E Pluribus Unum?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The national motto, "E pluribus unum" ("out of many, one"), is really quite a striking testament to the belief that the religiously and culturally pluralistic foundation of the United States of America is supposed to produce a unity of a common civil faith. In essence, you see, the national motto of this country is very much in accord with the conciliarist notion that Catholics can find some non-denominational or inter-denominational way manner to address social problems by working together with people of different "faiths" (or no faith at all) to forge some common ties in behalf of the common temporal good.

There is, however, a little problem with this pluralist model: it results in the triumph lowest common denominator of total unbelief in God and His immutable laws as the foundation of civil law and judicial interpretation. The American experience of pluralism is not, as Benedict XVI believes, the model to be followed by the Catholic Church insofar as her relationship to the State is concerned. No, it is one of the chief causes of institutionalizing one evil after another in the name of "human rights."

The paradox of the pluralist paradigm was on full display in a decision issued by the Court of Appeals of the State of the New York, the highest court in the Empire State, on October 19, 2006, concerning a state law that requires "most employee health insurance policies to cover the cost of contraception."  The Court of Appeals, whose seven judges were appointed by two successive pro-abortion Catholic governors, one, Mario Matthew Cuomo, a Democrat, the other, George Pataki, a Republican, rule unanimously that the Catholic Church in the State of New York must provide insurance coverage for contraception to its employees.

Here is the article, written by Thomas J. Lueck, that appeared in The New York Times on October 20, 2006:

New York State’s highest court ruled yesterday that the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations must abide by a state law that requires most employee health insurance policies to cover the cost of contraception.

The 6-to-0 decision by the Court of Appeals upheld rulings by the State Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, and left intact the state’s Women’s Health and Wellness Act of 2002, which requires company health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs to include “coverage for the cost of contraceptive drugs or devices.”

It had been challenged on religious grounds by a group that includes eight Catholic and two Baptist organizations. Arguing that the law requires them to violate the dictates of their faith, the group sought to exempt religious schools, hospitals and social service organizations, broadening a far narrower “religious employer” exemption already included in the state rules.

The New York State Catholic Conference, speaking for the state’s bishops, said it would consider appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court “to review it and reverse it.”

“The case is not about the right of New Yorkers to use contraception; it is about religious liberty,” said Richard E. Barnes, the group’s executive director. “In effect, the state has declared Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations secular,” he said, adding that the ruling gave legislators “carte blanche to pass laws even more offensive to religious practice.”

The ruling followed a similar decision in 2004 by the California Supreme Court, which rejected a challenge by Catholic Charities to a nearly identical state statute. In that case, Catholic Charities was denied a hearing before the Supreme Court.

In New York, the Insurance Department was joined by the New York district of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress and other groups in defending the insurance regulation’s terms.

“This is a great day for the women of New York State,” said JoAnn M. Smith, president of Family Planning Advocates of New York State, which represents Planned Parenthood and other family planning groups.

“The urgent need to prevent discrimination in health care was rightly, and unanimously, affirmed by the highest court in the state,” she said.

The court’s 18-page decision said that legislators had intended the 2002 law to “advance both women’s health and the equal treatment of men and women.” It said a study considered by the Legislature had shown that women paid 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket expenses for health care, and that the discrepancy resulted mainly from the cost of reproductive health services.

In addition to contraceptives, the New York law requires employee insurance to cover osteoporosis exams and screenings for breast and cervical cancer.

In large measure, the issues raised in the case centered on an exemption for “religious employers,” who are not required to provide coverage for contraception. In those cases, the law requires insurance companies to offer the coverage to individual employees, which they can elect to pay by themselves.

But the exemption devised in 2002, and upheld by the court yesterday, does not apply to church schools, hospitals or organizations that employ and serve people from diverse religious backgrounds.

To qualify for the exemption, the organization must “primarily” employ and serve members of the same faith.

When the law was drafted, the court said, some legislators backed a broader definition.

“Those favoring a narrower exemption asserted that the broader one would deprive tens of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated organizations of contraceptive coverage,” the court said. “Their view prevailed.”

It should come as no surprise whatsoever that an ultra-liberal court composed of ultra-liberal judges appointed by pro-abortion Catholic governors, both of whom remain in canonical "good standing" with the conciliar church, by the way, would render the decision in did in the case brought by the New York State Catholic Conference. American courts should be expected to issue such decisions. As there is no basis for judicial interpretation in this country other than the words of the Federal and state constitutions--and the particular laws passed by the United States Congress and state legislatures and local legislative bodies of varying nomenclatures and degrees of jurisdictional autonomy, judicial decision-making is the product of legal positivism, which is the belief that human law "creates" "rights," thereby enslaving men and their institutions of civil governance to whatever interpretations seem "just" and "appropriate" to the positivists and relativists who serve as judges.

