The Real "Brexit" Occurred In 1534

The celebrations over the “Brexit” vote in the United Kingdom, which consists of England, Wales, and Scotland on the island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on Thursday, June 23, 2016, the Vigil of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, are most understandable given the fact that the unelected elites within such globalist organizations as the European Union control the fate of nations and have contempt for the people whose taxpayer dollars fund their bloated bureaucracies and luxurious lifestyles.

This having been noted, however, the New World Order of Judeo-Masonry that has such a stranglehold on finance, politics, education, law, healthcare death-care is itself the wretched result of Protestantism’s revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King. The monsters of Modernity are the creation of the warfare that the likes of Martin Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin waged against the true Church that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. The European Union, as bad as it is—and is very bad—is the byproduct, not the proximate root case, of the consequences of the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church.

The triumph of abject evil as an institutionalized feature of the once proudly Catholic kingdoms of Europe occurred long before the rise of the European Coal and Steel Community European Economic Community (ECSC) in 1951 and the European Economic Community (EEC), more commonly known as the “Common Market” in 1958. The United Kingdom, a majority of whose voters supported the referendum to leave the Common Market’s ultimate successor, the European Union, did not even join the EEC until 1973 as its entry had been vetoed personally by the first president of the French Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle, and it was not until his successor, President Georges Pompidou, said “oui” in 1970 that the machinery was put in motion for British entry, which became effective on January 1, 1973.

By that time, of course, the British had been suffering the consequences of the bloody revolution against the Catholic Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King that was launched by the lecherous, adulterous and bigamous drunkard King Henry VIII in 1534. Henry Tudor, who could have obtained his decree of nullity from “Pope Francis” if he had not died on January 28, 1547, commenced a bloody campaign against Catholics who refused to recognize his completely illegitimate claim to be the supreme head of the Church in England that resulted in the deaths of over 72,000 Catholics, fully three percent of the English population at that time, including, of course, Saints John Fisher and Thomas More. The tyrant ordered persecutions in Ireland, of course, and engaged in grotesque acts of social engineering that were designed to make his revolution against Christ the King and the Catholic Church irreversible.

Indeed, the kind of state-sponsored social engineering that has created the culture of entitlement in England and elsewhere in Europe has its antecedent roots in Henry's revolt against the Social Reign of Christ the King and His Catholic Church in the Sixteenth Century.

Henry had Parliament enact various laws to force the poor who had lived for a nominal annual fee on the monastery and convent lands (as they produced the food to sustain themselves, giving some to the monastery or convent) off of those lands, where their families had lived for generations, in order to redistribute the Church properties he had stolen to those who supported his break from Rome. Henry quite cleverly created a class of people who were dependent upon him for the property upon which they lived and the wealth they were able to derive therefrom, making them utterly supportive of his decision to declare himself Supreme Head of the Church in England. Those of the poorer classes who had been thrown off of the monastery and convent lands were either thrown into prison (for being poor, mind you) or forced to migrate to the cities, where many of them lost the true Faith and sold themselves into various vices just to survive. The effects of this exercise of state-sponsored engineering are reverberating in the world today, both politically and economically.

Indeed, many of the conditions bred by the disparity in wealth created by Henry's land grab in the Sixteenth Century would fester and help to create the world of unbridled capitalism and slave wage that so impressed a German emigre in London by the name of Karl Marx. Unable to recognize the historical antecedents of the real injustices he saw during the Victorian Era, Marx set about devising his own manifestly unjust system, premised on atheism and anti-Theism, to rectify social injustice once and for all. In a very real way, Henry Tudor led the way to Lenin of Russia and to the European Union as the sterile substitute for the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Father Edward Cahill provided a very good summary of the effects of King Henry VIII’s revolution in The Framework of A Christian State:

Results of the Plunder of the Church.—Not only is the Protestant Revolt mainly responsible for the unsocial character of Britain’s economic system but it was the immediate cause of much of the degrading pauperism that has disfigured British civilisation for the past four centuries. We have already alluded to the plunder of the Church and the alienation of the revenues devoted to charitable and educational purposes, which took place as a result of the religious revolt. This led directly to dreadful hardship in the case of the poor, to whose benefit most of the ecclesiastical revenue had previously been applied. The confiscated wealth, which according to the law under which the confiscations were carried out should have been to the service of the State, was in very large measure appropriated by lawyers, court favourites and other greedy and avaricious adventurers. These henceforth formed a new class of wealthy and unscrupulous plutocrats who in the following centuries dominated the political and social life of their several countries. Nowhere did these robbery of Church goods produce such disastrous results as in Ireland and Britain. In both these countries the Protestant Reformation laid the foundations secure and deep, of extreme individualistic capitalism, with its hideous counterpart of pauperism and oppression of the poor, which forms one of the chief characteristics of their social history during the following centuries. On this aspect of the question, Cardinal Gasquet writes:

“Viewed in its social aspect the English Reformation was in reality an uprising of the rich against the poor. . . . Those in place and power were enabled to grow greater in wealth and position, while those who had before but a small share of the good things of this world came in the process to have less. . . . The supposed purification . . . of doctrine and practice was brought about . . .  at the cost of driving a wedge well into the heart of the nation, which . . . established the distinction which still exists and the masses.” (Preface to Cobbett’s History of the Reformation, p. 6.)

