Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
               November 4, 2006

Enjoy the Myth--of American Freedom, That Is--While It Lasts

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Popular mythology is preferred by many Catholics, including Traditional Catholics of every stripe imaginable, to the Social Teaching that Our Lord has entrusted to His true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. That is, many Catholics in this country prefer to believe the utter mythology that we live in a "free country" and that Catholics should be "grateful" for the "fact" that we can practice our Faith freely without the interference of the civil state, grateful for the "protection" afforded Catholics by the Framers of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

This mythology was spread first by Archbishop John Carroll in the Eighteenth Century and exalted by the likes of Archbishops John Ireland, Peter Richard Kenrick and John Baptist Purcell and James Cardinal Gibbons, among others, in the Nineteenth Century. The mythology of the great "privilege" of living in a land of religious pluralism was given "intellectual" muscle by Father John Courtney Murray in the Twentieth Century, enshrined into the very ethos of the Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae and supported with great enthusiasm by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he was the conciliar Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in the past eighteen months as Benedict XVI. Among the prominent Catholic American apologists for this mythology at present are George Weigel, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak and Catholic members of "conservative" movements and organizations (The Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, John Birch Society, Republican Party).

George Weigel, for one, wrote a op-ed commentary for USAToday on October 30, 2006, that is Exhibit A for how the heresy of Americanism led directly to the conciliarist heresy of "religious liberty," a subject that has been discussed on this site many times, especially in recent months. Here is Mr. Weigel's commentary, written on the occasion of the re-dedication of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Baltimore, Maryland, in its entirety, interspersed with my own analysis of its Americanist contents:

New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral might be the most famous Catholic church in America, but Baltimore's old cathedral — the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to use its proper name — is indisputably the most historic.

Now, after a two-and-a-half-year, $32 million restoration, all Americans beginning on Saturday can discover this marvel of federal period architecture as its designers intended: an architectural expression of the American commitment to religious freedom, the first of human rights. And in that discovery, we find ourselves challenged by some of the most urgent questions of our time.

We can thank two 19th-century men of genius for the Baltimore Basilica's classic proportions and luminous interior. One, Archbishop John Carroll, was the first Roman Catholic bishop of the newborn USA; the other, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, was the foremost American architect of the day, a friend of Thomas Jefferson, and the first architect of the U.S. Capitol.

John Carroll (a cousin of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Md., the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence) wanted the country's first cathedral to speak in a distinctively American architectural idiom and to embody the Catholic commitment to the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom.

So Carroll turned to Latrobe, the son of a Moravian pastor, and Latrobe (who likely consulted Jefferson)produced an American adaptation of classical design that deployed diffused light to express the freedom the human spirit must enjoy in its response to God. The result was a cathedral church whose stateliness and luminosity express a profound respect for what Pope John Paul II, who prayed in the Baltimore Basilica in October 1995, called "the sanctuary of conscience."

The illogic of all of this is truly astounding. We are supposed to thank John Carroll and Benjamin Henry Latrobe and the anti-Catholic Deist and naturalist Thomas Jefferson, who took out all of the miracles of Our Lord in his own translation of the Gospels, for having a "cathedral to speak in a distinctively American architectural idiom and to embody the Catholic commitment to the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom." It is important to examine the insanity of this statement. Lest one be carried away with the sentimentality produced by the mythology of the American Founding and the Founders themselves, perhaps it is wise to remember that it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the following in a letter to Alexander Humboldt in December of 1913:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

Ah, yes, Thomas Jefferson may have had a hand in the distinctly "American architectural idiom" so as "to embody the Catholic commitment to the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom." Jefferson had a vested interest in this if it meant neutralizing any possibility that the Catholics in this country would seek to convert her to the true Faith. Jefferson wanted to give all of the encouragement he could to helping Catholics to be "grateful" for the "opportunity" to practice their Faith without the threat of state violence as had been the case in Europe in many places following the Protestant Revolt, including England and Ireland.

