Clueless Then, Clueless Now
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Watching "conservative" naturalists fight with each other over who is more naturalistically "conservative" is is something akin to watching "conservative" Catholics fight with each other as to who is truer to the great governing principles of the "Second" Vatican Council and the decrees, statements, allocutions, dreams, prophesies and other random daily thoughts of the conciliar "pontiffs." Facts get distorted. Truth gets flushed down the Orwellian memory hole. A good "fight" is enjoyed by all. More tricks of the devil to distract us from recognizing the truth in the following quote from the late Gilbert Keith Chesterton:
"The whole world is dividing itself into progressives and conservatives. The job of the progressives is to go on making mistakes. The job of the conservatives is to prevent those mistakes from being corrected." Gilbert Keith Chesterton, April 19, 1924
Arguing about whether United States Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) or former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the more naturalistically "conservative" candidate is somewhat like arguing over whether like watching Raymond Arroyo of EWTN (Eternally Wishful Television Network) argue with Father Robert Fox over who is more devoted to Our Lady's Fatima Message, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II or Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Absurdities are bound to result.
Thus it is that the ever hapless, mercurial, inarticulate thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., has weighed in on the "conservative" credentials of his former colleague in the United States Senate, John McCain. The only reason that I am offering any commentary at all on this silly exercise is that Bob Dole, who was the leader of Republicans in the United States Senate for over eleven years, whose personal vanity (dyed hair at age eighty-four, a facelift advertisements for a certain pharmaceutical product manufactured by the Pfizer company) is exceeded only by his absolute unwillingness to understand anything in light of First and Last Things.
As one who had to deal with the sorry record of then Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole when I was campaigning actively for the Republican presidential nomination candidacy of Patrick Joseph Buchanan in late-1995 and early-1996 (producing a pamphlet that was published by The Wanderer, "One Man's Assessment of the '96 Presidential Race" to accompany my talks), it gives me great pleasure to revisit the simple truth that the Lodge Brother Bob Dole is the last person in the world to be discussing who does or does not have a "consistent pro-life record," as Dole contended was in the case in a letter that he wrote recently to radio talk-show host and former prescription-pain-killer abuser Rush Limbaugh in order to defend the "conservative" credentials of Senator John McCain.
Mind you, I carry no brief for any of the naturalists running for the presidential nominations of the two major political parties in the United States of America, certainly least of all for the Mormon flip-flopper and opportunist named Mitt Romney. As I have noted in any number of commentaries on this site in the past few weeks alone, it is foolish to believe that a governmental system founded on false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles is going to produce a means by which we can retard various evils at the ballot box. Perhaps one of the reasons that our website rankings are falling like a stone through water is because I refuse to concede anything to the nonexistent ability of naturalists to "restore America." So be it. I have every confidence that the analysis provided on this site will stand up in fifty years (as my analysis of past elections have stood the test of time).
Nevertheless, it is useful to point out that Bob Dole, who was considered by so many "mainstream" "conservatives" to have been the "electable" candidate back in 1996, something that was laughable on its face (I mean, the man lost a debate to then Senator Walter Mondale, D-Minnesota, when running as then President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.'s, vice presidential running mate in 1976), is as wrong about John McCain being "pro-life" as he was wrong about so many other things throughout the course of his service in the United States House of Representatives (1961-1968) and in the United States Senate (1969-1996).
Bob Dole wrote to Rush Limbaugh to say that John McCain had a "consistent pro-life record." Says who? Says who? Bob Dole, who supports the slicing and dicing of preborn babies in their mothers' wombs in "hard-cases" and who voted to fund the chemical assassination of innocent babies by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs. Says Bob Dole? This is worse than laughable. Says Bob Dole?
No one who supports a single, solitary exception to the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is "pro-life" and must never be referred to as such. A person who supports "exceptions" to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that prohibit the killing of all innocent human beings, no matter the methods employed to kill them (be they chemical or surgical or some other means), is simply less pro-abortion than someone who is in favor of indiscriminate baby-killing. John McCain makes the same "exceptions" as Bob Dole. John McCain is not "pro-life" no matter what the bogus "scorecards" of Congressional votes are rigged to indicate. All you need to do about a candidate's alleged "pro-life" credentials is if they support a single exception to the inviolability of innocent human life and if they support contraception in any form.