The history of this lamentable revolution in England, by which the whole face of a great Catholic nation became permanently disfigured, the great majority of her once happy children plunged in ever-increasing degradation and misery, and her ideals and principles conformed to a non-Christian instead of a Christian standard, is graphically told by the Protestant writer Cobbett, in his History of the Protestant Reformation. “Never,” he writes, “since the world began was there so rich a harvest of plunder.” He tells how gold and silver, books and manuscripts, ornaments, paintings and statuary of priceless value equally with church, monastery and convent fell a prey to the satellites of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell:

“The whole country was thus disfigured: it had the appearance of a land recently invaded by the most brutal barbarians: and this appearance it has . . . even to the present day. Nothing has ever come to supply the place of what has been destroyed.” (Cobbett—History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, edited by Cardinal Casquet (Art and Book Co., London, 1899), chap. vii, no. 182.)

Explaining the social effects of the plunder of the Church, Cobbett writes:

“The Catholic Church included in itself a great deal more than the business of teaching religion . . . and administering the Sacraments. It had a great deal to do with the temporal concerns of the people. It provided  . . . for all the wants of the poor and distressed. . . .  It contained a great body of land proprietors, whose revenues were distributed in various ways amongst the people upon terms always singularly favourable to the latter. It was a great and powerful estate, and naturally siding with the people. . . . By its charity and its benevolence towards its tenants it mitigated the rigour of proprietorship, and held society together by the ties of religion rather than by the trammels and terrors of the Law. (Cobbett, History of the Protestant Reformation, chap. vii, no. 206.)

Dissolution of the Monasteries.—The dissolution of the monasteries, with the resulting confiscation of their property, immediately produced overwhelming distress amongst the multitudes who had been maintained by the resources that the religious bodies had administered. It proved disastrous also to the tenants on the monastic lands, which were probably more than 2,000,000 statute acres in extent. The tenants who had been accustomed to an easy and sympathetic mode of treatment at the hands of the monks, now passed under the power of harsh and exacting landlords. Rack-rents were too often exacted and the numerous exemptions and privileges to which the tenants had been accustomed were withdrawn.

Enclosures and Confiscations.—Again, the common lands, in which the poor of the neighbourhood had from time immemorial possessed common rights, were seized and enclosed in the lords’ demenses; and numberless other hardships, hitherto unknown, now began to press upon the people.

The wanton confiscation of the property of the guilds, hospitals and almshouses, unjust and indefensible even form the Protestant standpoint, was also disastrous to the interests of the poor. The destruction of the religious schools and colleges, in which so many children were educated free of cost, was still another blow. Even the introduction of married clergy, which diverted into another channel the energies and resources that would otherwise be expended on charity, aggravated further the lot of the poor.

Vagabondage in England.—Hence it was that the destruction of Catholicism in England gave rise to the sordid pauperism which has since disfigured English civilisation. Cobbett describes in his own eloquent and vigorous style how England, “once happy and hospitable, became a den of famishing robbers and slaves.” As a result of the plunder of the Church and the destruction of the institutions which had grown up under its influence, the country quickly became filled with the destitute. Immense numbers of these were drive to live as professional robbers. “There were,” writes Hume, “at least 300 or 400 able-bodied vagabonds in every country who lived by theft and rapine, and who sometimes met in troops to the number of sixty and committed spoil on the inhabitants.” As many as five hundred of this expropriated class were sometimes executed in a single year during the reign of Elizabeth.

English Poor Laws.—This state of affairs—a direct result of the Protestant revolt—gave rise to the celebrated Elizabethan leglsation on pauperism, “as novel as it was harsh,” which for the first time standardized pauperism as distinct from poverty. The former was henceforth the status of those who, being destitute of the prime necessities of life, are maintained at the public expense in the parish poorhouses. They are no longer “God’s poor,” to whom as the special representatives of Him Who became poor for men’s sake, special sympathy and even reverence are due. They are now despised outcasts, the pariahs of society. They usually live, or are supposed to live, in the poorhouses, segregated form their wives and children, under a harsh discipline, deprived of the franchise and compelled to wear a special uniform.

The following extracts from Pelgrave will convey a general idea of the spirit which animated the English post-Reformation legislation on mendicancy and poverty:

“It was only towards the middle and end of the 16th century that measures against it [viz., mendicancy] were enforced, possibly in part owing to the sounder (sic) teachings of the Reformers on the subject. Then we find Southampton ordering that beggars should have their hair cut, and Parliament decreeing punishments on a progressive scale of severity. Whipping, branding, cutting off the gristle of the ear, even death, were the penalties assigned (!) . . . A Consolidating Act of 1713 lays it down that any person wandering about the country, on any one of a long list of pretences, is to be summarily arrested and removed to his settlement, or, if he have one, to be dealt with by the poor law authorities of the parish in which he is apprehened; but previously he may be flogged or set to hard labour, or committed for seven years to the custody of any person who will undertake to set him to work in Great Britain or the Colonies. By the Act of 1744 even women are to flogged for vagrancy and late as 1824 flogging is retained as punishment  for “incorrigible rogues.” (Palgrave—Dictionary of Political Economy, vol. iii. Art “Poor Law” p. 154; also art. “Pauperism,” p. 81.)

Such was the spirit introduced by Protestantism into the legislative system of a country that was once the “Dowry of Mary.” (Cahill, pp. 97-101.)

Consider this for a moment.

Henry VIII threw the poor off the lands on which their ancestors had lived for centuries, and that his wretched, murderous daughter, Elizabeth, by his partner in adultery and bigamy, Anne Boleyn, made sure when she acceded to the throne in 1558 that the penal laws he had enacted against the poor were enforced with vigor that can only be described as diabolically conceived.

The social injustices that prompted many in England to support “Leave” in the Brexit referendum three days ago will not be cured by reclaiming some of their country’s national sovereignty from the European Union as the European Union is the result of what Martin Luther started on the continent of Europe and that Henry VIII started in England in the Sixteenth Century. Modernity was founded on the blood of faithful Catholics, and it has been sustained on the blood of faithful Catholics ever since.

An exaggeration?