Thus, we are supposed to be "grateful" that "well-meaning" Protestants and Freemasons and Deists and pantheists and naturalists sought to "protect" the tiny minority of Catholics in the United States of America at its founding from the wrath of the violence visited upon their ancestors by states controlled by Protestant tyrants in Europe. Could it not be that these "well-meaning" Protestants and Freemasons and others knew full well that they had laid a trap to ensnare Catholics into complacency by showing "beneficence" to them, knowing that Catholics would coopted into silence about the Social Teaching of the Church concerning the Social Reign of Christ the King in order to demonstrate their loyalty to the pluralist principles of "religious freedom" and "tolerance" enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

Protestants revolted against Christ the King in Europe and thence kept Catholics neutralized in this country from working for His enthronement here by giving a reprieve from the violence their Protestant ancestors helped to unleash. We could all just get along without having to discuss the denominational differences that separate us in public, agreeing to disagree as we seek to find some inter-denominational or non-denominational way to resolve social problems. This is essence of Judeo-Masonry, which is at the heart of Americanism, which is one of the chief influences upon conciliarism's own view of Church-State relations.

The Protestant Revolt by Martin Luther was a specific and categorical rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it had been exercised in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church. Father Denis Fahey covered the problems of modernity so very well in his The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World. Father Fahey quoted Luther as saying: “Assuredly, a prince may be a Christian, but it is not as Christian that he ought to rule.” This is a complete and total contradiction of the concept of civil governance that characterized, although never perfectly and never without problems and conflicts, much of the Middle Ages. Civil rulers, such as St. Louis IX, King of France, understood that they had been chosen in God's Providence to exercise governing authority over their subjects. St. Louis IX, for example, understood that he could lose his soul if he did not administer justice according to the mind of Christ Himself and did not recognize that his own civil authority could be circumscribed by the Church herself in the exercise of her duties to enforce the Social Reign of Christ the King. Luther rejected all of that. So does Americanism. So does conciliarism.

Father Fahey explained the social evils that resulted from the evil that was and remains the Protestant Revolt against  God's Divine Plan for man's return to Him through the Catholic Church:

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.

“The great cardinal principle of Protestantism is that every man attains salvation by entering into an immediate relation with Christ, with the aid of that interior faith by which he believes that, though his sins persist, they are no longer imputed to him, thanks to the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. All men are thus priests for themselves and carry out the work of their justification by treating directly and individually with God. The Life of Grace, being nothing else than the external favour of God, remains outside of us and we continue, in fact, in spite of Lutheran faith in Christ, corrupt and sinful. Each human being enters into an isolated relation with our Lord, and there is no transforming life all are called to share. Luther never understood the meaning of faith informed by sanctifying grace and charity. Accordingly, the one visible Church and the Mystical Body is done away with, as well as the priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mystical Body, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The only purpose of preaching and such ceremonies were retained by Protestants was to stir up the individual’s faith.”

Hence the True Church of Christ, according to the Protestant view, is noting else than the assembly of those who, on account of the confidence interiorly conceived of the remission of their sins, have the justice of God imputed to them by God and are accordingly predestined to eternal life. And this Church, known to God alone, is the unique Church of the promises of indefectibility, to which our Lord Jesus Christ promised His assistance to the consummation of the world. Since, however, true believers, instructed by the Holy Ghost, can manifest their faith exteriorly, can communicate their impressions and feelings to other and may employ the symbols of the Sacraments to stir up their faith, they give rise to a visible church which, nevertheless, is not the Church instituted by Christ. Membership of this Church is not necessary for salvation, and it may assume different forms according to different circumstances. The true invisible Church of Christ is always hidden, unseen in the multitude.

“Protestantism, therefore, substituted for the corporate organization of society, imbued with the spirit of the Mystical Body and reconciling the claims of personality and individuality in man, a merely isolated relation with our Divine Lord. This revolt of human individual against order on the supernatural level, this uprise of individualism, with its inevitable chaotic self-seeking, had dire consequences both in regard to ecclesiastical organization and in the realms of politics and economics. Let us take these in turn.”