John McCain has a "consistent pro-life record" says Bob Dole? Guess again.
Then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole was one of the first Republicans in January of 1993 to announce his support for the then newly-inaugurated President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's executive order which made it possible for the Federal government to fund embryonic stem-cell research. John McCain supports embryonic stem-cell research. Takes one to know one, I suppose. Pro-life. Guess again.
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding. Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
John McCain has a "consistent pro-life record" says Bob Dole? Guess again.
Bob Dole sought to insert a "Declaration of Tolerance" into the 1996 Republican Party platform as a means of "welcoming" those who had "divergent opinions" on the matter of the slicing and dicing or burning of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs. Would he have sought a "Declaration of Tolerance" in the Republican Party platform over the issue of "anti-Semitism" by claiming that the party had to reflect a "variety of views." Would Bob dole have sought a "Declaration of Tolerance" in the Republican Party platform over racism by claiming that the party could not disenfranchise those who might hate others on the basis of the pigmentation of their skin? Of course not.
Bob Dole, however, said the following in an interview with Margaret Warner on the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour on the Public Broadcasting System on June 11,1996, nearly three months after he had wrapped up the Republican Party presidential nomination on "Super Tuesday" that year, March 19:
MARGARET WARNER: Abortion is a potentially explosive issue for Republicans this year. The 1992 party platform called for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and pro-life forces within the party want the '96 platform to remain the same, but pro-choice Republicans, including some powerful governors, have threatened a convention fight unless the anti-abortion plank is struck or radically amended. Last Thursday, Bob Dole tried to defuse the issue. In an interview with ABC's Peter Jennings, he expressed support for adding some conciliatory language on the issue.
SEN. ROBERT DOLE: Republican Presidential Candidate: My view is that I want to bring people into the party, not keep people out of the party. I don't want to build a fence around our party and say everybody has to agree with me on this issue. I happen to be pro-life. And I've tried to explain to some of the pro-life people if we're going to win elections and build our party, we can have different views on this issue. And that'll be my hope when I determine precisely what that plank should be.
MS. WARNER: Later that evening, the Dole campaign released a statement suggesting that the platform would include a "declaration of tolerance for divergent points of view." Aides said that the so-called tolerance language would be in the overall preamble to the platform, not in the abortion plank, itself. Many anti-abortion leaders were quoted as saying that was acceptable to them. And for a while, it looked like the argument had been defused. But yesterday in an interview with CNN, Senator Dole weighed in again.
SEN. DOLE: It has been resolved. I think I make that decision. It's not negotiable. It's the decision, and that's going to be in the plank. And it's probably going to be in the abortion plank, not in the preamble. It seems to me if you want to make it clear to the people out there that we're tolerant, make it--this is a moral issue. It's not like all the other things in the platform, and it ought to be right up there where people can see it.
Online NewsHour: Dole and Abortion -- June 11, 1996
John McCain may not be so foolish as to wage a platform fight on such a "Declaration of Tolerance" if he does indeed wind up at the Republican Party presidential nominee this year, 2008. He certainly has no problem being buddies with pro-abortion supporters such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former City of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former New York Governor George Pataki and United States Senator from Connecticut Joseph Lieberman, now does he? John McCain would not be so "tolerant" of, say, of a fellow Republican who was deemed to be, no matter how unjustly, an anti-Semite or a racist, would he? The slicing and dicing of babies? Oh, well, that's just one issue that can't get in the way of recognizing the public service of those who support all abortions at all times. John McCain also has no problem taking funds raised by the pro-abortion founder of the Republican Leadership Conference, one Lewis Eisenberg, who was nominated in January of 2002 to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee's Finance Committee by none other than the not-so-"pro-life President George Walker Bush. When are you people ever going to wake up and realize that you've been duped by naturalists "dupers" forever?