This is, of course, but the logical consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which was exercised by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages to serve as a check on the abuse of civil power in the event that the good of souls demanded her intervention. The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, begun by that fierce some revolutionary named Martin Luther, resulted in the rise of monarchs who could rule without any fear at all of being checked in their abuse of civil power by the Catholic Church as a last resort following the discharge of her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation. King Henry VIII of the House of Tudor in England knew, for example, that no power on earth was going to stop him slaughter Catholics who remained faithful to Rome after he had declared himself supreme head of the "church" in England. And thus it is that modern state, no matter its specific institutional structures (parliamentary-ministerial, presidential-congressional, federal, unitary, confederal), is able to defy the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law as they have been entrusted by Our Lord exclusively to the Catholic Church and impose a virtual tyranny of the majority over those who dare to dissent from its "received wisdom."

Lest any of you supporters of the American Founding protest that the American constitutional regime was constructed so as to prevent the tyranny of the majority by institutionalizing various safeguards (separation of powers and checks and balances within the Federal government, a division of power between the Federal government and the state governments, bicameralism, a Federally-based system of electing the president, staggered elections of members of the House and Senate and of the president) to make it difficult for there for a permanently established majority to form and to thus run roughshod over the rights of those who dissent from its views (see James Madison, The Federalist, Numbers 10 and 51), may I point out that the entire framework of the American constitutional regime is premised on several false beliefs.

First, the Founders believed that there was no one "opinion" that could unite men of diverse backgrounds, thus making it necessary to construct a complex form of representation (including election of senators by state legislatures, something that lasted until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913) to force competing groups to engage in a long, cumbersome process of compromise, negotiation and bargaining.  This is false.

There is one truth that can unite men: Catholicism. True, Catholics can disagree about how to apply the principles of Catholic social teaching in the concrete circumstances of daily living. However, as the popes have taught us, Catholics are supposed to undertake the conduct of civil governance in light of man's Last End. This is what unites them as they attempt to pursue the common temporal good within the specific institutional arrangements that exist in their own nation. Men seeking the common temporal good in light of their Last End as Catholics will find that there is far more that unites them than divides them.

Second, the Founders believed that men of good will could pursue the common good without reference to a specific denominational belief. This is false. A belief that the civil state does not need to recognize the Catholic Church as the true religion and thus to subordinate its policies in all that pertains to the good of souls to her Divinely instituted authority leads to the deification of man and thus to the reign of the devil himself in all aspects of popular culture.

Pope Leo XIII put it this way in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

Thus it is that Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 that overturned a Connecticut law banning the sale of contraceptive pills and devices to married couples (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, extended this decision to unmarried persons), and Roe v. Wade, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973 that permitted baby-killing on demand until the day of birth, were the logical, inevitable consequences of a constitutional regime that admits of no higher foundation for jurisprudence than the words of the constitution and other legal statutes.

Once again, some will protest that the Griswold and Roe and Eisenstadt and countless other decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in recent decades have been opposed to the "original intent" of the Founders. Yes, this is certainly true. As one who a student of the American Constitution and can recite chapter and verse the exact intent that the Founders had in mind with respect to the original document and the subsequent ten amendments proposed by the First Congress and ratified on December 15, 1791 (two other amendments were proposed but not ratified at the time; one of these, prohibiting members of Congress from raising their pay until after an intervening election, was ratified in 1992 and became the twenty-seventh amendment), I know that perfectly sound arguments on a purely constitutional basis can be made against each of the decisions listed above.

Unfortunately, a regime that does not base its fundamental laws and public policies on the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord entrusted solely to the Catholic Church becomes the prisoner of whoever happens to exercise the levers of power in the branches of its government. Nothing is stable. Nothing is secure. It is just as easy for as secularist to ignore the plain words of a constitution as it is for a Protestant to deconstruct the plain words of the Bible. Both deny the authority of the Catholic Church. Both become the prisoner of ever-changing interpretations. Both become the prisoner of the lowest common-denominator.

As Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei:

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.

Civil constitutions and laws and statutes and ordinances that ignore the Deposit of Faith that the God-Man has entrusted to the Catholic Church are defenseless against efforts of innovators and revolutionaries to use the obvious plain meaning of the words within their texts to foment things unintended by their authors. Alas, such is the logical, inexorable, inevitable consequence of the separation of the civil state from the Catholic Church.