The tide of revolt which broke away from the Catholic Church had the immediate effect of increasing the power of princes and rulers in Protestant countries. The Anabaptists and the peasants in Germany protested in the name of ‘evangelical liberty,’ but they were crushed. We behold the uprise of national churches, each of which organizes its own particular form of religion, mixture of supernatural and natural elements, as a department of State. The orthodox Church in Russia was also a department of State and as such exposed to the same evils. National life was thus withdrawn from ordered subjection to the Divine Plan and the distinction laid down by our Divine Lord Himself, between the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s, utterly abolished. Given the principle of private judgment or of individual relation with Christ, it was inevitable that the right of every individual to arrange his own form of religion should cause the pendulum to swing from a Caesarinism supreme in Church and State to other concrete expressions of ‘evangelical liberty.’ One current leads to the direction of indefinite multiplication of sects. Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, this would, this would give rise to as many churches as there are individuals, that is, there would not be any church at all. As this is too opposed to man’s social nature, small groups tend to coalesce. The second current tends to the creation of what may be termed broad or multitudinist churches. The exigencies of the national churches are attenuated until they are no longer a burden to anybody. The Church of England is an example of this. As decay in the belief of the Divinity of Jesus continues to increase, the tendency will be to model church organization according to the political theories in favour at the moment. The democratic form of society will be extolled and a ‘Reunion of Christendom,’ for example, will be aimed at, along the lines of the League of Nations. An increasing number of poor bewildered units will, of course, cease to bother about any ecclesiastical organization at all.

The first [political] result was an enormous increase in the power of the Temporal Rulers, in fact a rebirth of the pagan regime of Imperial Rome. The Spiritual Kingship of Christ, participated in by the Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic Church being no longer acknowledged, authority over spiritual affairs passed to Temporal Rulers. They were thus, in Protestant countries, supposed to share not only in His Temporal Kingship of Christ the King, but also in His spiritual Kingship. As there was no Infallible Guardian of order above the Temporal Rulers, the way was paved for the abuses of State Absolutism. The Protestant oligarchy who ruled England with undisputed sway, from Charles the Second’s time on, and who treated Ireland to the Penal Laws, may be cited, along with that cynical scoundrel, Frederick of Prussia, as typical examples of such rulers. Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV of France and Joseph II of Austria, by their absolutist tendencies and pretensions to govern the Catholic Church show the influence of the neighboring Protestant countries. Gallicanism and Josephism are merely a revival of Roman paganism.

The rejection by Luther of the visible Catholic Church opened the door, not only to the abuses of absolute rulers, supreme in Church and State, but soon led to an indifference to all ecclesiastical organizations. As faith in the supernatural life of grace and the supernatural order grew dim and waned, the way was made smooth for the acceptance of Freemasonry. The widespread loss of faith in the existence of the supernatural life and the growing ignorance of the meaning of the Redemption permitted the apostles of Illuminism and Masonry to propagate the idea that the true religion of Jesus Christ had never been understood or been corrupted by His disciples, especially by the Church of Rome, the fact being that only a few sages in secret societies down the centuries had kept alive the true teaching of Jesus Christ. According to this ‘authentic’ teaching our Saviour had established a new religion, but had simply restored the religion of the state of nature, the religion of the goodness of human nature when left to itself, freed from the bonds and shackles of society. Jesus Christ died a martyr for liberty, put to death by the rulers and priests. Masons and revolutionary secret societies alone are working for the true salvation of the world. By them shall original sin be done away with and the Garden of Eden restored. But the present organization of society must disappear, by the elimination of the tyranny of priests, the despotism of princes and the slavery resulting from national distinctions, from family life and from private property.

The very thing exalted by the Americanists and conciliarists, "religious freedom," was condemned consistently by pope after pope in the wake of the American and French Revolutions. Conciliarists, though, pay no never mind to such pronouncements, which are part of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium and protected by the charism of infallibility as they reiterate what the Church has always believed and taught. Conciliarists are, as I have noted so many times, the true sedevacantists, for they act as though the See of Peter was vacant prior to Angelo Roncalli and that all of the past pronouncements made by popes on matters of the State might as well have been issued by veritable antipopes.

