Distracting Us With More Side Shows

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Not to be outdone by their counterparts in the temporal realm, the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism provide their own side shows that serve to distract us from the underlying root causes of various problems.

The side shows provided by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism make for good theater frequently as efforts are made to oppose certain evils without understanding that the spread of those evils has been made possible in recent decades as a result of the daily offenses given to God by means of the liturgical abomination that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service and by means of the offenses given to God by the conciliar "popes" and the conciliar "bishops" as they have praised false religions and called their places of false worship as "sacred" and treated their false "ministers" as having a mission from God to serve and save souls. Grave evils against the First, Second and Third Commandments have been advanced by conciliar officials, making the advancement of evils in violation of the Fourth through Tenth Commandments all the more possible, especially when one considers the simple fact that the sacramental. barrenness of the liturgical rites of concilairism have robbed most Catholics of Sanctifying Grace and have deprived the world of a super-abundance of Actual Graces that helped to hold back the floodgates of barbarism in the past. (See Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment.)

Not So Nobel After All

Nearly a year after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and the conciliar machinery in the Vatican were all atwitter over the Nobel Prize for Peace that was awarded to the pro-abortion, pro-perversity statist named Barack Hussein Obama, some in the conciliar Vatican are expressing their outrage over the fact that the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to the man who helped to pioneer the evil of in vitro fertilization, Dr. Robert Edwards. (See Vatican Official Criticizes Nobel Prize for IVF Pioneer.)

The incongruity here is astounding.

Great praise was offered by various conciliar officials on the occasion of Barack Hussein Obama's Nobel Prize for Peace last year despite the fact that the currently reigning caesar ignoramus supports the nonexistent "right" of women to butcher their innocent preborn children under cover of the civil law and has used American policy to promote the evils of chemical and surgical baby-killing. In plain English, Barack Hussein Obama has the blood of the innocent dripping from his hands. He has authorized the expenditure of American taxpayer dollars for the assassination of innocent babies. No one who supports the slaughter of the preborn can be an instrument of genuine peace among nations as he is at war with God Himself by virtue of supporting and authorizing the funding of one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, willful murder.

Then again, of course, why should the conciliar officials who praised Caesar Barackus Obamus  Ignoramus last year understand that men who are at war with God by means of the public, scandalous promotion of heinous evils cannot advance true peace, that of Christ the King, as Pope Pius XI noted so clearly in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, and Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, when the conciliar "pope" himself is bereft of any true understanding of what constitutes peace among men and their nations? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has said that "peace" is produced by the "coexistence" of the world's religions:

The discovery of God's wise plan for the human being leads to recognition of his love. For the believer or person of good will, the resolution of human conflicts, such as the delicate coexistence of the different religions can be transformed into human coexistence in an order full of goodness and wisdom whose origins and dynamism are in God. This coexistence with respect for the nature of things and their inherent wisdom that comes from God the tranquillitas ordinis is called peace. Interreligious dialogue makes its own specific contribution to this slow genesis that resists immediate human, political or economic interests. It is sometimes difficult for the political and economic world to give the human being priority; to consider and to admit the importance and need of the religious factor and to guarantee religion its true nature and place in the public dimension is an even more sensitive task. Peace, so longed for, will only be born from the joint action of the individual, who discovers his true nature in God, and of the leaders of civil and religious societies who with respect for the dignity and faith of each one will be able to recognize and give to religion its noble and authentic role of fulfilling and perfecting the human person. Here it is a matter of a global recomposition, both temporal and spiritual, that will permit a new start on the path towards the peace that God wishes to be universal. (To the new Ambassadors accredited to the Holy See on the occasion of the presentation of the Letters of Credence, December 17, 2009)

 

One can easily contrast Ratzinger/Benedict's generic reference "to recognize and give to religion its noble and authentic role of fulfilling and perfecting the human person" language that would be well-suited for use in any Masonic lodge. It is a language of violence against the truths of the Catholic Faith that actually undermine the very "peace" that the false "pontiff" says is his goal to effect as false "religions," being of the devil by their very false nature, cannot do anything but reaffirm men in falsehoods that worsen the state of their own immortal souls and thus of their nations and the world. Ratzinger/Benedict's language of violence against Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social contrasts sharply with the following affirmation of Catholic truths that have been rejected in word and in deed by the conciliar "popes;"

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness. . . .