Consider the fact it was over two centuries after the death of King Henry VIII that the British Governor of Nova Scotia, which had been the French colony of Acadia prior to the British takeover in 1710:

The British "Final Solution" for the Acadians was deportation. It all started at 3 PM on September 5, 1755 at the Catholic Church in Grand Pre. Following the orders and plan of the Lieutenant General, Governor Lawrence, following the decree of the King of England, the British Council at Halifax unanimously decided to begin deporting the Acadians immediately to various British Colonies outside of Canada. The vessels needed for this were to be commandeered in the King's name. By this time, the Acadians numbered some 13,000 on the Acadian peninsula alone. More and more British troops had been arriving and the Acadians were acutely aware that big trouble was brewing.

A proclamation was issued accordingly to "all the inhabitants of the district of Grand Pre, Minas, River Canard, etc. ..... to attend the Church at Grand Pre on Friday the fifth instant, at three of the clock in the afternoon, that we may impart to them what we are ordered to communicate to them; declaring that no excuse will be admitted, on any pretense whatever, on pain of forfeiting goods and chattels, in default of real estate. - Given at Grand Pre 2d September, 1755."

That Friday, 418 of the residents presented themselves at the Church as ordered. Colonel John Winslow, having tricked them into this assembly, announced to them that they were to be immediately deported outside of the Province and that all their properties and goods with the exception of their cash monies and personal belongings were hereby confiscated by and to the benefit of the British Crown. Soldiers surrounded the church to prevent any escapes.

The news of this spread quickly and those who could escaped to the woods, but in vain. Their country was laid to waste. Deported from Grand Pre alone were 2,242 Acadians. The Acadians were lined up and driven to the transport ships. Women and children were loaded on boats as fast as could be provided. As if to deprive the exiles of even the hope of return, the British burned to the ground 255 of their homes, 276 barns, 11 mills, and one church while the transport vessels were still in sight. Despite the promises of Colonel Winslow to keep families together, most families were separated immediately - parents from their children, wives from their husbands, children from their siblings - many to never see each other again. The Acadians were placed under arrest and were loaded on the ships with no choice in the manner. They took only what they were wearing and what little monies they had on their person at the time. Some of the ships used as transports were not seaworthy. Consequently, two of the ships, the Violet and the Duke William, with two groups of 650 Acadians went to a watery grave in the icy mid-Atlantic on December 10 of that year. Only one lifeboat with 27 survivors lived to tell what happened. "I do not know," observes 19th century American historian George Bancroft, " if the annals of the human race keep the record of sorrows so wantonly inflicted, so bitter and so lasting as fell upon the French inhabitants of Acadia."

How ironic it must seem for the living descendants of those expelled Acadians who now live in the town of Winslow - a town so named in honor of the same British officer, General John Winslow, who was directly responsible for carrying out those dastardly deeds in the darkest hour in the history of the Acadians.

About 2,000 Acadians managed to escape arrest and they wandered through the woods like hunted animals, half-clad and half-starved, in ever search of some near relative. Some made it safely into Quebec where they established new lives in such towns as l'Acadie, Becancour, Nicolet, and others. Of those escapees was one of my own 6th generation paternal ancestors, Laurent Doucet, son of Paul Doucet (a direct descendant of Acadia's first governor, Germain Doucet) and Anne LeBrun. How they survived this terrible ordeal is almost miraculous. Today, the direct descendants of these escaped Acadians number over 230,000 souls, including one-third of the present population of New Brunswick.

The deportation continued unabated over a period of 8 years. Between 1755 and 1763, Governor Lawrence kept unloading the Acadians along the American coast - over 2,000 to Boston, where the Bostonians treated them like slaves, 700 from Grand Pre and Port Royal to Connecticut, and about 250 poor, naked, and destitute to New York. New York rid the major part of her Acadian exiles by persuading them to emigrate to Santo Domingo, where most of them perished miserably from the torrid sun. Lawrence exiled 754 to Philadelphia where, being held captive aboard the ships in the harbor for three months, smallpox killed 237 of them. Some 2,000 more were removed to Maryland where several hundred of them escaped to Louisiana, Quebec, and the West Indies. To North Carolina, Lawrence sent 500, and to South Carolina, 1,500 Acadians. The Carolinians cleverly enticed them to leave in some old boats for Acadia. Of these, only 900 arrived at the River St. John. Another 400 were banished to Georgia where, preferring death anywhere in the tropics to slavery with the blacks in the cotton fields and sugar plantations, they fled. Wherever they went, the Acadians were unwanted, shunned, cheated, despised, and heartlessly allowed to die without even the care and affection given to pet animals. Only Connecticut was prepared to receive the exiles sent to her and treated them as a group humanely. In all, nearly 3,700 Acadians were dispersed along the coast in the British colonies of America. There is no doubt that every Acadian would have preferred exile in France to banishment to any other place.

The method of dispersing the Acadians has scarcely an equal in history. Said Edmund Burke, "We did, in my opinion, most inhumanely, and upon the pretenses that, in the eye of an honest man, are not worth a farthing, root out this poor, innocent, deserving people, whom our utter inability to govern, or to reconcile, gave us no sort of right to extirpate." How right was his judgement. There were many pitiful separations in families. One case is particularly well-known. Due to the small number of transports, Rene Leblanc, notary-public of Grand Pre, his wife, and their two youngest children were put on one ship and landed in New York, but their eighteen other children and 150 grandchildren were loaded aboard different ships and dispersed among the colonies. There were deliberate separations of husbands from their wives and fathers from their children. Men would come back home from their work in the woods or fishing boats only to find their families gone, their homes burned to the ground, and the British soldiers waiting to arrest them and force them aboard ships for permanent banishment from their lands. Yet others were taken to various ports in England as prisoners of war and placed in concentration camps such as at Liverpool. (Acadia and the Acadians, by Robert Chenard.) 