Those "preconciliar popes," however, let it be known that the novelties exalted by the likes of George Weigel and Father Neuhaus and others came from the devil and would lead men and their nations to Hell.

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

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

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

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

Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.

The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.

Although he used diplomatic language to praise what he could of the American founder and of the natural virtues of George Washington, Pope Leo XIII used Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, to state that the American notion of separation of Church and State was not the ideal that it has always been in the minds and hearts of Americanists--and is so near and dear to conciliarists around the world. Although Pope Leo knew full well that Catholics had to adjust themselves as best as they could to the concrete circumstances in which they found themselves, which in the United States was a regime that was officially religiously indifferent, he nevertheless kept urging Catholics to strive for the ideal of converting their nations to Catholicism. Catholics could not let an understandable, pragmatic accommodation to the specifics of a particular form of civil government deter them from planting the seeds for the restoration of all things in Christ the King as He has revealed Himself exclusively to the Catholic Church.

This is what Pope Leo wrote in Longiqua Oceani on the matter of the separation of Church and State:

For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.

In other words, Pope Leo XIII was reminding the American bishops that the growth of the Church in the United States of America was the working of the Holy Ghost, not the result of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Church would know even more growth--and the country itself would know more spiritual and temporal prosperity--if she was favored by "the laws and the patronage of the public authority." It is more than a little curious that so many Americanists quote from the first part of Longiqua and stop short of this telling passage that reminded the American bishops they had the obligation to seek the conversion of all citizens in the United States of America--of of the country itself--to the Catholic Church.

Ah, you see, there is the rub: Americanists believe that Americanism is salvific, that all men do not necessarily need to be Catholic to save their souls or to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith. Americanists and conciliarists do not believe that all men need to be Catholic in order to be holy before the sight of God and to be the best citizens of this country because they seek their Last End at all times and in all circumstances. Americanists that it is possible establish and then maintain social order absent a subordination of all things that pertain to the good of souls to the Catholic Church. They believe that it is possible for men to persevere in "civic virtue" over the long run without having belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. In other words, Americanism, which is influenced by the currents of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, is almost entirely coextensive with the late Father Hans von Balthasar's Universal Salvation error. The Potomac really does flow into the Tiber.

Pope Leo XIII was not the only pope in the Nineteenth Century to have condemned the errors of religious liberty and the separation of Church and State. Pope Gregory XVI did so in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, recognizing that the state of nations depends upon the state of the souls of men, which depends entirely upon being members of the Catholic Church who are striving to persist in states of Sanctifying Grace. Pope Gregory XVI demolished the underlying presuppositions of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) in the following passages:

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again.

The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine."We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

Yes, the true popes of the past condemned without any equivocation the very "freedoms" exalted by Americanists and enshrined in the ethos of conciliarism and in the Novus Ordo Missae itself, with its ever-fungible nature and desire to seek "adaptation" to different cultures, signifying that what purports to be the Sacred Liturgy can admit of no fixed rites, communicating, whether intentionally or not, the belief that God's own truths are not fixed and that was pronounced in the past may be changed in the future.

Consider Pope Pius IX's stirring words in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, serve as complete rebuke to the "principles" of "religious freedom" propagated by John Carroll and his quisling followers:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

Pope Leo XIII reiterated these very points throughout the course of his own pontificate, doing so in Libertas, June 20, 1888, which is ever-so-much the true Catholic counterpoint to Dignitatis Humanae:

What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.

Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.

There are, indeed, some adherents of liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and justice; and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us through our natural reason. In this they are plainly inconsistent. For if -- as they must admit, and no one can rightly deny -- the will of the Divine Law-giver is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative authority without failing in the obedience which is due. Indeed, if the human mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God's rights and its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of God. Man must, therefore, take his standard of a loyal and religious life from the eternal law; and from all and every one of those laws which God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has been pleased to enact, and to make known to us by such clear and unmistakable signs as to leave no room for doubt. And the more so because laws of this kind have the same origin, the same author, as the eternal law, are absolutely in accordance with right reason, and perfect the natural law. These laws it is that embody the government of God, who graciously guides and directs the intellect and the will of man lest these fall into error. Let, then, that continue to remain in a holy and inviolable union which neither can nor should be separated; and in all things -- for this is the dictate of right reason itself -- let God be dutifully and obediently served.

There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.

To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.

But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man's supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) "performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor," rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin.

This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness -- namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide -- as they should do -- with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

All this, however, We have explained more fully elsewhere. We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects. Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State. For, since it derives the prime origin of all power directly from God Himself, with grave authority it charges rulers to be mindful of their duty, to govern without injustice or severity, to rule their people kindly and with almost paternal charity; it admonishes subjects to be obedient to lawful authority, as to the ministers of God; and it binds them to their rulers, not merely by obedience, but by reverence and affection, forbidding all seditions and venturesome enterprises calculated to disturb public order and tranquillity, and cause greater restrictions to be put upon the liberty of the people. We need not mention how greatly religion conduces to pure morals, and pure morals to liberty. Reason shows, and history confirms the fact, that the higher the morality of States, the greater are the liberty and wealth and power which they enjoy.

No state can enjoy true order and pursue authentic justice unless it subordinates itself explicitly in all that pertains to the good of souls to the authority of Christ the King as it is exercised by the Catholic Church. This is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. It is immutable. God is immutable. The Holy Ghost cannot say one thing in the Nineteenth Century and then exactly the opposite in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries. Anyone who believes this is delusional and does not believe in one of the essences of God Himself, His immutability. Well, Americanism and its progeny, conciliarism, believe in that which is delusional.

George Weigel explored the "meaning" of "religious freedom" in our own day:

The recently completed restoration of the building offers more than a reminder of the genius of the past, however; Carroll's and Latrobe's work has a special resonance for the present and the future. For to enter the restored Baltimore Basilica — a great American shrine to the centrality of religious freedom in any serious scheme of "human rights" — is to be confronted with two of the most crucial items on the world agenda today: The first — how do things stand with religious freedom? — is a question of particular, although not exclusive, interest to people of faith. The second — how does the human race engage its deepest differences (which are religious differences) with civility, tolerance and respect? — is a question for everyone.

Although few of us recognize it, the 20th century was the greatest century of persecution of Christians in history, with tens of millions murdered "in hatred of the faith" by totalitarian ideologies. With the collapse of fascism, and then communism, a new springtime of religious freedom seemed on the historical horizon. Yet the dramatic exodus of Christians from the Holy Land, the genocide in the south of Sudan, and the entire arc of conflict between Christianity and jihadist Islam that spans the globe from the west coast of Senegal to the east coast of Timor reminds us that the 21st century could well be a century of martyrdom, too. To visit the restored basilica and reflect on the centuries of struggle for religious freedom that it has witnessed is to be reminded that freedom is never free.

Then there is the question of how a world of profound religious differences manages those differences in ways that lead to increased understanding rather than intensified conflict. The temptation, often, is to think that indifference to differences is the path to tolerance.

The basilica suggests a different lesson: that the most secure foundation for religious freedom is, as Father Richard John Neuhaus once put it, the conviction that "it is the will of God that we be tolerant of those who disagree with us about the will of God." That conviction is at the root of America's success in maintaining the First Amendment commitments the Baltimore Basilica celebrates: Religious freedom in the USA is largely a religious accomplishment. That experience of conviction fostering tolerance has important lessons for a 21st-century world in which hundreds of millions of Muslims are contesting for the soul of their ancient faith. Will the men and women of peace in the house of Islam develop Islamic arguments for civility and tolerance, or will the jihadists who have declared war on the world (and often on their fellow Muslims) win?

While Catholics do indeed respect the free will of other men, seeking never to impose the true Faith upon those who are outside of the One Sheepfold of Christ, they do not "tolerate" error but seek--in many and varied ways according to the temper of persons and the contingencies of any particular moment--the conversion of all men to Catholicism out an act of true Charity for their immortal souls and out of a true love for their nation, which can know no real order or justice without confessing the true Faith. As I have written in recent weeks, Mohammedans are not interested in abandoning their beliefs in order to accommodate pluralism's love of "religious freedom." Catholics in this country have been taught, with a few exceptions here and there over the course of the past 230 years, to be content with being "one out of many" and that it would be wrong to seek the conversion of the United States of America to the Catholic Faith. This is neither an act of love our fellow citizens or an act of true patriotism for our country, whose good we must will as her citizens, the ultimate expression of which is indeed her Catholicization in all aspects of her national life without any exception whatsoever.

George Weigel concluded his USAToday op-ed commentary as follows:

The defense of freedom

A fascinating document touching a long forgotten part of the Baltimore Basilica's past recently came to light at nearby Fort McHenry, whose bombardment during the War of 1812 caused Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled Banner. Had Fort McHenry fallen, the walls of the basilica, which rests on the highest hill in downtown Baltimore, were to be manned as the last line of defense against the British army. It seems, somehow, appropriate, because Baltimore's old cathedral has always been an important part of a line of defense: the defense of religious freedom.

Now, in an age when religious freedom is under threat, not from atheistic ideologies but from irrational violence in the name of God, the restored Baltimore Basilica is more than a stunningly beautiful building — although it is surely that. It also invites every visitor to be a defender of the "sanctuary of conscience" in which humanity carries on its conversation with God.

Not one word in Mr. Weigel's article dealt with the necessity of converting men or nations to Christ the King. Not one word. How ironic that his article was posted (a day before its being carried in the print version of the newspaper) on USAToday.com on October 29, 2006, the date this year of the Feast of Christ the King in the Traditional Catholic liturgical calendar. What a manifest betrayal of Christ the King, under whose standard so many martyrs have been put to death, including those in the Roman Empire and England and France and Mexico and Russia and Red China and Vietnam, among many other places.

Pope Leo XIII used A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902, to remind us all that every society must return to the true Faith:

So society in its foolhardy effort to escape from God has rejected the Divine order and Revelation; and it is thus withdrawn from the salutary efficacy of Christianity which is manifestly the most solid guarantee of order, the strongest bond of fraternity, and the inexhaustible source of all public and private virtue. This sacrilegious divorce has resulted in bringing about the trouble which now disturbs the world.  Hence it is the pale of the Church which this lost society must re-enter, if it wishes to recover its well-being, its repose, and its salvation.

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men.  It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption.  It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine Assistance and of that immortality which has been promised It, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect It in Its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the Teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal Itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes  It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of Truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty.  Not does it infringe upon the rights of Justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity.

Pope Saint Pius X used Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, to explain that each of us has a responsibility to restore the Catholic City, not to be content with a confusing amalgam of ideas and beliefs that contradict each other and in way contribute to the betterment of men, spiritually or temporally, or to the betterment of nations:

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. . . .

Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.

"Religious liberty" is a slogan that is founded in a contempt for Sacred Rights of Christ the King and blasphemes His Revelation by placing alongside of it the false beliefs of false religions as having "rights" in to propagate themselves in civil society and, worse yet, that these false beliefs of false religions can actually contribute to the "betterment" of men and their nations. "Religious freedom" is a lie from the devil that leads souls to eternal ruin and leads nations into disarray and, ultimately, into war with each other.

Indeed, the entirety of American "civil liberty" is but mythology. Men are not truly free unless they submit themselves first of all to Christ the King and are offer up unto Him all of their liberty and thoughts and words and deeds and prayers and sufferings and mortifications as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. There can be no true freedom in the lives of nations if men are not first the servants of Christ the King and the slaves of Mary our Immaculate Queen.

Perhaps the best summary of the errors promoted by the Americanists and the conciliarists can be found in the following passage from Pope Saint Pius X's Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906. Although the quote has been a lot on this site in recent months, it is a wonderful encapsulation of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that was rejected by John Carroll in his own day and continues to rejected by the descendants of Modernism, conciliarists, in our own day:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."

Those who reject this plain reiteration of Catholic teaching have allied themselves with Modernism. Pope Pius XI made this clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922. There is no "wiggle room" on this issue whatsoever:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.

There will come the day, sooner rather than later, I believe, when even the mythology of American civil and religious liberty will be exploded. New laws have been enacted and signed that make it increasingly more probable that those of us who dissent from the "received wisdom" of the leaders of this country will lose our legitimate freedom to speak and to write (see: Frank Morales, Toward Freedom - Bush Moves Toward Martial Law). Oh, Mr. Weigel, who supported George W. Bush's insane, unjust, immoral invasion of Iraq by accepting uncritically all of the current administration's lies back in 2002 and early-2003, proving that Americanism trumps conciliarism when there is a conflict between the two (conciliar officials in Rome, including John Paul II, most correctly, opposed the American invasion of Iraq), will not have to worry about losing his freedom when the administration he has supported so fully rounds up its opponents. He will be free to continue to live in the delusions of American civil and religious "liberty," free to ignore that the things he exalts have been condemned for centuries by the Catholic Church, free to serve as an apologist for the errors of conciliarism (except when conciliar officials get in the way of the "Pax Americana," that is).

Those of us who understand that Americanism is a heresy and is responsible in very large measure for the entire ethos of conciliarism, doctrinally, pastorally and liturgically, must seek to root out all of its pernicious influences in our own lives, starting with our families. We must give no quarter to a culture that has long been in the control of Judeo-Masonry, which seeks to purchase our complacency by having us participate in seemingly "harmless" diversions that actually rob us of our interior lives and desensitize us to the fact that a nation that does not acknowledge Christ the King has already enthroned the devil as its monarch.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque wrote the following in an Act of Consecration the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that emphasizes every aspect of our lives must be imbued with the truths of the Catholic Faith and reject all of the works and pomps of the devil, no matter how attractive or "innocent" they may appear:

O Lord Jesus, holy and sweet love of our souls who hast promised that wherever two or three are gathered together in Thy name Thou wilt be there in their midst, behold, O Divine and most amiable Jesus, our hearts, united in one common accord to adore, praise, love, bless and please Thy most Holy and Sacred Heart, to which we dedicate ourselves and consecrate our hearts for time and eternity. We renounce forever all love and affection which are not in the love and affection of Thy adorable Heart; we desire that all the desires, longings and aspirations of our hearts may be always according to the good pleasure of Thy Heart, which we wish to please as much as we are able. But as we can do nothing good of ourselves, we beseech Thee, O most adorable Jesus, by the infinite goodness and meekness of Thy most Sacred Heart, to sustain our hearts and confirm them in the resolution of loving and serving Thee, with which Thou dost inspire them in order that nothing may ever separate us or disunite us from Thee, but that we may be always faithful and constant in this resolution. We sacrifice to the love of Thy Sacred Heart all that can give vain pleasure to our hearts and all that can engross them uselessly with the things of this world where we confess that everything besides loving and serving Thee alone is vanity and affliction of spirit. O Divine and most amiable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, may Thou be blessed, loved and glorified eternally. Amen.

Yes, we can as disciples of Christ the King, whose Most Sacred Heart must enthroned in all homes and nations, and the consecrated slaves of Mary our Immaculate Queen build up Christendom in our own lives as we ignore the insanities of conciliarism and the mythologies of nationalists. We can replicate Christendom in our own lives by the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow to us through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We can know genuine joy and authentic freedom of the spirit only when we take upon ourselves the yoke of the Divine Redeemer as the consecrated slaves of His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. What are we waiting for?

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady, Queen of All Saints. pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, 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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Charles Borromeo, pray for us.

Saints Vitus and Agricola, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, 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 Jude, 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 Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Charles Borromeo, pray for us.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, 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.  











© Copyright 2006, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.