Deft? Daft Is More Like It
Part One
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Some commentators of the false opposite of the naturalist "right" are a "tizzy" over the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Heath and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.
Some "conservatives" and "constitutionalists" believe that the Willard Mitt "Contraception is working just fine" Romney. the very progenitor of the disaster that is RomneyCare in the Commonwealth of the Massachusetts, is going to "repeal" with the help of freshly elected Republican majorities in both Houses of the Congress of the United States of America a delusion I tried to dispel in Here To Stay three days ago.
ObamaCare is indeed here to stay as the reigning caesar, Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama, and his pro-abortion Secretary of the United States Department of Heath and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic who has maintained her "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism despite all of her open support for chemical and surgical baby-killing and the blood money she took over the years baby-killer George Tiller, are working overtime to implement as much as they can of ObamaCare's complex policies. They are doing so in order to make it politically and practically difficult, if not impossible, to reverse policies that will, they are convinced, "please" the "people" over the course of time, including those who are at this angry about the Supreme Court decision.
Any "conservative" who thinks that Willard Mitt Romney, if elected to the office of President of the United States of America on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, will risk political capital with the "moderate" or "swing" or "independent" voters to whom he would owe his election (which I still believe will not occur) by seeking to reverse or repeal that has become popularly accepted or too deeply institutionalized. Today's political rhetoric does not translate into tomorrow's public policy. When are sleepy-eyed and dull-minded Americans going to recognize this once and for all? There is no need to revisit once again the point I made there days in Here To Stay concerning the simple fact that even a possible Republican majority in the United States Senate would not have enough votes to break filibusters waged by their counterparts in the organized crime family of the naturalist "left," the Democratic Party, to reverse or even modify some aspects of ObamaCare.
Other "conservatives," including those who are personal friends with United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., who is supernumerary of Opus Dei, which is, quite of course, Not The Work of God, have actually gone so far as to claim that Roberts was very "deft" in siding with the Supreme Court's known leftists (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). Deft? Daft is more like it. This is crazy. It is insane.
The specious reasoning behind this praise revolves around the belief that Roberts was able to "restrict" the expansion of the Court's reading of the Commerce Clause found in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America by finding that ObamaCare's "individual mandate" not in that particular clause but in the taxing powers of the Federal government of the United States of America. By doing this, Roberts's "conservative" apologists reason, the Chief Justice has "saved" the Commerce Clause from future misinterpretation.
Excuse me, George Will and Charles Krauthammer and like-minded "conservatives." Excuse me. This is reminiscent of what an unnamed major in the United States Army is reported, some believe apocryphally as Associated Press reporter Peter Arnett did not name the officer (although at least one retired Army captain did in a book released in 2006), to have said on February 7, 1968, when the town of Ben Tre was destroyed by American bombing in order to rout the Viet Cong out of its hiding places there, killing a number of civilians: "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." That is, it became necessary, we are asked to believe by the likes of Messrs. Will and Krauthammer, for John Glover Roberts, Jr., to destroy any true reading of the Constitution of the United States of America in order to "save it" from future misinterpretation in a show of "deference" to the "will" of the legislative branch that was politically "deft" and "masterful."
Perhaps I did not make myself clear: This is crazy. This is insane.
Others who agree with Will and Krauthammer argue as well that Roberts was "brilliant" in preventing state governments from being compelled to participate in the expansion of Medicaid coverage under ObamaCare and that he had "clearly" placed the question of the law's "political wisdom" where it "belonged," that is, with the "people" at the ballot box while maintaining the "credibility" of the Supreme Court with those same American people.
What utter sophistry.
First, the so-called Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010, aka ObamaCare, did not express the "will" of the Congress of the United States of America. It passed in the United States House of Representatives on Passion Sunday, March 21, 2010, by the slender margin of 219-212, a margin that was engineered as a result of empty promises, not contained in the massive text of the law which very few members of the House had read even cursorily, made by Caesar Barackus Obamus Ignoramus to then United States Representative Bart Stupak, a supposedly "pro-life' Democrat to whom other such House Democrats looked for leadership and direction, that the bill then pending before House would never include any public funding for the surgical assassination of children. This was a lie at the time. It remains a lie now. See Not For A Single Innocent Life, For Thirty Pieces of Pork, Kill Truth, Kill Babies, Salvation Or Votes?, Front Men For The New World Order, Never Give In To Compromise and Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part one.