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910; no, I will never tire of repeating these quotations as repetition is indeed the mother of learning.)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

 

As bad as the errors of lords of Modernity are--and they are very bad indeed, the errors of the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are worse as the errors of Modernity have been reinforced and given new life by a false church, one that is not the Church Militant on earth but can be referred to as the "church apologetic," that is, a "church" whose leaders apologize endlessly and profusely for the "triumphalism" of the past as they make their "reconciliation" with the the state that is without God and "hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution."

No true pope would have praised Barack Hussein Obama for his being awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace last year. The lords of conciliarism fell all over themselves to do so (see Vatican appreciates Obama receiving Nobel Peace Prize and Cardinal George congratulates Obama on winning Nobel Peace Prize). The Nobel "prizes" in any category are irrelevancies. Who cares what a bunch of anti-Incarnational naturalists decide? Why should it surprise and shock the lords of the conciliar Vatican that the same Nobel committee they commended last year for bestowing the Nobel Prize for Peace upon the pro-death Barack Hussein Obama has awarded the prize in the category of "physiology or medicine" to a man who is responsible for developing a process that has produced human life artificially and has resulted in the conception and deaths of untold numbers of innocent human beings in order to cater to the desires of people who could not accept the simple will of God for them that they could not conceive a child?

Although the Vatican officials are correct to condemn the award being given to Dr. Robert Edwards, where were these officials nine years ago (one hundred ten months ago, to be precise) when then President George Walker Bush announced that he was ceasing Federal taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research on stem-cell lines created after 9:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time, Thursday, August 9, 2001, while continuing funding of such insidious research on those embryonic stem-cell lines already in existence before that time, doing nothing at all to call for the end of all such research, whether funded by the Federal government or state governments or the private sector?

Moreover, although Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II told Bush the Lesser to his face that he must not continue funding of such research before the Bush announced his decision (see John Paul II warns Bush on stem cells) and the conciliar "archbishop" of Denver, Colorado, Charles H. Chaput, O.F.M., Cap, did note the moral dilemma that Bush had created by stopping Federal funding on new stem-cell lines while continuing it for older lines (see Embryonic stem cell research), no conciliar official dissected the following part of the speech that Bush delivered on national television on the evening of Thursday, August 9, 2001:

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.  A large number of these embryos already exist.  They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children.  When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother.  Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.)

 

This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos, written five years before I came to reject the legitimacy of the conciliar officials

 

Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.

A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.

Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.

The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.

Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.

Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.

That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.

It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"

Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)

 

Criticize the Nobel Committee for bestowing a "prize" upon Dr. Robert Edwards? Go right ahead. Why did George Walker Bush, whose administration boasted of its support for domestic and international "family planning" programs and introduced such programs into Iraq almost as soon as our troops had invaded that country on March 20, 2003, and that made possible the over-the-counter sale of the Plan B "emergency contraceptive" (abortifacient) and did nothing to reverse the Bill Clinton-controlled Food and Drug Administration decision in September of 2000 to market the human pesticide, RU-486, get a pass from the conciliar officials in Rome and from most of the "bishops" and "establishment" pro-life leaders for his open praise of the very in vitro fertilization that was developed by Robert Edwards and has resulted in the deaths of untold numbers of innocent human beings? Why should the Vatican expect anything other than outrageous decisions by men who serve on the Nobel Committee?

Alas, my friends (very few in number though you may be), the conciliar revolutionaries are still awash in the unabashed enthusiasm for the "advances" being made in the world that caused Angelo Roncalli/John XIII to gush with such giddy optimism in his Opening Address at the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962. These revolutionaries and their younger disciples still do not realize the truth that Sharon and I utter to each other when we see an aging hippie with his gray pony tail tied behind his otherwise bald head: "The sixties are over. Get over it."