Third, the American Founders premised the proper functioning of the regime they crafted at the Constitutional Convention from May 25, 1787, to September 17, 1787, upon the citizenry's pursuit of "civic virtue." That is, the Founders, some of whom had a decent enough understanding of the frailties of fallen human nature, understood that none of the structural safeguards designed to thwart the formation of permanently established majorities would work if the citizens were not virtuous. Unfortunately, the Founders believed that it was possible for men to pursue and to persevere in virtue without having belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace, something that is of the essence of Judeo-Masonry. The belief that men can persevere in virtue more or less on their own powers represents, to one degree or another, the recrudescence of the heresy of semi-Pelagianism, that we can "stir up grace" within ourselves.

One can see rather readily that is is also a pretty good description of what conciliarism teaches. That is, Benedict XVI himself believes that "men of good will" and of "divergent beliefs" can work together to pursue the "common good" without subordinating all things to Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen. He believes that Jews and Mohammedans, both of whose souls are steeped in captivity to the devil b means of Original Sin, can contribute to the bettering of the world. This is madness. This is the triumph of the Americanist spirit. It really is the case that The Potomac Flows into the Tiber.

As Pope Leo XIII pointed in his Apostolical Letter to James Cardinal Gibbons on the heresy of Americanism, Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899,  men need Sanctifying Grace in order to persevere in virtue. Men cannot, to paraphrase the late son of an illegal abortionist from Hoboken, New Jersey, "do it their way." Men need to live in accord with God's laws by cooperating with the graces He won for them by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. This is what Pope Leo wrote in this regard:

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one's self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Ghost so greatly extolled by innovators. To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruifulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself?

Can it be that those men illustrious for sanctity, whom the Church distinguishes and openly pays homage to, were deficient, came short in the order of nature and its endowments, because they excelled in Christian strength? And although it be allowed at times to wonder at acts worthy of admiration which are the outcome of natural virtue-is there anyone at all endowed simply with an outfit of natural virtue? Is there any one not tried by mental anxiety, and this in no light degree? Yet ever to master such, as also to preserve in its entirety the law of the natural order, requires an assistance from on high These single notable acts to which we have alluded will frequently upon a closer investigation be found to exhibit the appearance rather than the reality of virtue. Grant that it is virtue, unless we would "run in vain" and be unmindful of that eternal bliss which a good God in his mercy has destined for us, of what avail are natural virtues unless seconded by the gift of divine grace? Hence St. Augustine well says: "Wonderful is the strength, and swift the course, but outside the true path." For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character.

We should not be surprised at decisions such as those rendered by the New York State Court of Appeals on October 19, 2006. Of particular interest to note in this case, however, is the statement by by Richard F. Barnes, the Executive Director of the New York State Catholic Conference, the agency that is the official public policy representative and lobbying arm of the dioceses of the State of New York (Archdiocese of New York, Dioceses of Rockville Centre, Brooklyn, Albany, Ogdensburg, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo):

“The case is not about the right of New Yorkers to use contraception; it is about religious liberty,” said Richard E. Barnes, the group’s executive director. “In effect, the state has declared Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations secular,” he said, adding that the ruling gave legislators “carte blanche to pass laws even more offensive to religious practice.”

Excuse me, Mr. Barnes, "the right of New Yorkers to use contraception"? Does any human being have a right to use contraception? Does any pharmaceutical firm have the right to manufacture and distribute contraception? Does any physician have the right to prescribe contraception? Was Griswold v. Connecticut decidedly correctly by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965? Does any institutional of civil governance--legislative, executive or judicial--have any "right" to contravene the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. How can it be that ordinary Catholics in the State of New York are forbidden the use of what is considered to be a "right" for other New Yorkers? Do you, Mr. Barnes, see the illogic of your statement? Or do you really believe that human beings have a right to use contraception and that the Catholic Church has no business seeking to make contraception illegal in all circumstances without any exception whatsoever?

Here is where the conciliarists are hoisted on their own petard. Having exalted the separation of Church and State along the lines devised by the American Founding Fathers (a model praised by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger two years ago this very month, in October of 2004), the employees of the dioceses now held by the conciliarists have absolutely no grounds to defend themselves against incursions made upon the privileges and immunities of the Catholic Church by liberal judges appointed by pro-abortion Catholic governors who are in canonical good standing as members of the conciliar church. There is no logical ground to insist upon an exemption from the civil laws of the state when one concedes that the state is exempt from recognizing the Catholic Church as the one and only true religion.