If this moving account does not break your Catholic heart, my friends, I do not know what will.

Unlike Latin America, where Catholic missionaries interceded in behalf of the indigenous peoples in the face of the cruelty and excesses of some of the Spanish conquistadors and colonizers, there was no one to plead for the Acadians, no one to remonstrate with the bloodthirsty English who had lost their sensus Catholicus and had become as mad the lustful man who plunged England into darkness of blood and cruelty and greed and hatred and bigotry in 1534. The violence that we see expanding exponentially in our cities and in workplaces and in schools and on university campuses is but the all-too-logical consequence of a world founded on the false premises that man can know social order in the pursuit of his "ultimate" end, that is, material prosperity as a sign of 'divine election," while spitting in the face of the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law and plaiting Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ anew with a Crown of Thorns as His Social Kingship is mocked and vilified as "outdated," unnecessary and even harmful by Catholic conservative quislings and by the entire ethos of conciliarism-at-large.

Yes, fallen human nature has wreaked havoc throughout history, even during the period of the Catholic Middle Ages. Nevertheless, the frailties of Catholics in the Middle Ages pale into insignificance when one looks at the savagery of the barbaric tribes of Europe before their Catholicization in the First Millennium and that of the barbarism and abject hedonism of the supposedly “civilized” West today. Consider this very cogent summary of the history of the Middle Ages, that is, Christendom, written by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is -- beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.

A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: "When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay."

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Yes, the glory of the Middle Ages, which saw the transformation of barbarous nations into Catholic nations where rulers ruled in many, although certainly not all, instances according to the Mind of the Divine Redeemer as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church, was undermined and attacked by the "deplorable passion for innovation" of Martin Luther and John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer and Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and John Knox and John Wesley and Richard Topcliffe and Oliver Cromwell, theological revolutionaries who wrought their work in the blood of innocent Catholics as they sacked Catholic Churches and denied her perennial rites of worship and teaching, paved a path of blood for the likes of the social revolutionaries of the English colonies in North America and in France and Latin America and Italy and Germany.

There is no better expression of the belief that the path to "liberal progress" in the world is wrought by the shedding of the blood of Catholics than these chilling words of Woodrow Wilson, contained in Robert Leckie's book, Catholic and American:

Wilson replied [in 1915, to a Father Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'  

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries (Robert Leckie American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 274.)

It is important to remember that the warfare waged by King Henry VIII against the sanctity and indissolubility of Holy Matrimony made inevitable his false religious sect’s warfare against the fecundity of marriage at its Lambeth Conference in 1930:

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

This decision opened the floodgates of Protestant acceptance of contraception, which, of course, had been promoted for the previous fifteen years in the United States of America by the nymphomaniac revolutionary anti-Theist named Margaret Sanger. An organization known as the Federal Council of Churches in America (which merged in 1950 with other such organizations to form the “National Council of Churches”) endorsed contraception in 1931, prompting the following editorial to appear, amazingly enough, in The Washington Post:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.   

The mischief that would result from an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial, The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)

The Lambeth Conference’s Resolution 15, which prompted Pope Pius XI to issue Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930, accustomed the British people to “planned” pregnancies and opened the way to the public acceptance of one degrading practice after another over the course of time, up to and including the legalization of surgical baby-killing by means of the Abortion Law of 1967 that was passed Parliament at the behest of Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Here is a brief history of surgical baby-killing in the United Kingdom as found on the website of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn in England:

In 1938, a London gynaecologist, Aleck Bourne, tested the laws by performing an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who had been sexually assaulted by five off-duty British soldiers. Dr Bourne was a supporter of the Abortion Law Reform Association.

He was charged with an illegal abortion, and pleaded not guilty on the basis that the girl's mental health would have been adversely affected by giving birth. Dr Bourne was acquitted after the judge, Mr Justice Macnaughten, invited the jury to decide whether in acting to preserve the girl's mental health, as he saw it, the doctor's action had amounted to saving her life. The judge evidently condoned the abortion, and the jury acquitted the doctor.

The effect of the Bourne case was to give legal sanction for abortions to prevent damage to a woman's physical or mental health, a test which became interpreted more and more liberally, and which was incorporated into the Abortion Act. This marked a watershed and although medical grounds are still formally required, doctors can practice abortion virtually on request provided they claim mental health is at risk. Aleck Bourne eventually became appalled at the results of his case and became an early member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Steel's 1967 Abortion Act

The Abortion Act was introduced by the liberal MP David Steel with the tacit support of the Labour government under Harold Wilson. Steel introduced the bill as a Private Member's Bill after drawing third place in the ballot on 12th May 1966. The bill would not have reached the statute book but for the support of the government which provided the parliamentary time needed to get the bill through. The government was sympathetic to the measure but did not want to include it in its own legislative programme. The bill was eventually given a third reading by the House of Commons on 14th July 1967, and came into force on 27th April 1968.

The operation of the Act proved controversial from the outset, and a committee of inquiry was set up under Mrs Justice Lane in 1971 to review the working of the Act. Obstetricians and gynaecologists who refused to provide abortions, were put under pressure, and although those in senior posts were protected by the 'conscience clause' in the Act others were forced out of the specialism, or out of the country, as pro-abortion officials in the Department of Health demanded that NHS hospitals should provide wide access to abortion services.

Pro-life reform attempts

Pro-life MPs sought to amend the Act, first introducing amendment bills as early as 1969. But despite numerous attempts through the 1970s and 1980s, they all failed to achieve any reform of the Act, as government ministers of various parties and Department of Health officials studiously defended the legislation and its abuse.