Second, the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010 passed in the United States Senate only as a result of a legislative maneuver on the part of the egregious, smarmy United States Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader, to send the bill to a "reconciliation" conference committee to avoid a filibuster on a floor vote on the bill itself, something that is not possible if a bill is sent to a conference committee. Alas, this was chicanery as it required Reid to suspend the normal rules of the Senate in order to avoid a floor vote on the bill and send it to what is called the "reconciliation" process. How can there be a "reconciliation" when the full membership of the United States Senate had not voted on a bill.
Third, John Glover Roberts, Jr., failed to take judicial notice of the simple fact that the "people" had voted in 2010 to defeat many members of the United States House of Representatives who voted to support ObamaCare. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives took symbolic vote on January 19, 2011, to repeal ObamaCare, a measure that passed by a vote of 245-189 but was, of course, dead-on-arrival in the United States Senate. So much for the "people," Mister Chief Justice. Another such symbolic vote will be taken on Wednesday, July 11, 2012.
Alas, as ObamaCare becomes institutionalized, however, it will become more accepted by the "people." The carefully stage-managed Willard Mitt Romney has issued only a few carefully crafted comments in the past four days since the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision was announced. He does not want anything to "distract" from what he believes is his "core" message, the state of the economy, failing to realize what every naturalist fails to realize: God will never permit a nation to know "economic prosperity" as long as it citizens are rebellion against Him by means of unrepented sins and as long as its civil laws and popular culture make a mockery
Fourth, the effort on the part of Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., to transform the penalty upon citizens for not purchasing heath insurance, something that is at the heart of the whole ObamaCare program, into a "tax" even though the the administration of Barack Hussein Obama then--and now, yes, even after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Heath and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al. makes a mockery of the the Constitution's provision, found in Clause One of Section Seven of Article I, that all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate
in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or
concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How can John Glover Roberts, Jr., turn a penalty into a "tax" for the sake of "saving" the "individual mandate" as an alleged exercise in judicial self-restraint? He cannot. This is rank judicial positivism. It is a "tax" because John Glover Roberts, Jr., says it is even though members of Barack Hussein Obama's administration, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, keep insisting that the payment that taxpayers must make for purchasing health insurance starting in the year 2014 is a penalty (see White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax').
John Glover Roberts, Jr., has as little regard for the Constitution, the law and simple facts as the statist tyrants in the Obama administration. Far from being an exercise in judicial restraint, what he did in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Heath and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., was an assault upon the demigod of the Constitution that continues to be as fungible in the hands positivists as the words of Holy Writ are in the hands of Protestants and Modernist Catholics.
There was a way for Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., to protect the Commerce Clause from misinterpretation and to protect the legitimate liberties of citizens from the intrusive powers of a government whose lawless leaders have an insatiable appetite for powers: join with the four justices who rejected the law in its entirety as unconstitutional. What Roberts was did served his own narrow interests and those of the statists in the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, not the national interest.
Alas, the pursuit of the national interest, which must be undertaken in light of man's Last End--the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven, is always unstable in any nation whose leaders refuse to submit with meekness and humility to the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church.
In this regard, you see, it is important to remember these words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make
for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from
divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason
robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to
the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But
though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and
even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our
Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself
eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast
forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and
cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth
not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith.
How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses,
nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is
daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to
help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of
Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public
administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces
of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political
life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the
authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must
necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and
these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society.
Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken
away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will
strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy,
jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism.
There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Yes, everything must fall apart absent the Holy Faith. Then again, who wants to learn about this and accept it once and for all? Very few. .
Yet it is that the truths expressed by our true popes expressed so clearly by our true popes remain as signal, prophetic warnings us about the utter futility of any form of naturalism to retard the evils of other forms of naturalism. It does not matter that so few people want to learn about these truths and accept them once and for all. No, they are content to believe in all manner of "tooth fairies" and fables about how this or that "conservative is going to "save the day" even though their chosen "conservatives" of the moment are committed to only one thing: their own electoral success and nothing else.
A world of naturalism is a world where sin must increase. It is inevitable. This is a point that was made by Father Frederick William Faber in a passage from his The Precious Blood that was quoted yesterday in The Laver of Our Redemption:
Men would be far more happy, if they
separated religion less violently from other things. It is both unwise
and unloving to put religion into a place by itself, and mark it off
with an untrue distinctness from what we call worldly and unspiritual
things. Of course there is a distinction, and a most important
one, between them; yet it is easy to make this distinction too rigid and
to carry it too far. Thus we often attribute to nature what is only due
to grace; and we put out of sight the manner and degree in which the
blessed majesty of the Incarnation affects all created things. But this
mistake is forever robbing us of hundreds of motives for loving Jesus.