Oh, yes John McCain has a "consistent pro-life" record. I forgot. Bob Dole says so. I forgot.
Bob Dole's letter to Rush Limbaugh also included the following claim about Senator John McCain:
Strong advocate for strict constructionist judges. (We were misled on the Souter nomination)
Misled about David Souter? What a farcical lie.
Howard Phillips, the Chairman of the Conservative Caucus Foundation gave this testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate on September 19, 1990, demonstrating that David Souter had the blood of the innocent dripping on his hands:
In considering David Souter’s suitability to cast what, in many cases, will be the deciding opinion on the Supreme Court of the United States, it is necessary to go beyond Mr. Souter’s intellectual capacity and his stated opinions, and to assess his character and moral courage in their relationship to the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice.
DAVID SOUTER His pro-abortion record was there for those who wanted to know the truth. One moment of truth for Mr. Souter came in February, 1973 when, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital, he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at the hospital.
Advocacy of, or even acquiescence in, such a decision is morally distinguishable from the judicial conclusion, profoundly incorrect in my view, that women have a constitutional right to destroy their unborn children.
It is also distinguishable from and far more troubling than the political argument by politicians who maintain that they are “personally opposed” to abortion, even as they advocate its decriminalization.
It is one thing to intellectually rationalize the case for permitting legal abortions, while still opposing the exercise of such legal authority. It is quite another - something far more invidious, morally - to actually join in a real world decision to cause abortions to be performed, routinely, at a particular hospital.
Those abortions whose performance was authorized by David Souter were not mandated by law or court opinion. In fact, laws have remained to this day on the books in New Hampshire which provide criminal penalties for any “attempt to procure miscarriage” or “intent to destroy quick child.” Indeed, section 585:14 of the New Hampshire Criminal Code establishes the charge of second degree murder for the death of a pregnant woman in consequence of an attempted abortion. Nor were those abortions which Mr. Souter authorized performed merely to save the life of the mother, nor were they limited to cases of rape or incest.
If the unborn child is human, and if innocent human life is to be defended and safeguarded, why did Mr. Souter acquiesce in those abortions? Why did he not speak out against them? Why did he, through twelve years on the Concord Hospital board, in a position of responsibility, help cause those abortions to be performed, and invest his personal reputation in clearly implied approval of those abortions?
The overarching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion. Is the unborn child a human person, entitled to the protections pledged to each of us by the Founders of our Nation?
The issue is much more than one of legal or judicial philosophy. There are men and women in the legal profession, in elected office, and on the bench who acknowledge abortion to be morally repugnant, but who assert that, in present circumstances, it cannot be constitutionally prohibited.
Whatever Mr. Souter’s legal and judicial philosophy may be - and, on the record, it seems to be one which rejects the higher law theories implicit in the Declaration of Independence - it is a chilling fact which the Senate must consider that Judge Souter has personally participated in decisions resulting in the performance of abortions, where such abortions were in no way mandated or required by law or court decision.
By his own account, Mr. Souter served as a member of the board of trustees for the Concord Hospital from 1971 until 1985. Following service as board secretary, he was president of the board from 1978 to 1984.
In 1973, shortly after the Supreme Court’s January 22 Roe v. Wade decision, the Concord Hospital trustees voted to initiate a policy of performing abortions at Concord Hospital.
Similarly, Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, which is associated with the Dartmouth Medical School, of which Judge Souter has been an overseer, has performed abortion up to the end of the second trimester.
During the period of Mr. Souter’s tenure as a decision-maker of these two institutions, many hundreds of abortions were performed under his authority, with no indication that he ever objected to or protested the performance of these abortions. Even though the Roe v. Wade decision did, in fact, authorize abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy, nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision required or obliged any hospital to conduct abortions, whether in the ninth month, the sixth month, or even in the first month of pregnancy.
If Judge Souter is confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he will, in all likelihood, be given the opportunity to address not only the issue of Roe v. Wade, but broader issues involving the sanctity of innocent human life.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the 1986 Thornburgh case, “there is a fundamental and well-recognized difference between a fetus and a human being. Indeed, if there is not such a difference, the permissibility of terminating the life of a fetus could scarcely be left to the will of the State legislatures.”