In 1990 the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher introduced a bill (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act) to legislate for in-vitro fertilisation, and agreed to allow amendments to the Abortion Act to be attached to the bill, thereby overcoming the major obstacle to getting abortion amendments onto the statute book. This proved a miscalculation on the part of pro-life MPs, as it later became clear that the government's agenda was not to introduce any significant restriction, but to widen the abortion law to accommodate new abortion techniques and to extend abortion for disabled babies up to birth (previously it had been restricted to the point at which the baby could be born alive).

Recent efforts

Further attempts to amend the law by pro-abortion MPs were attached to a later embryology bill in 2008. These also failed for reasons that are not apparent.

Recent efforts have focused on unlawful abuses of the abortion law, such as the practice of sex-selection abortion, and the discriminatory nature of abortion for disabled babies.  The policy of the Department of Health to allow "unwanted" pregnancy to be deemed a threat to mental health is another way in which the law is being treated with contempt.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson

We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures ... we sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85% of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5%. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted (by the media) as though they had been written in law. (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.)

British authorities admitted in 2013 that over eight million children had been killed since 1967 (Over eight million abortions since 1967), although a chart found here provides statistics that date as far back as the very year of the infamous 1930 Lambeth Conference. The British Isles have been a killing field since 1534, and it is thus only logical that it has been the scene of so much carnage in recent decades. Only seventeen percent of the British people believe that the killing of preborn children by surgical means is wrong in all instances (Ipsos Mori Research Publicationsttps), a figure that is very similar to that here in the United States of America, where nineteen percent of the public believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (Gallup Poll.)

The success of the “Leave” movement in the Brexit vote is not going to save one innocent preborn child from being killed anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it will do nothing to stop the widespread public support for the sin of Sodom, which is opposed by only twenty percent of the British people. Only twenty-eight percent of the people in England and Wales are opposed to “marriage” between those engaged in the sin of Sodom. These are all the logical consequences that Henry VIII let loose in 1534 upon once Catholic England.

Indeed, Father Cahill pointed out the immediate evil consequences that flowed in the aftermath of the Protestant Revolution:

The assumption that Protestantism brought a higher and purer moral life to the nations that came under its influence does not need elaborate refutation. It is a fact of uncontroverted history that "public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. Not to mention robberies of church goods, brutal treatment meted out to the clergy, secular and regular, who remained faithful, and the horrors of so many wars of religion," we have the express testimony of [Martin] Luther himself and several other leaders of the revolt, such as [Martin] Bucer and [Philip] Melancthon, as to the evil effects of their teaching; and this testimony is confirmed by contemporaries. Luther's own avowals on this matter are numberless. Thus he writes:

"There is not one of our Evangelicals, who is not seven times worse than before he belonged to us, stealing the goods of others, lying, deceiving, eating, getting drunk, and indulging in every vice, as if he had not received the Holy Word. If we have been delivered from one spirit of evil, seven others worse than the first have come to take its place."

And again:

Men who live under the Gospel are more uncharitable, more irascible, more greedy, more avaricious than they were before as Papists."

Even Erasmus, who had at first favoured Luther's movement, was soon disillusioned. Thus he writes:

"The New Gospel has at least the advantage of showing us a new race of men, haughty, impudent, cunning, blasphemous . . . quarrellers, seditious, furious, to whom I have, to say truth, so great an antipathy that if I knew a place in the world free of them, I would not hesitate to take refuge therein." 

That these evil effects of Protestantism were not merely temporary—the accidental the accidental results of the excitement and confusion which are peculiar to a stage of transition (although they were no doubt intensified thereby)—is shown from present-day [1932] statistics. The condition of domestic morality is usually best indicated by the statistics of divorce, and of illegitimate births, and by the proportion of legitimate children to the number of marriages; while statistics of general criminality, where they can be had, would convey a fair idea of the individual and public morality in any given place. According to these tests Protestant countries are at the present day much inferior to Catholic countries in domestic and public morality. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 102-104.)

Thus it is that the celebration of the victory by the “Leave” movement in the Brexit vote three days ago, while certainly understandable, is entirely misplaced as the people of the United Kingdom are simply exchanging the globalist jailers of the European Union for the ones they have had since 1534. The United Kingdom, a land where Catholic culture took deep root and produced many saints and well-educated scholars, a land of true Christian nobility and virtue, has been rent asunder by the Protestant Revolution its monarchs helped to launch and by the rise of Judeo-Masonry within its own very borders by means of York Rite Masonry in 1717. It is no accident that many British leaders since that time have been actual Freemasons, including Arthur James Balfour, who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from July 11, 1902, to December 5, 1905, and Foreign Secretary from December 16, 1916, to October 23, 1919.

This is an extremely important fact as one of the reasons that voters in England, as opposed to those in Scotland Northern Ireland, supported the “Leave” movement in the Brexit referendum was the influx of Mohammedans into their country. Ah, the responsibility for this influx does not reside principally with the “no borders” policy of the Christophobic, devil-worshipping apparatchiks of the European Union in Strasburg, France—although they do, of course, bear their own share of blame for the Mohammedan tide of “refugees” that have flooded Europe and imposed a wave of crime upon Europeans in various places, especially in Germany.

The principal proximate responsibility for the contemporary displacement of Mohammedans can be laid at the feet of one man, Arthur James Balfour, one of the architects of the New World Order that was a direct attack upon the last remnants of Christendom, the Hapsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary, during and then in the aftermath of World War I. Balfour, who did not believe that human reason could ascertain to knowledge of the truth, did the bidding of none other than the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Herzl, in agreeing to the resettlement of Jews in Palestine in order to lay the groundwork for a Jewish state:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Arthur James Balfour (The Balfour Declaration.)