We know how unspeakably much we owe to him; but we do not see all that
it is not much we owe him, but all, simply and absolutely all. We pass
through times and places in life, hardly recognizing how the sweetness
of Jesus is sweetening the air around us and penetrating natural things
with supernatural blessings.
Hence it
comes to pass that men make too much of natural goodness. They think too
highly of human progress. They exaggerate the moralizing powers of
civilization and refinement, which, apart from grace, are simply
tyrannies of the few over the many, or of the public over the individual
soul. Meanwhile they underrate the corrupting capabilities of sin, and
attribute to unassisted nature many excellences which it only catches,
as it were by the infection, by the proximity of grace, or by contagion,
from the touch of the Church. Even in religious and ecclesiastical
matters they incline to measure progress, or test vigor, by other
standards rather than that of holiness. These men will consider
the foregoing picture of the world without the Precious Blood as
overdrawn and too darkly shaded. They do not believe in the intense
malignity of man when drifted from God, and still less are they inclined
to grant that cultivation and refinement only intensify still further
this malignity. They admit the superior excellence of Christian charity;
but they also think highly of natural philanthropy. But has this
philanthropy ever been found where the indirect influences of the true
religion, whether Jewish or Christian, had not penetrated? We may admire
the Greeks for their exquisite refinement, and the Romans for the
wisdom of their political moderation. Yet look at the position of
children, of servants, of slaves, and of the poor, under both these
systems, and see if, while extreme refinement only pushed sin to an
extremity of foulness, the same exquisite culture did not also lead to a
social cruelty and an individual selfishness which made life unbearable
to the masses. Philanthropy is but a theft from the gospel, or rather a
shadow, not a substance, and as unhelpful as shadows are want to be.
(Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in England in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 53-59.)
Readers of this site know that I have tried to communicate this message, doing so far less eloquently than our true popes and the likes of Father Faber. The articles will remain available for those who want to read them even though circumstances require a decrease in production for this month and possibly the next.
Before closing this part one of this commentary, permit me to emphasize one part of the passage above by way of leading in to part two.
That is, Father Faber wrote that "even in ecclesiastical matters they incline to measure progress, or test vigor, by other other standards rather than that of holiness." This is a very apt of description of what has happened to Catholics as they have been denied the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as they believe that there is salvation in some kind of naturalism while looking at Holy Mother Church and her Received Teaching through the same lens of naturalism.
Ah, that, you see, will be the subject of part two of this commentary, which focuses on the insanity of "Archbishop" Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P., the new secretary of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, who has said essentially that the actual texts of the "Second" Vatican Council do not matter as they are part of a "living tradition" that can change in interpretation over the course of time. In other words, words mean nothing to the conciliar revolutionaries. Nothing. Words are but empty vessels into which can be projected all manner of thoughts that are considered "relevant" for the "times." I will endeavor to make any effort to explain the insanity of this position, which is nothing other than the agnosticism of Modern "brought up to date" and made "relevant" for our "times" by the madness of the "hermeneutic of continuity."
May our hearts, ever consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, be ever ready to exclaim these words of praise to God in honor of Our Lady, especially today on the Feast of the Visitation as we pray the Magnificat that is pray ever day in Vespers by every priest in the world:
My
soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because He as regarded the humility of His handmaid; for behold henceforth
all generations shall call me blessed.
Because
He that is mighty, hath done great things for me; and holy is His name.
And His mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear
Him.
He
hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit
of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath
exalted the humble.
He
hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty
away. He hath received Israel His servant, being mindful of His mercy:
as He spoke to Abraham and his seed for ever. (Lk. 1: 46-55)
Today is a day of great joy as Saint John the Baptist leapt for joy in his own mother's womb as he heard the Mother of God, the the Mother of the One Whose Precursor he was meant to be, greet his own sainted mother. It is a great joy for each of us as Our Lady said that "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
God will "bless" no land, including the United States of America, with true liberty and justice unless its people first honor his Most Blessed Mother as the Cristeros in Mexico did and unless they are willing to die for as as the Cristeros did.
God will never "bless" a land where the true and only standard of human liberty, the Holy Cross, is not lifted high by its leaders as its citizens do not remember that Our Lady stands at the foot of our own individual crosses as she beckons us to come to her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own intercessory power, especially by means of the Holy Rosary.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!
Que Viva!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