Justice Stevens was wrong in a very deadly way. If an unborn child is not human, I would ask Justice Stevens, what is he, what is she? But as least Mr. Stevens was logical in defending his support for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that, “If the personhood of the unborn child is established, the pro-abortion case collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
As Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has pointed out, “This is so, because the common law does not permit a person to kill an innocent non-aggressor, even to save his own life.”
Does David Souter believe that the unborn child - the fetus in the mother’s womb - is a human person, deserving of all the protections which are guaranteed to human beings after the moment of birth?
Seemingly, Mr. Souter’s answer is an unequivocal “no.” by agreeing that abortions be performed at institutions under his authority, Mr. Souter established clearly that he did not recognize the personhood of the unborn child. For surely, if he did acknowledge the unborn child to be a human person, Mr. Souter would not have agreed to authorize the extinguishment of so many precious lives at medical facilities for which he bore responsibility.
One must conclude that either Mr. Souter accepts the view that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the convenience and profit of those who collaborate in the killing of that child, or that, despite his recognition of the fact that each unborn child is human, a handiwork of God’s creation, he lacked the moral courage or discernment to help prevent the destruction of so many innocent human lives when he had the authority, indeed, the responsibility, to do so.
Either way, in such circumstances, unless there are mitigating factors or extenuating considerations which have not yet been brought to public attention, it is difficult to regard Mr. Souter as one suitable for participation in judicial decisions at the highest level of our Nation.
If, during his years of responsibility at Concord Hospital and Dartmouth Hitchcock Hospital, Mr. Souter believed each fetus to be a human person, and failed to act against the performance of abortion, he was morally delinquent.
If, on the other hand, he justified himself by denying the human qualities of the unborn child, then he placed himself in the ambit of those who have argued against the very philosophy which his sponsor, President George Bush, purported to embrace during his 1988 presidential campaign.
On the basis of the information now available, Mr. Souter, in my opinion, should not be confirmed.
Did this factual presentation matter to any of the "pro-life" senators, including Bob Dole and John McCain? Not one little bit. To this day, these craven careerists have hid behind the abject lie that they were "misled" by then President George Herbert Walker Bush's White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu, the former Governor of the State of New Hampshire, about David Souter. This is a lie. An abject lie. Howard Phillips presented incontrovertible evidence about David Souter's support for abortion. This did not matter one little bit to Bob Dole or to John McCain. Not one little bit.
This was not the first time that a Republican President had nominated an individual to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America with a fully pro-abortion record. Although John McCain was still in the United States Navy when his fellow Arizonan Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated by then President Ronald Wilson Reagan to replace the retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart (one of the seven "affirmative votes in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973), Bob Dole was in the Senate. He did not wince a bit when Howard Phillips presented the following information to the Senate Judiciary Committee during O'Connor's confirmation hearings in 1981:
As an Arizona State Senator, she voted twice for abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy; she co-sponsored a proposal to permit abortion without parental consent; she promoted ERA; she opposed the Human Life Amendment; and she failed to oppose abortions at a taxpayer-funded facility".
President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was very active in Planned Parenthood in Arizona, was opposed also by Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and the President of the American Life League. Once again, the fact of O'Connor's support for abortion when she was the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate mattered not one little bit to the "pro-life" Bob Dole, who would have us believe that John McCain has a "consistent pro-life record."
John McCain certainly has a "consistent pro-life record," a consistently bad "pro-life" record.
John McCain is a "strong advocate for strict constructionist judges," says Bob Dole? Oh, yeah? Then why did he and all but three other "pro-life" Republican senators vote to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace retiring Associate Justice Byron White (one of the two "nay" votes in the case of Roe v. Wade) in 1993? The three who voted against Ginsburg because of her support for baby-killing were Senators Robert Smith (NH), Don Nickles (OK), and Jesse Helms (NC). Bob Dole and John McCain? "Aye, aye, Mr. Clinton. Ruthie's fine by us. We don't want to offend women or Jewish voters, now do we?"
John McCain was also on hand to confirm then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's nominee to replace the retiring Harry Blackmun, the very author of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Roe v. Wade, Stephen Breyer. Nine senators vote against the pro-abort Breyer. Not John McCain. Not John McCain. Go ahead, try to find his name in this list below.
Conrad Burns (R-Montana), Daniel R. Coates (R-Indiana), Paul Coverdell (R-Georgia), Jesse Helms, Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), Don Nickles (R-Oklahoma), and Robert C. Smith. They indicated they were primarily concerned with Breyer's ethics, but also objected to his support of federal funding for abortion counseling, his lack of commitment to private property rights, and his opposition to prayer in public schools and at public schools' graduation ceremonies.
Sen. Smith told the Union Leader that he opposed Breyer because "He will move the court away from the conservative justices' (William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas) way of the court, which most people in New Hampshire essentially support on most of the issues." Although he still voted for him, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) "chastised Breyer for his role in promoting a federal courthouse on Boston's waterfront that he called 'an exercise in extravagance and arrogance.' " (Boston Globe, July 30, 1994)
In the end, despite their reservations, most Republican senators approved of Breyer's nomination because, as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) put it, they "take the view that Breyer is the best justice - ideologically speaking - they can expect President Clinton to nominate." (Christian Science Monitor, July 27, 1994) Did Republicans Apply an Ideological Test to Bill Clinton's Supreme Court Nominees
Oh, you found John McCain's name, did you? Was it in relation to his voting against Breyer's confirmation? No. It was in relation to Breyer's role in "promoting a federal courthouse on Boston's waterfront that he called 'an exercise in extravagance and arrogance.'" The babies? Perish the thought. Comity and bi-partisanship, you understand. Comity and bi-partisanship trumps any concern for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to His Catholic Church for their safekeeping and infallible explication as the foundation of all just civil laws and of all just jurisprudence.
Some will protest by saying that Ginsburg and Breyer were going to be confirmed without the votes of Bob Dole and John McCain. True enough. They were. So what? Those who serve in a legislature must cast a vote of conscience against those whose support for the shedding of innocent human blood disqualifies them to hold any office of public trust at any time and in any place whatsoever.
Pope Leo XIII put the matter of the consistency of one's positions in its full Catholic light in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:
Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.
Some would contend by way of response that John McCain is not a Catholic, that he is not bound to think as a Catholic. Such is the stuff of which the conciliarist mind is made: Jell-o. Every human being on the face of this earth, whether or not he realizes it, is bound to observe and to submit himself to every iota of the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted to the Catholic Church, including her Social Teaching. If one knows that baby-killing is wrong, you see, he must oppose all deliberate actions that result in the death of babies as the first object of a moral action. He must oppose with vigor the election or the appointment or the confirmation of anyone who believes otherwise.
Here, of course, is the very nub of the matter: the very fact that there are men and women who are clueless about the world and everything in it is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the wrought by Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and its alliance with a whole variety of naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies that propose to give "meaning" and direction to human life, in essence, you see, taking the place of the true Faith, Catholicism. Men must wander around cluelessly when they are not guided by the true Faith, when they do not submit themselves humbly to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith, when they do not have belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace.
Indeed, men are unable not only make sense of the events of the world absent the true Faith but they are unable to accept suffering in their own lives as the price of our redemption, that we must unite each of our crosses with those of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, especially by offering up the merits we earn by the patience endurance of our crosses, whether great or small, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen noted that he thought of all of the "wasted suffering," as he termed it, taking place in hospitals, meaning that most of the people there were wallowing in self-pity or varying degrees of anger and bitterness about enduring whatever suffering that they were experience as a result of accidents or illnesses, whether acute or chronic.