Running Away From The Truth For Silver and Gold

As the lords of conciliarism wring their hands over the decision of the Nobel Committee to award its prize in physiology or medicine to Dr. Robert Edwards, they remain clueless that the fact that there is even such a thing as the Nobel Committee is the fruit of the Protestant Revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church, something that Father Denis Fahey explained in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

In proportion as the Mystical Body of Christ was accepted by mankind, political and economic thought and action began to respect the jurisdiction and guidance of the Catholic Church, endowed, as she is, with the right of intervention in temporal affairs whenever necessary, because of her participation in the spiritual Kingship of Christ. Thus the natural or temporal common good of States came to be sought in a manner calculated to favour the development of true personality, in and through the Mystical Body of Christ, and social life came more and more fully under the influence of the supreme end of man, the vision of God in Three Divine Persons.

Accordingly, Catholic Social Order, viewed as a whole, is not primarily the political and social organization of society. It is primarily the supernatural social organism of the Church, and then, secondarily, the temporal or natural social order resulting from the influence of Catholic doctrine on politics and economics and from the embodiment of that influence in social institutions. If instead of Catholic Social Order we use the wider but more convenient expression of Kingdom of God, we may say that the Kingdom of God on earth is in its essence the Church, but, in its integrity, comprises the Church and the temporal social order which the influence of the Church upon the world is every striving to bring into existence. Needless to say, while the general principles of social order remain always the same, social structures will present great differences at different epochs. No particular temporal social order will ever realize all that the Church is capable of giving to the world. The theology of history must include, then, primarily, the study of the foundation and development of the Church, and secondarily, the examination of the ebb and flow of the world’s acceptance of the Church’s supernatural mission. . . .

The organization of the Europe of the thirteenth century furnishes us with one concrete realization of the Divine Plan. It is hardly necessary to add that there were then to be seen defects in the working of the Divine Plan., due to the character of fallen man, as well as to an imperfect mastery of physical nature. Yet, withal, the formal principle of ordered social organization in the world, the supremacy of the Mystical Body, was grasped and, in the main, accepted. The Lutheran revolt, prepared by the cult of pagan antiquity at the Renaissance, and by the favour enjoyed by the Nominalist philosophical theories, led to the rupture of that order.

 

Catholics, you see, do not work for earthly honors or awards. We work to please the Most Blessed Trinity with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We work for a Heavenly reward, not for any kind of earthly recognition, certainly not by any kind of secular committee intent on honoring those who are rebels against God and the immutable laws of nature and morality that inhere in the very nature of things. And we do not sacrifice or run away from truth in order to curry favor with voters in one election so as to get elected. It is far easier to keep one's mouth shut about truth in the future if one has accustomed himself to do so in the past. There are few instances of people in public life recovering their virtue once they have learned to listen to the people sing.

Catholics in public life have learned that there are few instances when the counterfeit church of concilairism, which most people in the world believe is the Catholic Church, refuses, at least on most occasions and with most Catholics in public life, noting a few rare exceptions now and again, to discipline those of their number who support one grave evil after another under cover of the civil law.

Consider, for example, the list below, composed entirely at random and making no pretense whatsoever of its being an all-inclusive listing of nefarious Catholics in public life, of Catholics who have maintained their "good standing" in the conciliar structures despite their support for unrestricted baby-killing under cover of the civil law and, at least in some instances, special "rights," including "marriage," for those steeped in unrepentant sins of perversity against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments:

The late Edward Moore Kennedy, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Thomas P. O'Neill, the late William Brennan, the late Peter Rodino, the very much alive Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Mario Matthew Cuomo, Rudolph William Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Patrick Kennedy, Jack Reed, Kirsten Gillibrand, Thomas Ridge, Rick Lazio, Andrew Cuomo, Carolyn McCarthy, Maurice Hinchey, Charles Bernard Rangel (who is also a Freemason, by the way), Thomas Harkin, Jennifer Granholm, Robert Gibbs (current White House Press Secretary), Kathleen Sebelius, Patricia Murray, Susan Collins, Barbara Mikulski, James Doyle, Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Bill Richardson, Rosa DeLauro, Christopher Dodd, Linda McMahon, Jose Serrano, Nydia Velazquez, George Elmer Pataki, Loretta Sanchez Brixey, Mary Landrieu, Robert Menendez, Joseph Sestak, Gray Davis, James Florio, James McGreevey, John F. Kerry, and Linda Sanchez--and this is just a very, very partial listing due to considerations of time and my duties of state.

