he believed in universal inspiration and miracles under law; fifthly, he did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, as the Christian church contends; sixthly, he believed that all things, both matter and mind, were governed by laws, universal, absolute and eternal. All his speeches and remarks in Washington conclusively prove this. Law was to Lincoln everything, and special interferences, shams and delusions.
From private letters from Herndon to Mr. Remsburg, and published for the first time in Abraham Lincoln: Was He a Christian? in 1893.
I was the personal friend of Lincoln from 1834 to the day of his death. In 1843 we entered into a partnership which was never formally dissolved. When he became unpopular in this Congressional district because of his speeches on the Mexican War, I was faithful to him. When he espoused the anti-slavery cause and in the eyes of most men had hopelessly ruined his political prospects, I stood by him, and through the press defended his course. In those dark hours, by our unity of sentiment and by political ostracism, we were driven to a close and enduring friendship. You should take it for granted, then, that I knew Mr. Lincoln well. During all this time, from 1834 to 1862, when I last saw him, he never intimated to me, either directly or indirectly, that he had changed his religious opinions. Had he done so had -- he let drop one word or look in that direction, I should have detected it.
I had an excellent private library, probably the best in the city for admired books. To this library Mr. Lincoln had, as a matter of course, full and free access at all times. I purchased such books as Locke, Kant, Fichte, Lewes; Sir William Hamilton's Discussions on Philosophy; Spencer'sFirst Principles, Social Statics, etc.; Buckle's History of Civilization, and Lecky's History of Rationalism. I also possessed the works of Paine, Parker, Emerson and Strauss; Gregg's Creed of Christendom, McNaught on Inspiration, Volney's Ruins, Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity, and other works on Infidelity. Mr. Lincoln read some of these works. About the year 1843 he borrowed The Vestiges of Creation of Mr. James W. Keyes, of this city, and read it carefully. He subsequently read the sixth edition of this work, which I loaned him. Mr. Lincoln had always denied special creation, but from his want of education he did not know just what to believe. He adopted the progressive and development theory as taught more or less directly in that work. He despised speculation, especially in the metaphysical world. He was purely a practical man. He adopted Locke's notions as to his system of mental philosophy, with some modifications to suit his own views. He held that reason drew her references as to law, etc., from observations, experience and reflection on the facts and phenomena of Nature. He was a pure sensationalist, except as above. He was a materialist in his philosophy. He denied dualism, and at times immortality in any sense.
Before I wrote my Abbott letter, I diligently searched through Lincoln's letters, speeches, state papers, etc., to find the word immortality, and I could not find it anywhere except in his letter to his father. The word immortality appears but once in his writings.
If he had been asked the plain question, "Do you know that a God exists?" he would have said: "I do not know that a God exists."
At one moment of his life I know that he was an Atheist. I was preparing a speech on Kansas, and in it, like nearly all reformers, I invoked God. He made me wipe out that word and substitute the word Maker, affirming that said Maker was a principle of the universe. When he went to Washington he did the same to a friend there.
Mr. Lincoln told me, over and over, that man has no freedom of the will, or, as he termed it, "No man has a freedom of mind." He was in one sense a fatalist, and so he died. He believed that he was under the thumb of Providence (which to him was but another name for fate). The longer he lived, the more firmly he believed it, and hence his oft invocation of God. But these invocations are no evidence to a rational mind that he adopted the blasphemy that God seduced his own daughter, begat a son on purpose to have mankind kill him, in order that he, God, might become reconciled to his own mistakes, according to the Christian view.
Lincoln would wait patiently on the flow and logic of events. He believed that conditions make the man and not man the conditions. Under his own hand he says: "I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me." He believed in the supreme reign of law. This law fated things, as he would express it. Now, how could a man be a Christian -- could believe that Jesus Christ was God -- could believe in the efficacy of prayer -- and entertain such a belief?
He did not believe in the efficacy of prayer, although he used that conventional language. He said in Washington, "God has his own purposes." If God has his own purposes, then prayer will not change God's purposes.
I have often said to you, and now repeat it, that Lincoln was a scientific materialist, i.e., that this was his tendency as opposed to the Spiritualistic idea. Lincoln always contended that general and universal laws ruled the Universe -- always did -- do now -- and ever will. He was an Agnostic generally, sometimes an Atheist.
That Mr. Lincoln was an Infidel from 1834 to 1661, I know, and that he remained one to the day of his death, I honestly believe. I always understood that he was an Infidel, sometimes bordering on Atheism. I never saw any change in the man, and the change could not have escaped my observation had it happened.
Lincoln's task was a terrible one. When he took the oath of office his soul was bent on securing harmony among all the people of the North, and so he chose for his cabinet officers his Opponents for the Presidential candidacy in order and as a means of creating a united North. He let all parties, professions, and callings have their way where their wishes did not cut across his own. He was apparently pliant and supple. He ruled men when men thought they were ruling him.e whole history of slavery, in fact -- its rigor and encroachments, that Christianity was aroused. It must be controlled, and that in the rig He often said to me that the Christian religion was a dangerous element to deal with when aroused. He saw in the Kansas affairs -- in thht direction. Hence he bent to it, fed it, and kept it within bounds, well knowing that it would crush his administration to atoms unless appeased. His oft and oft invocations of God, his conversations with Christians, his apparent respect for Christianity, etc., were all means to an end. And yet sometimes he showed that he hated its nasal whines.
A gentleman of veracity in Washington told me this story and vouched for its truthfulness: "A tall saddle-faced man," he said, "came to Washington to pray with Lincoln, having declared this to be his intention at the hotel. About 10 o'clock a.m. the bloodless man, dressed in black, with white cravat, went to the White House, sent in his card, and was admitted. Lincoln glanced at the man and knew his motives in an instant. He said to him, angrily: 'What, have you, too, come to torment me with your prayers?' The man was squelched and said, 'No, Mr. Lincoln' -- lied out and out. Lincoln spoiled those prayers."
Mr. Lincoln was thought to be understood by the mob. But what a delusion! He was one of the most reticent men that ever lived. All of us -- Stuart, Speed, Logan, Matheny, myself and others, had to guess at much of the man. He was a mystery to the world -- a sphinx to most men. One peculiarity of Mr. Lincoln was his irritability when anyone tried to peep into his own mind's laboratory. Considering all this, what can be thought of the stories about what he is said to have confided to strangers in regard to his religion?
I see frequently quoted a supposed speech made by Mr. Lincoln to the colored people of Baltimore, on the presentation of a Bible to him. This supposed speech contains the following: "All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book." This idea is false and foolish. What becomes of nine-tenths of the life of Jesus of which we have no history -- nine-tenths of the great facts of this grand man's life not recorded in this book? Mr. Lincoln was full and exact in his language. He never used the word Saviour, unless in a conventional sense; in fact, he never used the word at all. Again, he is made to say: "But for this book, we could not know right from wrong." The lowest organized life, I was about to say, knows right from wrong in its particular sphere. Every good dog that comes in possession of a bone, knows that the bone belongs to him, and he knows that it is wrong for another dog to rob him of it. He protests with bristling hair and glistening teeth against such dog robbery. It requires no revelation to teach him right from wrong in the dog world; yet it requires a special revelation from God to teach us right from wrong in the human world. According to this speech, the dog has the advantage. But Mr. Lincoln never uttered such nonsense.
I do think that anyone who knew Mr. Lincoln -- his history -- his philosophy -- his opinions -- and still asserts that he was a Christian, is an unbounded falsifier. I hate to speak thus plainly, but I cannot respect an untruthful man.
Let me ask the Christian claimant a few questions. Do you mean to say, when you assert that Mr. Lincoln was a Christian, that he believed that Jesus was the Christ of God, as the evangelical world contends? If so, where did you get this information? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln was a converted man and that he so declared? If so, where, when, and before whom did he declare or reveal it? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln joined a Church? If so, what Church did he join, and when did he join it? Do you mean to say that Mr. Lincoln was a secret Christian, acting under the cloak of the devil to advance Christianity? If so, what is your authority? If you will tell me when it was that the Creator caught in his almighty arms, Abraham, and held him fast while he poured the oil of grace on his rebellious soul, then I will know when it was that he was converted from Infidel views to Christianity.
The best evidence this side of Lincoln's own written statement that he was an Infidel, if not an Atheist, as claimed by some, is the fact that he never mentions the name of Jesus. If he was a Christian, it could be proved by his letters and speeches. That man is a poor defender of a principle, of a person, or a thing, who never mentions that principle, person or thing. I have never seen the name of Jesus mentioned by Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Lincoln never mentioned the name of Christ in his letters and speeches as a Christian. I have searched for such evidence, but could not find it. I have had others search, but they could not find it. This dead silence on the part of Mr. Lincoln is overwhelming proof that he was an unbeliever.
While Lincoln frequently, in a conventional way, appeals to God, he never appeals to Christ nor mentions him. I know that he at first maintained that Jesus was a bastard, and later that he was the son of Joseph and not of God.
Lincoln was not a Christian in any sense other than that he lived a good life and was a noble man. If a good life constitutes one a Christian, then Mill and a million other men who repudiated and denied Christianity were Christians, for they lived good and noble lives.
If Mr. Lincoln changed his religious views, he owed it to me to warn me, as he above all other men caused me to become an unbeliever. He said nothing to me, intimated nothing to me, either directly or indirectly. He owed this debt to many young men whom he had led astray, if astray the Christian calls it. I know of two young men of promise, now dead and gone -- gone into endless misery, according to the evangelical creed -- caused by Lincoln's teachings. I know some of the living here, men in prominent positions of life, who were made unbelievers by him.
One by one, these apocryphal stories go by the board. Courageous and remorseless criticism will wipe out all these things. There will not be a vestige of them in 50 years to laugh at or to weep at.
In his Life of Lincoln, pp. 445-446, Mr. Herndon said:
No man had a stronger or firmer faith in Providence -- God -- than Mr. Lincoln, but the continued use by him late in life of the word God must not be interpreted to mean that he believed in a personal God. In 1854, he asked me to erase the word God from a speech I had written and read to him for criticism, because my language indicated a personal God, whereas he insisted that no such personality ever existed.
A Note From Mr. Michael Reardon
I appreciated very much your excellent article of Feb. 16, Not A Mention Christ the King, especially your information in regard to Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln’s war had a dramatic effect on my own family. I have a dozen blood relatives who fought for the Confederacy, most of whom were wounded, including lost limbs, with one missing in action and presumed killed. In regard to the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Cold Harbor Property, which sat at a crossroads where five roads met, and still do, was a 182-acre farm, where sat the Cold Harbor Tavern (Burnett’s Inn) and four other buildings, all owned by my great, great grandfather, Isaac Burnett. He lived in the tavern with his wife, his older sister, and his nine daughters and four sons. His son, George, my great grandfather, was the only Confederate soldier from Cold Harbor. My grandmother was born in the Tavern in 1880. The Battle of Cold Harbor was the bloodiest short battle of the War, with the most intense fighting taking place within a half mile of the tavern. Some 7,000 Union soldiers were killed in twenty minutes in the main assault on June 3, 1864. Both the armies of George McClellan and Grant camped on Isaac Burnett’s property in 1862 and in 1864, with devastating results. In the words of Martha Burnett, Isaac’s 21-year old daughter at the time, “In the month of June 1864 General Grant’s army came on the premises and swept it clean of everything in the way of supplies for man and beast.” The Confederate never took anything from the property. Martha, on one occasion, saw a Union soldier take a large glass bowl from the tavern and hide it in a haystack. She went out in the night and hid it in another haystack. Today that bowl belongs to a cousin who lives in Williamsburg. Claims made by the family after the War in the amount of $10,415.00, a huge amount in those days, were denied by the U.S. Government.
A Precis of Americanism
Americanism is the exaltation of the spirit of individual human abilities to "build" the "better world" without a complete and humble submission to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the God the Holy Ghost, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church that He Himself created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It is thus the exaltation of religious indifferentism (the belief that it doesn't matter what religion one belongs to, if any religion at all, as long as one is a "good" person) over the necessity of belief in the one and only true Faith, Catholicism.
Have you ever seen the following saying on the back of a tractor-trailer truck? "Start your week right: Attend the Church of your choice." This is an expression of pure, unadulterated Americanism, the likes of which have been condemned by pope after pope prior to 1958 in no certain terms, no ambiguity, no nuance, no concessions to any false concept known as the "new evangelization," no disparagement of proselytism, no mention of engaging in "dialogue" with unbelievers, no efforts to discourage efforts to convert Protestants:
Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?" (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
Americanism is the exaltation of the ability of human beings to be virtuous on their own without belief in, access to or cooperation with the Sanctifying Graces that were won by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. It is thus the exaltation of the spirit of the heresy of semi-Pelagianism, which asserts that human beings are more or less self-redemptive as they stir up graces within themselves.
Americanism is the exaltation of the measure of personal and national greatness on the basis of naturalistic standards over the necessity of referring all things at all times to the final end of man, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for all eternity. It is thus the exaltation of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of "brotherhood" over the Catholic teaching of the Communion of the Saints.
Americanism is the exaltation of the spirit of egalitarianism over the truth of the hierarchy that exists in the Order of Creation and in the Order of Grace, that is, the Order of Redemption, making it necessary for there to a separation of Church and State in order that "free men" can choose for themselves how to live. Americanism is, all of its invocations of a generic "God" notwithstanding, the exaltation of the deification of man over man's due submission to God and the authority of His true Church in all that pertains to the good of souls and to matters of fundamental justice in according with the binding precepts of His Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Americanism is the exaltation of the spirit of "civil" and "religious" liberty" over the true sense of liberty that comes only from the Catholic Faith. That is, Americanism is the exaltation of human independence over a due submission to and reliance upon the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church that sees in the Cross the very means by which we are truly free, that is, free from an enslavement to the power of sin and eternal death.
Americanism is the exaltation of individualism over the due submission that we must render in all humility to Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church. Americanism thus feeds into Protestant Pentecostalism and the whole ethos of the "Catholic Charismatic Renewal" as it eschews a complete submission of one's mind and will to the binding teaching of Holy Mother Church's magisterium in favor of an "individual relationship" with God the Holy Ghost whereby people think that they have a "private pipeline" to God and can decide for themselves what part of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church they will and will not follow.
Pope Leo XIII noted this rejection of the exterior guidance of the Catholic Church in his Apostolical Letter on Americanism:
Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser 'of his own gifts. "The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth." -- John iii, 8.
"And to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ." -- Eph. iv, 7.
And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs- and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. "For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who give's unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit."-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.
Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. "He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase."-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God's loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.
For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, "What dost Thou wish me to do?" yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: "Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do."
Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one's self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.
A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruifulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself? (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899.)
Americanism represents the exaltation the mania of "action" divorced from prayer, making false distinctions between "active" and "passive" virtue," leading many Catholics to consider praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, for example, as "doing nothing" to help one's country. Popes Leo XIII and Saint Pius X both discussed this aspect of Americanism:
This overesteem of natural virtue finds a method of expression in assuming to divide all virtues in active and passive, and it is alleged that whereas passive virtues found better place in past times, our age is to be characterized by the active. That such a division and distinction cannot be maintained is patent-for there is not, nor can there be, merely passive virtue. "Virtue," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "designates the perfection of some faculty, but end of such faculty is an act, and an act of virtue is naught else than the good use of free will," acting, that is to say, under the grace of God if the act be one of supernatural virtue.
He alone could wish that some Christian virtues be adapted to certain times and different ones for other times who is unmindful of the apostle's words: "That those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son."- Romans viii, 29. Christ is the teacher and the exemplar of all sanctity, and to His standard must all those conform who wish for eternal life. Nor does Christ know any change as the ages pass, "for He is yesterday and to-day and the same forever."-Hebrews xiii, 8. To the men of all ages was the precept given: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart."-Matt. xi, 29.
To every age has He been made manifest to us as obedient even unto death; in every age the apostle's dictum has its force: "Those who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences." Would to God that more nowadays practiced these virtues in the degree of the saints of past times, who in humility, obedience and self-restraint were powerful "in word and in deed" -to the great advantage not only of religion, but of the state and the public welfare.
From this disregard of the - angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive, the step was a short one to a contempt of the religious life which has in some degree taken hold of minds. That such a value is generally held by the upholders of new views, we infer from certain statements concerning the vows which religious orders take. They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than ›o strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization, they are hurtful to both; but that this is as false as possible from the practice and the doctrine of the Church is clear, since she has always given the very highest approval to the religious method of life; nor without good cause, for those who under the divine call have freely embraced that state of life did not content themselves with the observance of precepts, but, going forward to the evangelical counsels, showed themselves ready and valiant soldiers of Christ. Shall we judge this to be a characteristic of weak minds, or shall we say that it is useless or hurtful to a more perfect state of life?
Those who so bind themselves by the vows of religion, far from having suffered a loss of liberty, enjoy that fuller and freer kind, that liberty, namely, by which Christ hath made us free. And this further view of theirs, namely, that the religious life is either entirely useless or of little service to the Church, besides being injurious to the religious orders cannot be the opinion of anyone who has read the annals of the Church. Did not your country, the United States, derive the beginnings both of faith and of culture from the children of these religious families? to one of whom but very lately, a thing greatly to your praise, you have decreed that a statue be publicly erected. And even at the present time wherever the religious families are found, how speedy and yet how fruitful a harvest of good works do they not bring forth! How very many leave home and seek strange lands to impart the truth of the gospel and to widen the bounds of civilization; and this they do with the greatest cheerfulness amid manifold dangers! Out of their number not less, indeed, than from the rest of the clergy, the Christian world finds the preachers of God's word, the directors of conscience, the teachers of youth and the Church itself the examples of all sanctity.
Nor should any difference of praise be made between those who follow the active state of life and those others who, charmed with solitude, give themselves to prayer and bodily mortification. And how much, indeed, of good report these have merited, and do merit, is known surely to all who do not forget that the "continual prayer of the just man" avails to placate and to bring down the blessings of heaven when to such prayers bodily mortification is added.
But if there be those who prefer to form one body without the obligation of the vows let them pursue such a course. It is not new in the Church, nor in any wise censurable. Let them be careful, however, not to set forth such a state above that of religious orders. But rather, since mankind are more disposed at the present time to indulge themselves in pleasures, let those be held in greater esteem "who having left all things have followed Christ." (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899.)
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907. By the way, this is an excellent summary of the goals of Amoris Laetitia. Every single one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's objectives in Amoris Laetitia was thus prophesied by Pope Saint Pius X nearly one hundred nine years ago.)
Americanism breeds the bubbling inanities that are spoken constantly by the average citizen and by those in public life.
"God bless America." For what? For what? For religious indifferentism? For separation of Church and State? For semi-Pelagianism? For the proliferation of Protestant sects and Judeo-Masonic lodges in formerly Catholic countries? For Calvinistic materialism? For the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism that has robbed, in conjunction with the ethos of conciliarism and of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo Missae itself, Catholics of any ability to view the events of this passing, mortal vale of tears through the eyes of the true Faith? For indifference in the wake of decriminalized baby-killing, whether by surgical or chemical means, under cover of law? For spreading contraception and the rot of popular culture (indecent fashions, pornography, magazines, books, "music," motion pictures) throughout the world so as to corrupt the morals and endanger the salvation of billions of souls? For what? For what?