As the Supreme Court of the United States refused to intervene in a similar case originating California two years ago, the likelihood is (admitting that nothing is a certainty with the ever fluid direction of the Supreme Court of the United States) that the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals will stand and that the dioceses held by the conciliarists in the State of New York will have to provide contraceptive insurance coverage for their employees. Thank you, Martin Luther. Thank you, Henry VIII. Thank you, John Carroll. Thank you, James Gibbons. Thank you, John Courtney Murray. Thank you, Joseph Ratzinger.

Catholics have an obligation to defend the truths of the Catholic Faith at all time, doing so unapologetically as Catholics. Pope Leo XIII was unstinting in the following exhortation, included in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

Wherefore, to love both countries, that of earth below and that of heaven above, yet in such mode that the love of our heavenly surpass the love of our earthly home, and that human laws be never set above the divine law, is the essential duty of Christians, and the fountainhead, so to say, from which all other duties spring. The Redeemer of mankind of Himself has said: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." In like manner: "I am come to cast fire upon earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?'' In the knowledge of this truth, which constitutes the highest perfection of the mind; in divine charity which, in like manner, completes the will, all Christian life and liberty abide. This noble patrimony of truth and charity entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Church she defends and maintains ever with untiring endeavor and watchfulness.

But with what bitterness and in how many guises war has been waged against the Church it would be ill-timed now to urge. From the fact that it has been vouchsafed to human reason to snatch from nature, through the investigations of science, many of her treasured secrets and to apply them befittingly to the divers requirements of life, men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by this delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled; from nature, they maintain, we must seek the principle and rule of all truth; from nature, they aver, alone spring, and to it should be referred, all the duties that religious feeling prompts. Hence, they deny all revelation from on high, and all fealty due to the Christian teaching of morals as well as all obedience to the Church, and they go so far as to deny her power of making laws and exercising every other kind of right, even disallowing the Church any place among the civil institutions of the commonweal. These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them. Whence it comes to pass that in many countries Catholicism is either openly assailed or else secretly interfered with, full impunity being granted to the most pernicious doctrines, while the public profession of Christian truth is shackled oftentimes with manifold constraints.

Under such evil circumstances therefore, each one is bound in conscience to watch over himself, taking all means possible to preserve the faith inviolate in the depths of his soul, avoiding all risks, and arming himself on all occasions, especially against the various specious sophisms rife among non-believers. In order to safeguard this virtue of faith in its integrity, We declare it to be very profitable and consistent with the requirements of the time, that each one, according to the measure of his capacity and intelligence, should make a deep study of Christian doctrine, and imbue his mind with as perfect a knowledge as may be of those matters that are interwoven with religion and lie within the range of reason. And as it is necessary that faith should not only abide untarnished in the soul, but should grow with ever painstaking increase, the suppliant and humble entreaty of the apostles ought constantly to be addressed to God: "Increase our faith.''

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

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.

The "right" to "use" contraception. Indeed! What a farce. What a testament to the nefarious and inter-related influences of Americanism and Modernism upon the conciliarist mind. What a testament to the heresy of "religious liberty." What a sterling testament to the abandonment of the Christendom in favor of the seemingly "irreversible" triumph of the "modern state" and the "god" of pluralism at whose altar it worships.

We must adhere to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, giving conciliarism and its heresies no quarter whatsoever. We must be inspired by these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

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.

Although I know that my articles of late have decreased the readership of this site, I would like to ask those who remain to do one thing as soon as you finish reading this article: pray a set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. None of my verbiage is going to change anything about conciliarism's hold on the minds and hearts of so many Catholics. Our prayers, however, offered to God through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, can plant the seeds for miraculous conversions, including our own conversion away from our persistent venial sins and our lukewarmness. We must rely ever more firmly and confidently in the loving protection and intercession of Our Lady in these troubling times, trusting that she wants to make us instruments, however small and insignificant, in the fulfillment of her Fatima Message and thus the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

The problems of the present age will pass. The Catholic City, that is, Christendom, will be restored in the world. Tradition will be restored in the Church. One Rosary prayed right now will help to bring this about. Why don't we try it? For Our Lady will bring the many who are her humble, devoted clients to a true unity of perfect joy in the Heavenly City where she reigns as Queen of All Angels and Saints.

Vivat Christus Rex! Vivat Maria Regina Immaculata!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Peter of Alcantara, pray for us.

Saint John Cantius, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Martin of Tours, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Blessed Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Blessed Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

 

The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.