The fact that so many Catholics in public life who belong to both organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, have been able to maintain their "good standing" in the conciliar structures despite their open support for one grave evil after another has been viewed by many Catholics as indicating a practical acceptance of a "diversity of views" on abortion and perversity, among other issues, despite official statements that have been issued by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" against baby-killing. If nothing is going to happen to an Edward  Moore Kennedy or to a Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., or to a Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, you see, why should anything happen to them for supporting these same evils. Why shouldn't they remain in good standing and see as bogeymen anyone in public life who even partially opposes baby-killing? After all, many of the American "bishops" have been open enablers of pro-abort Catholics in public life (see Dialectical Americanism).

With so many Catholics so confused by the world of paradox and contradiction in which the conciliar officials are enveloped, it is no wonder therefore that even those candidates for public office are are partially opposed to most abortions (that is, those who make "exceptions" to that from which there can be no exceptions, namely, the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment against the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life at any time for any reason under any circumstances whatsoever) are running away from the issue in order to appeal to "swing" voters who are concerned about the economy:

DENVER — Republicans have won points with many voters by promising a conservative overhaul of taxes and spending, but Democrats are working hard in the closing weeks of the campaign to convince voters that a conservative social agenda is waiting in the wings, too, should Republicans be elected in large numbers.

Abortion rights is the flash point, being wielded by the left in hard-fought races from New York’s contest for governor, to Senate races in Florida and California, as Democratic candidates or groups try to rally their base and attract moderate Republican or independent women — a slice of the electorate that is even more coveted than in years past.

It used to be Democrats who feared “wedge” issues; they allowed Republicans to cleave off conservative Democratic voters. But this time around, Republicans want to talk about economic anxiety — widely shared by voters, polls say — rather than narrow social issues that might frighten off moderates.

The Democratic strategy is at least drawing the attention of voters. But it comes with a risk, too: Does selling the idea that Republican fiscal warriors are social zealots in disguise send a shiver of fear down voters’ spines, or make Democrats look like they are avoiding the subject on most voters’ minds?

One contentious commercial in New York shows women in a police lineup who, the voice-over says, would be turned into criminals if Carl P. Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor and abortion opponent, beats Andrew M. Cuomo, the Democrat.

In the bruising race for a Senate seat here in Colorado, one ad features a Denver obstetrician in her scrubs, saying women will lose control of their bodies if Ken Buck, the Republican nominee, wins. Another, from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, says privacy is at stake with a Buck victory over Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat.

The Buck campaign has said the attacks are simply an attempt to change the subject.

“The No. 1 issues are jobs and the economy, and Michael Bennet can’t run on that,” said Owen Loftus, a spokesman for the Buck campaign. “It’s a desperate effort by a desperate campaign.”

Mr. Loftus said Mr. Buck believed that life begins at conception and opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest, as the ads say, but that his focus as a senator would be the economy.

Few Democrats think abortion alone will turn this year’s midterm elections for them; polls show Republicans leading in a generic “Which party would you vote for the Congress?” question. Here in Colorado, Democrats say the abortion issue more broadly conveys the message to moderate voters that Mr. Buck does not speak for them.

“People are growing more and more concerned about Ken Buck’s policies on the whole,” said Trevor Kincaid, a spokesman for the Bennet campaign. “Those polices are out of touch with mainstream Colorado.”

Mr. Bennet, a former city official in Denver, was appointed last year to fill a Senate seat vacated by Ken Salazar, a Democrat who is now secretary of the interior. In trying to tie social concerns to economics, Mr. Bennet on Tuesday unveiled a new agenda to advance opportunities for women, as business owners, workers and mothers. Protecting their rights to safe, legal abortion, he said, was part of that same fight.

But whether Mr. Buck is out of touch, or exactly in touch with his supporters, he has staked out some very conservative positions. He has suggested, for example, that Social Security and health care could perhaps be better handled by the private sector. (Though he later said he opposed privatizing Social Security.)