Ah, yes, the joys of "man" as "the king of the universe."

British social engineering in behalf of the cause of Zionism resulted in the settlement of Jews, both Abrahamic and Talmudic, whose religious ancestors were expelled from the Holy Land by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who used the pagan Romans to visit a just chastisement upon them for having rejected Him and for refusing to respond to the preaching of His Gospel by the Apostles in the thirty-seven years after His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven. It was this resettlement of Jews into Palestine that would result in the forcible displacement of Palestinian Arabs, both Christians and Mohammedans, who had lived together for centuries. The endless conflicts that have taken place since the establishment of the Zionist State of Israel on May 1, 1948, are thus the result of a British Mason’s accommodating Theodore Herzl’s request, which had been roundly rejected by Pope Saint Pius X on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

Yes, Herzl did not understand that obeisance in front of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is what Our Lord Himself, Christ the King, wants of poor creatures when they are before His Vicar  earth. Alas, both the lords of Modernity and of Modernism reject Christ's regal prerogatives and thus have created the Cult of Man. Behold the results, which no popular referendum is going to change from worsening.

There is a high price to be paid for not listening to a true pope, and the world is paying that price today as Our Lord uses the Mohammedan infidels to chastise us all for our sins. Although Mohammedanism has always been a religion of violence, the hatred of the West has intensified in the past sixty-eight years precisely because there was the initial British social engineering in the second decade of the Twentieth Century and then the constant efforts by American policy makers, especially since the era of President Lyndon Baines Johnson fifty years, ago, to make the Middle East “safe for Israel.” The West has no one but itself to blame for Mohammedan revanchism that God using to chastise us all for our sins.

The people of the British Isles and elsewhere in Europe, especially in Germany and France, who are rightly angered by the European Union’s welcoming of so-called Syrian refugees, themselves the product of the kind of covert efforts by the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to oust Syrian President Bashir Assad just as it had done with Libyan ruler Moammar Ghaddafi, do not realize that the Mohammedan tide that is flooding over Europe at present is at one and the same time the result of endless Middle East wars waged by the United States and its allies in support of Israel and a chastisement for their own systematic depopulation of their countries by means of contraception and abortion.

Saint Paul the Apostle himself reminded us in his Epistle to the Hebrews that there is no forgiveness of sin without shedding of blood:

[22] And almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without shedding of blood there is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)

Western nations, including the United Kingdom and the United States of America, have shed much innocent blood around the world and within their own borders. Citizens should be safe in their own countries. Alas, the innocent unborn—and innocent human beings in hospitals who are declared “brain dead—continue to be vivisected, whether in the name of “choice” in the former instance or in the name of “giving the gift of life” and/or “mercy” in the latter instance.

God will not be mocked. He sent us His Most Blessed Mother at Fatima to warn us that great chastisements would befall men and their nations if they did not repent of their sins and if Russia was not consecrated properly to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

While stressing the fact once again that “Leave” vote in the Brexit referendum six days ago now was both justified and just, it is only a placebo as the social upheavals within the United Kingdom are only the logical consequences of what King Henry VIII let loose upon the British Isles in 1534.

Indeed, the statists of France and Germany want to solidify the European Union in the wake of Brexit in by dissolving national military forces in favor of one European Army, which, in contradistinction to the leagues of fighters of the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, will be the armed forces of Antichrist, and the day is coming when the military forces of the United States of America, whose Judeo-Masonic leaders have championed their own social engineering in behalf of perversity and outright devil worship (and who are now desirous of drafting our daughters into combat service), will be dissolved to become one with those armed forces of Antichrist. It is not for nothing that a convoy carrying United Nations military vehicles was spotted on Interstate 81 in Virginia on Monday, June 27, 2016 the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

The United Kingdom and its former colony, the United States of America, and the rest of the world are suffering from forces far, far more sinister than the New World Order. The world in which we live is suffering from a paucity of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces, resulting in the deification of man and his supposed “ability” to reshape the world according to his own unaided powers.

This lack of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces is, of course, the combined result of the effects of Protestant Revolution and the Modernist revolution that unfolded at the “Second” Vatican Council and has evolved by means of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Men will revert to barbarism if they do not have belief in, access to and attempt to cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by means of the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. A world filled with neo-barbarians and neo-pagans and devil worshippers, a world filled with hedonism and materialism, will inevitable wind up imprisoned by statists, who always use chaos as the pretext for establishing an “order” that result eventually in active, overt and bloody persecutions against believing Catholics, that is, those who do not subscribe the false religion of man that is covered over by a slight gloss of Catholicism that is conciliarism.

England gave Christendom a distinctive Anglo-Saxon culture, including the development of much of the Common Law, some of which is still the basis of legal reasoning, albeit much more infrequently now than in the past, in the United States of America. English judges heard cases-at-law as they sat under crucifixes and attempted to provide remedies and/or render decisions that were consonant with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. These judges were mindful of the fact that they would be judge by the Divine Judge, Christ the King, at the moment of their Particular Judgment, and it was from the tradition of justice that flowed from the Common Law that the Magna Carta was issued in 1215 to serve as a check upon the abuses of royal power. Although certainly owing a debt to the heritage of Roman law, the Magna Carta, however, was written by Catholics who were mindful of their duties to Christ the King and it is one of the greatest English contributions to Christendom. The very seeds of the parliamentary-ministerial system of government were planted by the Magna Carta.

Yet it is, however, that it is not the grand Catholic legacy of England that influences the world today, acknowledging, of course, the injustices that England visited upon France—and especially our brave Saint Joan of Arc—during the Hundred Years’ War.  No, it is the English legacy of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, which was at the very roots of the American founding principles, that helped to create the New World Order that enslaves us all at the moment.

Alas, there is another sorry legacy of Britain that largely escapes the attention of most commentators today: the influence of the British heretic named Pelagius, who lived between 360 A.D. and 418 A.D.

Pelagius taught that human beings were capable of more or less stirring up graces within themselves to save their souls and to accomplish whatever it is they set their minds to doing by means of their free wills. Many people alive today have never heard of Pelagianism or its variant, semi-Pelagianism, but most Americans believe inchoately, if not more explicitly, that they can do whatever it is they want because they are Americans. Pelagianism is at the heart of “American Exceptionalism,” which is itself but variant of the “British Exceptionalism,” that has been issued to try to remake the world in the image of the religious indifferentist and Calvinist-Judeo-Masonic American “way.”

Pelgianism was fought, however, by many a saint. Saint Germanus used the cult of the Protomartyr of Roman Britain, Saint Alban, who feast is celebrated, although not universally, on June 22, to combat Pelagianism.  Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.’s The Liturgical Year described the valor of Saint Alban and how he was hated by the anti-historical Protestant Revolutionaries:

For a thousand years Alban too reigned with Christ. At last came the epoch when the depths of the abyss were to be let loose for a little time, and Satan, unchained, would once again seduce nations. Vanquished formerly by the saints, power was now given him to make war with them, and to overcome them in his turn. The disciple is not above his Master: like his Lord, Alban too was rejected by his own. Hated without cause, he beheld his illustrious monastery destroyed, that had been Albion's pride in the palmy days of her history; and scarce was even the venerable church itself saved, wherein God's athlete had so long reposed, shedding benefits around far and near. But, after all, what could he do now, in a profaned sanctuary, in which strange rites had banished those of our forefathers, and condemned the faith for which martyrs had bled and died? So Alban was ignominiously expelled, and his ashes scattered to the winds(Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

Hatred for the past is a common theme of revolutionaries, including the one named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The work of Saint Alban and others to evangelize Roman Britain was not completed in their lifetimes. Unlike Saint Patrick, who worked a genuine miracle in the conversion of Ireland in his own lifetime it was not until five hundred ninety-five years later that the evangelization of Britain started again, this time under the guidance of Saint Augustine of Canterbury, who had been sent to Britain by Pope Saint Gregory the Great:

Throned on the apostolic See, our saint proved himself to be a rightful heir of the apostles, not only as the representative and depositary of their authority, but as a follow-sharer in their mission of calling nations to the true faith. To whom does England owe her having been, for so many ages, the 'island of saints'? To Gregory, who, touched with compassion for those Angli, of whom, as he playfully said, he would fain Angeli, sent to their island the monk Augustine with forty companions, all of them, as was Gregory himself, children of St. Benedict. The faith had been sown in this land as early as the second century, but it had been trodden down by the invasion of an infidel race. This time the seed fructified, and so rapidly that Gregory lived to see a plentiful harvest. It is beautiful to hear the aged Pontiff speaking with enthusiasm about the results of his English mission. He thus speaks in the twenty-seventh Book of his Morals: 'Lo! the language of Britain, which could once mutter naught save barbarous sounds, has long since begun to sing, in the divine praises, the Hebrew Alleluia! Lo! that swelling sea is now calm, and saints walk on its waves. The tide of barbarians, which the sword of earthly princes could not keep back, is now hemmed in at the simple bidding of God's priests.' (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year.)

Look at the hatred directed at Father Edmund Campion, S.J., for simply adhering to that which every Englishman believed for nearly a thousand years since the time of Saint Augustine of Canterbury—and which many in Britain, including Saint Helena, had embraced as early as the latter part of the Third Century A.D. as a result of the work of Saint Alban. It was during the closing of his trial that was to conclude with his being sentenced to death by being drawn and quartered that Father Campion himself noted the irony contained in his being condemned for believing what every ancestor of those who had condemned him had believed for nearly a thousand years:

"The only thing I have now to say is, that if my religion makes me a traitor, I am worthy to be condemned. Otherwise I am, and have been, as good a subject as ever the Queen had.

"In condemning me you condemn all your own ancestor--all the ancient priests, bishops and kings--all that was once the glory of England, the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.

"For what I have taught . . . that they did not teach? To be condemned with these lights--not of England only, but of the world--by their degenerate descendants, is both gladness and joy.

"God lives; posterity will live; their judgment is not so liable to corruption as that of those who are now going to sentence me to death." (Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion: Hero of God's Underground, Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957, pp. 160-161.)  

The exact same phenomenon has occurred as a result of the conciliar revolution. All but a microscopically small number of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have grown to hate most of what is dismissed derisively as the "pre-conciliar church," which was the point of They Like It! seven years ago now. Those who have no direct memory of the "pre-conciliar church" have been brainwashed by a highly sophisticated campaign of disinformation that helped to create a "false memory" of the past that even wiped out the true memories of those who lived in that "pre-conciliar church" and loved everything about it until they were "taught" that they could not even trust their own memories.

Sadly, the British have no memories of their past, which is why they do not realize that their current Brexit, which has done us the service of seeing once again the contempt that elitists in such ossified Marxist bureaucracies as the European Union hold “the people,” is merely exchanging one set of jailers for the ones that they have had since 1534. And while it is true that the statists of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” have contempt for “the people,” it is also true that “the people” have contempt for the truths of the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. We are living through a chastisement of epic proportions. God is using infidels now to punish the heretical, apostate and sinful men of the West just as he used other non-believers to punish wayward Catholics throughout history.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, whose religious name was Sister Marie-Bernarde, explained in 1871 how Our Lord was using the heretical and Masonic Prussians to punish the French for their sinful and revolutionary ways. Francis Parkinson Keyes described this in her book, Bernadette: Maid of Lourdes:

The Franco-Prussian War affected her poignantly, as indeed it affect the entire congregation. Its member did not remain withdrawn from the conflict, as a cloistered Order could do, to some extent. In 1870 the Sisters of Nevers at the four Houses in Paris obtained permission from the Superior General to remain at their posts throughout the siege. They considered this the greatest favor which could be shown the, since it gave them a chance of dying in the performance of their duties and thus testifying to the faith that was in them. They were entirely self-forgetful, devoting themselves, day and night, to bandaging the wounded, nursing the sick, and consoling the dying. Several of them succumbed to typhus and smallpox, which they caught from their patients. Their heroic example, even more than their pious precepts, resulted in numerous conversions and many “Christian deaths” were attributed to them.

From afar, Marie Bernard followed the consecrated task of her successful Sisters. She withdrew more and more into the silences which solaced her. There was nothing she herself could do except pray, but she did that. One of her biographers has likened the form and effect of her prayers to the manners and methods of a peasant who, in his youth, served as shepherd at the manor of Villaine, where wild boars constantly threatened the harvest with their ravages. The boy had no weapons. But every evening he took his rustic flute and seated himself on the borderline between the dark forest, whence the danger, and the ripening wheat fields, which glistened like gold under the mellow moon. All night long he sat there and played the simple tunes which were the only ones he knew. But they sufficed. Their melody pierced the silences of the wood and kept the boars away.

To me this comparison is apt as well as exquisite. The young shepherd felt no animosity toward the boars; he did not wish to harm the, only to save the harvest. In like measure, Bernadette did not feel too harshly toward the Prussians. “I know they are doing their duty,” she said sadly, realizing that the soldiers had no choice but to go where they were sent. She seems also to have felt that, to a certain extent, France was expiating its own sins, and that it must work out its own salvation. The Third Empire was a period of great luxury and frivolity; the cloister and the court were inevitably far apart, and in many religious circles that was a strong conviction that just chastisements was being meted out.

One day in late October, the pale autumnal sky was suddenly flooded with dark lurid red, the color of blood. Its effect and its symbolism were unmistakable. The entire community at Nevers assembled on the terrace to watch it and to wait anxiously for its passing. Some of the Sisters were terribly frightened. Bernadette was not among these. But as she gazed at the strange somber clouds, she accepted them unquestioningly as an omen and a warning.

“And to think,” she exclaimed sadly and compassionately, “that there are still people who resist conversion!”

Tumult of a sort had taken possession of her quiet soul. But still she was not frightened even when the Prussians came closer and closer to Nevers. The Chevalier Gougenot des Mousseaux, who came to break the bad news, received a negative answer when he asked her if she were not alarmed. She spoke with such obvious tranquility and sincerity that he went on questioning her, his curiosity and his admiration both aroused.

“So you think there is nothing to fear?”

I am afraid only of bad Catholics.”

“Really? Not anything else at all?”

“No, Monsieur.”

She meant it. Perhaps her courage, which proved contagious, played its own small part in saving Never, for danger has a way of retreating before those who confront it calmly and casually, where it pounces mercilessly on those who cower before it. Be that as it may, the Prussian advance was checked. The alien army, which had been sweeping over the countryside, leaving death and disaster in its wake, never succeeded in entering Nevers. But Bernadette did not gloat over its escape. She continued to center her concern on soldiers' souls rather than on their successes.

“Oh!” she wrote to the Superior of the Hospice at Lourdes. “We should weep rather than rejoice to see our unfortunate country so blind and so obdurate. Let us pray constantly for these poor sinners that they may be converted. Let us ask Our Saviour and the Blessed Virgin to change these savage wolves into gentle sheep.”

In mind and spirit she was still very close to the hillside at Bartres after all. Another young girl—Joan of Domremy—had tended flocks before she had saved France. Bernadette did not know that she belonged in Joan's glorious company and in the glorious company of Heaven, where, no doubt, Joan was among the first to welcome her. But she did know that the Saviour of all the world was also the Good Shepherd, that He would protect His flock, and that He would draw into the fold again all those who had strayed far from it but who returned penitently, seeking salvation. (Francis Parkinson Keyes, Bernadette: Maid of Lourdes, Julian Messner, Inc., pp.115-117.)

We should be afraid only of being a bad Catholic. After all, did not Our Lord Himself tell us the following?

Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death. And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come. The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?

Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10: 16-40.)

These words apply to us. Here and now.

As we continue to pray for a true pope to be restored to the Throne of Saint Peter on this great solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, remembering the whole Church was breaking for Saint Peter to rescued from his chains (a feast that is celebrated on August 1 with the same lesson as found in today’s Holy Mass), we need to keep focused on First and Last Things.

Indeed, although the readership of this site is negligible, something about which I have never had any illusions (I mean, the printed version of Christ or Chaos only had a little over three hundred subscribers at its height between 1996 and 2003, and many of those were complimentary!), I use the work that is published on this site to try to help readers to see the world through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith without being agitated by the events of the world, each of which are being used by God to direct men’s attention to Him and to get them to rely ever more faithfully upon the maternal intercession of His Most Blessed Mother, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary and by offering up unto Him whatever merit we earn from the patient endurance of our crosses during this most remarkable times as the consecrated slaves of His Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

It is a privilege to alive in these times to work out our salvation in fear and in trembling as members of the true Church. May Our Lady protect us now and at the hour our death as she protected the twin pillars of the Church of the Rome, our first pope, Saint Peter, and the Apostle of the Gentiles, Saint Paul, to the point of shedding their blood for the sake of Our King, Christ the King, at the hands of the same kind of statist pagans with whom we are confronted today.


Why live in fear with such heavenly help so near?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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