Although both Bob Dole and John McCain, for example, suffered multiple and serious injuries in the military service of the United States of America, something for which they are to be commended and recognized, neither understood that their sufferings were the means by which they could make reparation for their own sins and for those of the whole world. How could they? They were Protestants raised in an ethos of utter naturalism. The mere fact that one is wounded, even severely, in the military service of his nation does not mean that one is qualified to serve in elected office, that one is able to view the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and to advance the common temporal good in light of the pursuit of man's Last End. It is the Catholic Faith alone that enables men to see the events in their own individual lives and in the world clearly as they seek to cooperate with the graces won for them 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 their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces.
The purpose of civil government was outlined very clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."
It is all the more difficult for non-Catholics to understand and accept this given the fact that most Catholics do not understand accept this, having made their own accommodation to the Americanist/Protestant/Judeo-Masonic ways of naturalism long before the counterfeit church of conciliarism made its "reconciliation" with the principles of 1787 and 1789, thereby obliterating the perennial, immutable Social Teaching of the Catholic Church from sight and from mind. This leaves the devil free to promote all sorts of naturalist philosophies and naturalist "saviours" as the means to resolve problems that have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in Actual Sins and in the overthrow of Christendom.
The point of this commentary is not, as noted before, to support the Mormon Mitt Romney. Of course not. It is only to point out that Bob Dole's attesting to the "pro-life" credentials of John McCain is somewhat analogous to Hans Kung's attesting to the doctrinal orthodoxy of Joseph Ratzinger throughout the course of his priesthood (a subject that is explored in some depth at: The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph 'Cardinal' Ratzinger's Milestones, part 1 and Part II: The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph 'Cardinal' Ratzinger's Milestones.) The witnesses in both cases are not reliable.
As there are occasional first-time visitors to this site who might be wondering "what to do" with respect to "choosing" between the various naturalists who are running for the presidency of the United States of America, I would refer one and all the following articles in order to dispel any belief in the "salvific" nature of American partisan politics: A Catechism of the Social Reign of Christ the King, When Lesser is Greater, They Never Take Prisoners, Showing Libertarianism's True Biases, Hope Against Hope In But Mere Mortals and Their Dreams, Secular Saviors to the Naturalist Right, Secular Saviors to the Naturalist Left, No Decisions to be Made, Only Commandments to be Obeyed. Those of you who are young enough can check back in another fifty years or so to see if the analysis provided in these articles has withstood the test of time.
We must lay aside the shackles imposed by naturalism and to start, once and for all, to view the world as it really is through the eyes of the true Faith, the one and only foundation of personal and social order. And it is very ironic that even those who argue on merely natural grounds rarely get their natural facts about the details of government and politics at all correct. Most people prefer to live in the false world of sound bites and self-made delusions rather than to face the facts, such as the ones presented above, squarely.
Pope Leo XIII, writing in the aforementioned Immortale Dei, explained that we had to reject the false doctrines of the day, which false doctrines have an even stronger hold on Catholics now than they did 122 years, 3 months ago now. We must come to realize that each of the problems of Modernity is the result of the rejection of the Catholic Faith as the one and only foundation of personal and social order and that we have an obligation to be informed about this truth and to help others to accept it:
Doctrines [Modern doctrines on the separation of Church and State and civil liberty] such as these, which cannot be approved by human reason, and most seriously affect the whole civil order, Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs (well aware of what their apostolic office required of them) have never allowed to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter "Mirari Vos," dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated-namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man's conscience is his sole and allsufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State. On the question of the separation of Church and State the same Pontiff writes as follows: "Nor can We hope for happier results either for religion or for the civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the State, and the concord between the secular and ecclesiastical authority be dissolved. It is clear that these men, who yearn for a shameless liberty, live in dread of an agreement which has always been fraught with good, and advantageous alike to sacred and civil interests." To the like effect, also, as occasion presented itself, did Pius IX brand publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which they might safely follow.
Let it not be said about us that we were clueless about First and Last Things. Consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may it be said about us that we planted at least a few seeds in behalf of Christendom as we prayed as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permitted. May it be said of us that our prayers to the Mother of God, the Immaculate Queen of Heaven and of earth, helped others to "clued in" to what defines every moment of our lives, First and Last Things.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