He also endorsed a ballot measure, Amendment 62, which would confer legal rights to “every human being from the beginning of biological development.” That endorsement opened him up to charges that he wants to make some common forms of contraception illegal, including birth control pills, which can hinder the attachment of embryos to the uterine wall.

Mr. Buck, a county district attorney north of Denver who is backed by the Tea Party, recently withdrew his endorsement of the “personhood” amendment, and now takes no position. His spokesman, Mr. Loftus, said at least three times in a telephone interview that Mr. Buck did not want to ban birth control pills.

But the new fight over abortion and the voting clout of women also says a lot about Colorado itself — and its contradictions.

It was among the first states in the nation, in 1967, to loosen restrictions on abortion. Then, in 1984, it became the first state to ban the use of state money for abortions in a referendum.

Women have achieved some power in politics here, but never the top jobs. Colorado currently has the highest percentage of women in its legislature in the nation — 38 percent — but has never had a woman serve as governor or United States senator.

New York Times/CBS News national polls also say that the political divide between men and women — more men than women gravitating toward Republican candidates, a pattern dating back to Ronald Reagan’s election as president in 1980 — is bigger than average heading into November. And between Mr. Bennet and Mr. Buck, that gender gap is immense. A CNN poll released in late September said that men were 15 percentage points more likely than women to support Mr. Buck, while women were 16 percentage points more likely than men to prefer Mr. Bennet.

“This isn’t a gap, it’s a canyon,” said Susan Carroll, a senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, who said the average gender difference in presidential races was about seven or eight percentage points.

But whether the new ad barrage is about women, or abortion, or something else entirely, it has caught the attention of Stacy Gholz, a student who was walking through downtown Denver on a recent morning.

Ms. Gholz, 23, is the kind of voter who could decide the race. She described herself as unaffiliated and undecided, a Catholic, but a believer in abortion rights, brought up as a Republican but married to a Democrat. She voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008.

“I don’t think he has the right to tell a female what she can and cannot do with her body,” she said, referring to Mr. Buck. “But I’m still working it out,” she added, regarding her vote. (Democrats in Tight Races Put Focus on Abortion Rights.)

 

Why not abandon support for a personhood amendment when there are voters such as the poorly formed young woman quoted in the article above?

Why not emphasize the "pocket book" issues when one does not understand that God will never permit a country to know long term material prosperity or even national security as long as it permits the wanton destruction of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law?

After all, isn't getting "elected" all that matters?

Of course not.

This confusion exists, of course, because the nation's conciliar "bishops," who are the most worthy successors of the Americanist bishops of the preconciliar era, refuse to speak the following clear terms:

No Catholic running for public office has any right to support heinous crimes against God and man.

No Catholic running for public office has any right to segregate his "private" beliefs from his public policy positions.

Those who run away from the truth, be they Catholic or non-Catholic, during an election will run away from the truth thereafter as there is always the "next" election about which to be concerned.

We have not been created by God to win elections for the sake of winning elections.

We have been created by God win His Divine favor by remaining always in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church who accepts everything contained in the Deposit of Faith without any dissent whatsoever.

We must be champions of Christ the King in these times of evil, recognizing that a word spoken in behalf of Catholic truth might plant the seeds for the conversion of souls. This can do far more good for a nation than can compromising one's beliefs in order to win an office that one will want to retain at all costs in the future.

Our popes have told us to be champions of Catholic truth, not cowards who cower in the corner when confronted with the possibility of worldly loss:

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

You believe that you can make a "contribution" in the electoral process? You deceive yourself unless you are willing to sacrifice electoral gain in order to defend this simple truth: Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order and Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary has been given to us as the means to advance the standard of Christ the King no matter what it might cost us in earthly terms.

 

It is because the conciliarists do not understand the proximate root causes of our problems today that individual Catholics and others are left to spent their lives in utter confusion as they plod along trying to make sense of a chaos that has arisen because of the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry, a chaos that has exploded exponentially as a result of the conciliar revolution against the Catholic Faith.

We must pray our daily Rosaries as we seek to make reparation for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. This will all pass. Our Lady's Fatima Message will be fulfilled. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will reign again over men and their nations.

Who says so?

Why, Our Lord Himself, who spoke the following words to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

 

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

 

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints