Mario Pilate, Pontius Cuomo

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The adversary is having his proverbial field day in the realm of the naturalistic farce that is the Judeo-Masonic system of governance and electoral politics that exists in the United States of America. The two major naturalistic organized crime families in the United States of America, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, are engaged in pitched battles in order to win this year's elections. Representatives of both major organized crime families in the realm of naturalism are outdoing each other in the use of hyperbole to engage in mutual denunciations designed to convince the average voter in the "swing" states that a veritable electoral apocalypse will be realized if the "other" side is elected.

Some of the "talking points" that are distributed by the campaign headquarters of the Communist naturalist Barack Hussein Obama and the nincompoop naturalist of John Sidney McCain III are floated about in a sort of experimental manner once or twice before they die out, having done their job to poison discourse by penetrating into the cerebral processes, such as they are, of a few voters in those swing states.

Remember, given the divisions that exist in the United States of America as a result of religious indifferentism and pluralism, there are only a few states in any given presidential election that are "in play." Most states are not up for "grabs," and the respective presidential campaign managers know this, which is why states such as California, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine to name just a few, have been conceded by the McCain campaign just as such states as Texas, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Kansas, to name just a few, have been conceded by the Obama campaign. The real presidential campaign is taking place in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Indiana and Virginia, both of which are "in play" this year, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Washington. New Jersey, Montana and Louisiana are not outside of the reach, as it stands now, of the candidates trailing in those states, although no political realist expects John McCain to carry New Jersey or Barack Obama to carry Louisiana. and/or Montana. (See: State Polls for a summary of the voter trends as they stand as of yesterday, September 23, 2008.)

We elect presidents of the United States of America by means of the electoral college, not by direct national popular vote, and what matters is the number of electoral votes won by candidates as a result of winning a plurality of the popular votes in a particular state (with Nebraska and Maine having a combination system of statewide election for two electoral votes and a Congressional district system for the election of their other electoral votes). The candidates and their handlers know these facts, which is why, simply from the perspective of pure political science, voting in the states that have been conceded, at least effectively, if not actually, by the two major political party candidates for the presidency of the United States of America, is an absolute waste of time. The Obama and McCain campaigns are concentrating on the "swing" or "battleground" states, hoping that some "impression" made by the candidates's themselves or their surrogates will "stick," mindful of the fact that the upcoming "joint appearances" (termed most disingenuously as "debates") and some unexpected "October surprise" (such as the capture of Osama bin Laden--or someone dressed up to look like him) might change the course of the election in a manner that no "talking point" can overcome.

Nevertheless, various surrogates for the candidates continue their "talking points," some of which are being provided to the McCain campaign at present courtesy of the gaffe-prone United States Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), who has different on several occasions in the past week with the official positions of his running mate, United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Illinois). Some of the "talking points," however are designed to generate outrage in order to generate news coverage during a given news cycle.

This is what happened on Sunday, September 7, 2008, the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost, as the longtime Democrat Party operative named Donna Brazile, a Roman Catholic, mind you, said on the Cable News Network (CNN) that "Jesus was a community organizer," thus blasphemously comparing Barack Hussein Obama with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, while "Pontius Pilate was a governor," comparing Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin with the man who washed his fingers of the Jewish crowd's demand for the release of the insurrectionist and murder Barrabas and the Crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (I thank His Excellency Bishop Daniel L. Dolan for informing me of these comments when we visited with him on Tuesday, September 23, 2008. The information provided to me by His Excellency, whose daily sermons to the students at Saint Gertrude the Great Church during High Mass at 11:25 a.m., Eastern time, may be heard by means of "live streaming" at Mass Simulcasts Live, was found to have made its way to the internet.)

This is what Miss Brazile said on the Cable News Network on Sunday, September 7, 2008:

Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor. And perhaps they should understand the role of a community organizer is to help people in distress.

 

Miss Brazile's blasphemy, which has been making the rounds of various Democrat Party-related blogsites, was repeated, almost word-for-word, by United States Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives on Wednesday, September 10, 2008:

[I]f you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about; Pontius Pilate was a governor."

 

I'll get to Miss Brazile's rendition of this blasphemy shortly. I would like to ask Representative Cohen, man who denies the Sacred Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, what qualifies him to make any comments at all about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, no less daring to state definitively that He was a "community organizer" such as the disciple of the late Saul Alinsky and the late Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist, Barack Hussein Obama? What qualifies you, Representative Cohen, to speak about the Redeemer of Man Whose Sacred Divinity you deny?

As is well-known to the few hundred readers of the articles on this site (about 6,000 or so "stop by" for a brief visit to the home page before moving on to other destinations, quite quickly, it appears), I carry no brief for the self-described "feminist for life," Sarah Heath Palin, who has said that she is "one hundred percent pro-contraception" and who supports the surgical slicing and dicing of innocent preborn children under cover of law in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. There are many things for which Mrs. Palin, the Governor of Alaska, can be criticized, and further criticism will be offered near the end of this commentary. Comparing Mrs. Palin to Pontius Pilate as Barack Obama is compared to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

Well, this is all part of the wonderful joys of "religious liberty" and "pluralism" that are part and parcel of the false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist semi-Pelagian principles at the root of the Constitution of the United States of America, whose disserve ring of Church and State, criticized by Pope Leo XIII very directly in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, but embraced by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his counterfeit church of conciliarism. People are "free" to say whatever they want, right?

No, no one is morally free to blaspheme Our Divine Redeemer or to compare Him with an odious reprobate who supports His mystical dismemberment in the persons of preborn babies in their mothers' wombs under cover of civil law. Such an outrageous effort to defend a man who is a complete and unequivocal supporter of the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means should be met by our praying at least one Rosary of reparation and by our praying the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus.

Miss Brazile should know better. As a product of conciliarism, however, she does not. She is free to blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to support His mystical dismemberment in the wombs of mothers under cover of civil law while maintaining her canonical status as a member in good standing of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. She is free to work for one wretched pro-abortion politician after another without suffering the slightest degree of censure from any "bishop" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the United States of America. Just about the only people who do get condemned are those who dare to point out the apostasies of conciliarism, those who point out that Joseph Ratzinger has committed atrocious blasphemies and sacrileges against the honor and glory and majesty of God as "Benedict XVI" and has engaged in a lifelong, unrepentant warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth that continues to this very day

Well, Miss Brazile, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "organized" no "communities." He proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God in the very Flesh as He preached His immutable truths and performed miracles that only God could effect, remonstrating with the very rational creatures for whom He was to shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to pay back in His Sacred Humanity the debt of human sins that was owed to Him in His Infinity as God to quit their sins and to reform their lives as they took up their own crosses to follow Him through the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Community organizer? What utter blasphemy to indemnify a man whose very beliefs are at war with the true Faith and whose open support for one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, willful murder, offends God and undermines the very foundations of a just social order. No one can say that he or she supports "social justice" as he supports the direct, intentional killing, whether by chemical or surgical means, of innocent preborn babies.

No, Donna Brazile is not the first Catholic to try to reduce the Public Ministry of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to a leftist brand of naturalism. This is what those who adhere to blasphemous Marxist "liberation theology" have tried to do for the past forty years or so, and it is what The Sillon in France attempted to do, which is what prompted Pope Saint Pius X to condemn this insidious effort in no uncertain terms in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

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

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

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them - their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them - a "generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can" When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man - when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.. . .

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that - their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution - they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.

 

I rather doubt that Miss Donna Brazile has ever read or heard any of this, and the tragedy is that her conciliar "archbishop," Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, District of Columbia, would tell her that Notre Charge Apostolique is one of those "time-conditioned" encyclical letters spoken of by Joseph Ratzinger that no longer bind us, that the very things condemned in that encyclical letter have been embraced by the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes. Why should Donna Brazile pay attention to authentic Catholicism when her "Catholic" shepherds would tell her that the teachings of the "past" have become "obsolete."

Comparing Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin to Pontius Pilate? Well, it is certainly not beyond the pale to make comparisons between American governors on the Roman procurator of Judea at the time of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Passion and Death. The apt comparisons, however, are with those pro-abortion Catholics who have served as governors of various states of the United States of America. As I was wont to say rather frequently in my college classes during the years of Mario Matthew Cuomo's governorship of the State of New York (January 1, 1983 to January 1, 1995), the prime example of a modern day Pontius Pilate was Cuomo, whom I termed alternately as "Mario Pilate" or "Pontius Cuomo," terms I used when campaigning for lieutenant governor of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986.

Uncharitable? Mean?

Not at all.

Remember, as I have noted on this site in the past, Mario Matthew Cuomo said in a debate held in Albany, New York, in August of 1974 among the three individuals vying for the Democrat Party lieutenant governorship nomination (Anthony Olivieri and Mary Anne Krupsak were Cuomo's opponents), that he would have voted against the 1970 bill that decriminalized surgical baby-killing in the first trimester of life in the State of New York if he had been a member of the New York State Legislature at that time. And it was the case that Cuomo, then an attorney with an office on Court Street in Brooklyn, New York, was called upon by the Diocese of Brooklyn to speak against abortion to various parish organizations and other groups as its official representative.

Defeated in his bid to be the Democrat Party lieutenant governor nominee in 1974, Cuomo learned to parrot the line that had been mastered by his political mentor, then United States Representative Hugh Leo Carey, who was elected as Governor of the State of New York in 1974 and served two terms, that he was "personally opposed to abortion, but would never impose" his "morality upon others." Cuomo, was appointed by Carey to be the Secretary of State of the State of New York in January of 1975, used this line repeatedly when he ran unsuccessfully for the Democrat Party nomination for the Mayoralty of the City of New York in 1977 and when he ran in the general election that year as the nominee of the Liberal Party of the State of New York against the pro-abortion Democrat nominee, then United States Representative Edward Irving Koch, and the Republican Party nominee, the pro-abortion New York State Senator Roy Goodman, and the Conservative Party nominee, radio talk show host Barry Farber.

Defeated by Koch in the general election for Mayor of the City of New York in 1977, Cuomo won the Democrat Party nomination for lieutenant governor in 1978 (then Lieutenant Governor Krupsak, also a pro-abortion Catholic, challenged her pro-abortion Catholic Governor, Hugh Carey, unsuccessfully in a primary that year), and was Carey's heir apparent in 1982 when the latter chose not to seek a third term. Cuomo termed the tables on his old adversary Koch, defeating him in hard fought primary in 1982 for the Democrat Party's gubernatorial nomination, going on to defeat Rite Aid magnate Lew Lehrman, the nominee of the Republican and Conservative parties, and the Right to Life Party nominee, Robert Bohnar. Cuomo loudly defended "abortion rights" during that 1982 general election campaign, and was known to telephone priests in various conciliar parishes if he got wind of any criticism uttered about him from pulpits during sermons.

Cuomo's support for "abortion rights" came to the national forefront in 1984 after the conciliar "bishop" of Scranton, John Joseph O'Connor, was appointed to be the conciliar "archbishop" of New York. Even before his "installation" at Saint Patrick's Cathedral on Monday, March 19, 1984, O'Connor told longtime WNBC-TV newsman Gabe Pressman that he, O'Connor, "was sick and tired" of politicians who say that they are "personally opposed" to abortion while supporting a nonexistent "right" of a woman to choose to kill her preborn baby. This inflamed Cuomo, who has quite a temper, who started a war of words with the new "archbishop." Things escalated rather rapidly, and O'Connor refused to recognize Cuomo's presence at his installation "Mass" on March 19, 1984, while recognizing Mayor Koch of the City of New York, the Mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, and the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, William Wilson. Cuomo was livid. I know. I saw him process out of Saint Patrick's Cathedral as he walked right in front of where I was sitting in the right transept. He was not a happy camper.

Cuomo sought to provide "intellectual muscle" to the "I'm personally opposed to abortion" position in the address that he gave at the behest of Hartford's Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard P. McBrien, then the Chairman of the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, on Thursday, September 13, 1984:

The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or nonbeliever, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might someday force theirs on us.

This freedom is the fundamental strength of our unique experience in government. In the complex interplay of forces and considerations that go into the making of our laws and policies, its preservation must be a persuasive and dominant concern. . . .

As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created. We thought church doctrine was clear on this. Life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That—to my less subtle mind—by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed . . . reverence.

But not everyone in our society agrees.

And those who don’t—those who endorse legalized abortions—aren’t a ruthless, callous alliance of anti-Christians determined to overthrow our moral standards. In many cases, the proponents of legal abortion are the very people who have worked with Catholics to realize the goals of social justice set out in papal encyclicals: the American Lutheran Church, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, B’nai B’rith Women, the Women of the Episcopal Church. There are just a few of the religious organizations that don’t share the church’s position on abortion.

Certainly, we should not be forced to mold Catholic morality to conform to disagreement by non-Catholics, however sincere or severe their disagreement. Our bishops should be teachers, no pollsters. They should not change what we Catholics believe in order to ease our consciences or please our friends or protect the church from criticism.

But if the breadth, intensity, and sincerity of opposition to church teaching shouldn’t be allowed to shape our Catholic morality, it can’t help but determine our ability—our realistic, political ability—to translate our Catholic morality into civil law, a law not for the believers who don’t need it but for the believers who reject it.

And it is here, in our attempt to find a political answer to abortion—an answer beyond our private observance of Catholic morality— that we encounter controversy within and without the church over how and in what degree to press the case that our morality should be everybody else’s, and to what effect.

I repeat, there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule, for spreading this part of our Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals.

And so the Catholic trying to make moral and prudent judgments in the political realm must discern which, if any, of the actions one could take would be best.  American Rhetoric: Mario Cuomo --"Religious Belief and Public Morality

 

Apart from the disregard of the facts of biology that young attorney Mario Matthew Cuomo used to provide to groups before which he spoke as a representative of the Diocese of Brooklyn in the 1960s, Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo--Mario Pilate/Pontius Cuomo, an admirer of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., had the audacity to refer to "our" morality when referring to the immutable and eternally binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that proscribe the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human being. God's laws apply to everyone without regard to whether anyone accepts them. Civil law must be conformed to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls, and Catholics have the positive moral obligation to work in behalf of such a conformity. Catholics are not permitted to privately hold one thing while publicly speaking and acting in a contradictory manner.

Pope Leo XIII made this abundantly clear in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.

 

End of argument, Mario. End of argument. You and your fellow Pilates lose.

Along with other Catholic pro-aborts in public life, Cuomo supported the legal "right" of mothers to support the execution of their babies under cover of law, attempting to cover himself in a mantra of not seeking to "impose" "his" morality upon others, while doing precisely that when it came to the issue of capital punishment. Cuomo said that it was his moral duty as a Catholic to oppose capital punishment even though a majority of the citizens of the State of New York desired its restoration. What hubris. What incredible arrogance to consign the innocent preborn to cruel, merciless deaths under cover of law while criminals convicted of heinous crimes after the exhausting of the levers of due process of law are considered to be above the ultimate punishment for their crimes.

Cuomo was unbent in his support for abortion by the time that the pro-abortion Baptist, then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, was nominated by the Democrat Party for President of the United States of America in 1992. Cuomo said the following in the principal nominating speech at Madison Square Garden in the City of New York in behalf of Clinton's nomination on July 15, 1992:

America needs Bill Clinton for still another reason. We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt, through laws and through the courts, to tell us what god to believe in, and how to apply that god's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and our bodies. (Nominating Speech by Mario M. Cuomo)

 

Just as an aside, the then New York Governor said this about then Governor Clinton:

He was born and raised with all the personal attributes needed for leadership: God-given intelligence; vitality. And an extraordinary quality of character that allowed him to survive the buffeting and the trauma of a difficult youth.  Nominating Speech by Mario M. Cuomo

 

I know. Stop laughing.

Cuomo's use of hyperbole makes that of the late President Richard Milhous Nixon's seem tame by comparison. Yet Mario Matthew Cuomo remains a "Catholic" in good standing in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, although one conciliar monsignor, who was Cuomo's pastor at Saint John the Evangelist Church around 1997, said that Cuomo did not present himself for what purported to be the distribution of Holy Communion during the Novus Ordo service, indicating, the monsignor said, that "Cardinal" O'Connor might have told him to refrain from doing so. Cuomo has not been "excommunicated" by conciliar authorities. He is unrepentant in his support for baby-killing under cover of law, although he did say to the 1994 Right to Life Party nominee Bob Walsh, "Bob, I’m pro-life! I have to say I’m pro-choice in order to get elected," prior to one of their televised debates. (Mr. Walsh asserted this in a presentation he gave to a graduate course on political parties that I was teaching at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall of 1996.)

Other Catholic pro-aborts in public life who have served the role of modern day Herods and Pilates include several current governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-California, Jennifer Granholm, D-Michigan, Kathleen Sebelius, D-Kansas, Jim Doyle, D-Wisconsin, Martin O'Malley, D-Maryland) and loads of former governors (Cuomo, Carey, who repented of his support for abortion in 1990 but who continues, at age eighty-nine, to support pro-aborts for elected office, George Pataki, R-New York, Jane Swift, R-Massachusetts, Paul Cellucci, R-Massachusetts, James Florio, D-New Jersey, Tom Ridge, R-Pennsylvania, Thomas Vilsack, D-Iowa, James McGreevey, D-New Jersey--a baptized Catholic who is now an Episcopalian as his revels in his perversity, Gray Davis, D-California, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., D-California, and Bill Richardson, D-New Mexico, among others whose names I do not recall at the present time). These are your modern Pontius Pilates, my friends, not Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin, who is, as a baptized Catholic taken out of the Church by her parents when she was twelve years of age, a victim of the lies of Modernity and Modernism.

All of this having been noted, however, the fact that Governor Palin is a victim of Modernity and Modernism does not, however, for one single moment minimize the tremendous offense, objectively speaking, that she is giving to God by means of her support for contraception and baby-killing under cover of law in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. And although Governor Palin does not understand for one blessed moment the offense that she gives to God by means of her short skirts and dresses, we must understand that such an offense is not minor and that grave harm is being done to the daughters of "conservative" Americans by the praise that is being heaped upon her as a "pro-life" leader when her very attire is entirely anti-eternal life. It is impossible to restore legal protection to the preborn as the eternal protection of souls is undermined by a mother who has entered the work force needlessly despite having an infant at home and as she dresses in a provocative manner that offends God and gives such bad example to so many women, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

(Photographs of Mrs. Palin that ran in The New York Times in its online edition on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, as she hobnobbed with such enemies of the Faith and of the nation as Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger, Jr., showed Mrs. Palin utterly clueless about the virtue of Modesty as she offended God by showing off her legs. Who is going to teach her otherwise? Some conciliar "bishop"? Who is going to tell her that she is offend God, harming her own soul and causing a near occasion of sin to others.)

Too strong?

Well, perhaps you have accepted the devil's plan for the gradual acceptance of immodesty. I haven't. Perhaps you don't believe that the Mother of God really meant it when she told Jacinta Marto in hospital room that certain styles of fashions would be introduced that would offend God greatly. Perhaps you think that such a thing is trivial when the truth of the matter is that it is most major and does incalculable harm to the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Perhaps it is important to reprint yet again Father Martin Stepanich's reminder to us that we cannot accept one iota of the devil's warfare against modesty that the "feminist for life" is participating in without even realizing it:

The avowed enemies of God are rejoicing--temporarily--at having brought about an almost total collapse of the virtue of modesty among once virtuous Christian womanhood, while those commissioned by God to teach and uphold this angelic virtue insist on cowardly silence and indifference about it and on gutless permissiveness in manner of dress everywhere.

Meanwhile, vast numbers of supposedly "good" people remain as if without a conscience, being morally blind and insensitive as to what has really happened to a God-given virtue that was once a distinctive trademark of theirs. This type of blindness seems to go hand in hand with a brazen contempt and a sassy resentfulness towards any attempt to revive and restore the missing sense of modesty.

The fact stands out clearly that the immodest fashions of this unchaste generation still offend Our Lord "very much," as Our Lady foretold it through the angelic little Jacinta.

Anyone who still cares about God's virtue of modesty, which He has made shine with such heavenly beauty in the Immaculate Virgin Mary, cannot forget how Our Lord suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane when He foresaw so many sinners, including the immodest and the impure, remaining unrepentant. And the sight of so many immodest creatures displaying crude flesh, like animals, brings vividly before our mind's eye the frightful vision of Our Divine Savior being mercilessly scourged at the pillar. We need not strain ourselves in trying to picture this scene, for we can plainly see the immodest, with their unchaste displays of flesh and figure, continually scourging Our Lord. And we can see them crowning Him with thorns and nailing Him to the Cross all over again.

And look what sorrow the immodest and the impure are causing their Sorrowful and Immaculate Mother, whom God has presented to them as the Perfect Model of Modesty and Purity!

But it has not all happened by accident. Satan planned it this way. As he has done with such evil movements as Communism and Socialism and Freemasonry, so also has he planned out a program of gradual, not sudden, destruction of the sense of modesty and purity. A mere look at the past 50 years or more shows us very plainly how gradually it was all done, first by apparently innocent abbreviations of garments and by slight revelations of bare flesh and by subtle little displays of the figure, and then, as protests died down, by more and more abbreviations and displays--until the crude immodesty of our day became a shocking reality.

Many living today have seen it all happen before their very eyes. They have lived through it and, if they have managed to retain their God-given moral sense, they find the barbarian immodesty of the this day intolerable and they look upon it as a sin crying to Heaven for the vengeance that must inevitably come if sinners continue to refuse to amend their ways.

Perhaps some 50 years ago or more, a publication known as The Frenchwoman presented the following satanic program for the destruction of the virtue of modesty: "Our children must realize the ideal of nakedness... Thus, the mentality of the child is rapidly transformed. To escape opposition, progress must be methodically graduated: first, feet and legs naked, then upturned sleeves; afterwards, the upper part of the chest; then, the back... n summer, they will go around almost naked."

Even if such a daring statement of the powers of darkness had never come to light--though "enlightened" liberals have tried to keep it in the dark--we would still know that it had to be planned that way and could not have happened by accident. And we would also know that such a program for immodesty could not have originated anywhere but in the dungeons of hell and in the mind of Satan.

The program of gradualism intended to lead eventually to the crude immodesty that we know so painfully well today was evidently drawn up, or at least made known, some time during the Fatima years, possibly a little before or after the 1917 Apparitions of Our Lady. (Maybe some well-informed person can provide a precise date.) Bearing this in mind, we can easily conclude that it was no accident that Our Lady insisted so strongly on modesty in her Fatima Message. She knew well of the evil program that would endanger so many immortal souls, and she came to Fatima to warn souls and to save them from the evil awaiting them.

As Sister Lucy has said, one of the things that Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress. And still better known, though disregarded, is Jacinta's prophecy: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much"--that little liked prophecy that leaves immodestly dressed "pious" women and girls callous and insensitive and cold.

Just as Our Lady was commissioned by God to oppose the rise of Russian Communism and all the other evils named in the Fatima Message, with God's own program of sanctification and salvation.

In connection with the timeliness of Our Lady's message of modesty in 1917, just when Satan's program of gradual nakedness was being put into effect, we must also mention the timeliness of the message of modesty of Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922). It is fairly well known how dynamic were his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, in promoting modesty of dress, but it is not as well known that Pope Benedict XV was before them a strenuous defender and promoter of modesty at a time when we might imagine it was not so much of a problem.

We cannot believe that the statements of Our Lady of Fatima and those of Pope Benedict XV on modesty were disconnected or were merely a matter of coincidence. We can only believe that both Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy Father of that time were inspired and guided by God Himself to speak out on modesty in dress, so as to counteract the wicked program of gradual nudism that was being inspired and guided by hell's father of iniquity.

Let us quote an important statement of Pope Benedict XV--by no means his only one--so that we may see how immodesty in dress had already begun to cause moral ruin among women and girls of his day. In an Encyclical Letter (Sacra Propediem, 1921) commemorating the 7th centenary of the founding of the Franciscan Third Order, Pope Benedict wrote as follows:

"From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty."

If we did not know that a Pope wrote this in 1921, we would surely think it was written, or should have been written by someone, in 1972!

After thus deploring the immodesty of his day, the Holy Father exhorted women with these words:

"In what concerns specially the Tertiary Sisters, We ask of them by their dress and manner of wearing it, to be models of holy modesty for other ladies and young girls; that they be thoroughly convinced that the best way for them to be of use to the Church and to Society is to labor for the improvement of morals."

Whose message, do you suppose, have women and girls accepted: the message of modesty of Our Lady of Fatima and of the Holy Father or, the message of immodesty of Lucifer?

Who has recommend to them short skirts, sleeveless dresses, pants, shorts, and clownish pants suits, and so on?

Not only did women and girls buy and buy and buy the clothing that through the years became gradually shorter and skimpier and tighter and ever more unladylike, thus making the whole program of gradual nakedness a huge success, but something else happened at the same time; the sense of modesty and propriety, which God has instilled into their souls, became gradually more blurred and dim and fuzzy, until in so many it became totally blacked out and dead. They did not, and do not, know what happened to them. By blindly and stupidly following the satanic program of gradual abbreviation of attire, they destroyed in themselves a precious God-given gift--the sense of modesty--so that they have now made themselves incapable of distinguishing between modesty and immodesty, nor do so many of them care to know.

And not only have women destroyed in themselves God's gift of modesty, but they have destroyed it in their children from their earliest years, so that a whole generation has been brought up without any real understanding of modesty without any desire to possess its beauty.

And, mind you, these have been "good" and "pious" women who have done this to their children! They have been the "Lord, Lord" type who have duly said their prayers, which all are obliged to do, but who have not done "the Will of My Father Who is in Heaven" (Mt. 7. 21) by obeying His law of modesty. (Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., The Remnant, 1972.)

 

Photographs of Mrs. Palin that ran in The New York Times in its online edition on Tuesday, September 23, 2008, as she hobnobbed with such enemies of the Faith and of the nation as Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger, Jr., showed Mrs. Palin, who was being escorted around the City of New York and at the United States by a bevy of neoconservatives eager for the next war in behalf of the State of Israel, utterly clueless about the virtue of Modesty as she offended God by showing off her legs. Who is going to teach her otherwise? Some conciliar "bishop"? Who is going to tell her that she is offend God, harming her own soul and causing a near occasion of sin to others?

Has anything changed in the past thirty-six years to make the words of Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., once seen fit to be printed in the pages of The Remnant, any the less relevant? Is God less offended now that a pro-contraception "feminist" is dressing immodestly as she calls herself "pro-life" while supporting the destruction of babies in the "hard case" of a possible threat to a mother's life? Is God pleased as so-called "conservatives" and even traditionally-minded Catholics are absolutely silent about this grave offense given to God by a woman should be at home with her children?

After all, my friends, it is the case in most Motu chapels that the "priests" offering or simulating the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition are barred from imposing any traditional standards of modesty of attire, including the wearing of chapel veils by women. How can "priests" who must accept immodesty in the context of what they believe to be is their offering of Holy Mass defend the Virtue of Modesty in society-at-large. Conciliarism has accepted the devil's program of gradualism of indecency of attire. Catholicism will never do so. Never. Not for one moment.

Then again, it's relatively easy to be silent about--or to even sneeringly dismiss the importance of--the Virtue of Modesty in a female candidate for public office who is, after all, so "pro-life," when one pats himself on the back about the necessity of being silent as the honor and majesty and glory of God is offended grievously by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI time and time and time again, especially as he esteems the symbols of false religions, each of which is hated by God, with his own priestly hands. To accustom oneself to offenses offered against God is to accustom oneself to all other concessions made to violations of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Does it matter to the common temporal good that God is offended by immodesty? The Catholic Church answers in the affirmative as the conciliar church answers in the negative.

Oh, yes, some will say that we are not electing saints. I will respond in advance by saying that we must at least strive for sanctity  as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, and that it is evil to extol the nonexistent "virtues" of a person as a fit holder of the public weal who is giving such bad example as she offends God so gravely in the objective order of things. The devil is advancing his agenda quite cleverly with Sarah Heath Palin, which is why the subtler evils of the day always pose such a more serious threat to the eternal good of souls--and thus to the common temporal good of nations--than the more overt manifestations of evil that can be identified and opposed as such. The devil without his tail is much more dangerous in his insidiousness than when he does show his tail.

Yes, there is, as I have been noting to the great anger of many others, it appears, a case to be made that the so-called "lesser evils" of the McCain-Palin ticket are really more of a threat to national well-being than the overt evils of the Obama-Biden ticket. The devil wins no matter who wins elections in the farce that is our Judeo-Masonic electoral system. He raises up these "false opposites" of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right" that yell and scream at each other in order to convince people that something "important" is at stake in each election cycle as his agenda of evil advances, whether radically or incrementally, with each passing year.

If the chastisement of an Obama-Biden administration winds up being visited upon us, my friends, the blame will rest not on on those of us who have pointed out the realities of our political system and who have refused to remain silent about the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, statism and Zionist neoconservatism of the McCain-Palin ticket, which is suffering at the present time from "overexposing" Governor Palin's patent ignorance of almost anything to do with public policy, whether in matters of domestic or foreign policy, to two recent interviews that have revealed her to be as clueless about the details of daily governance at the Federal level as she is about First and Last Things.

No. The remote blame will rest squarely on the fact that the false premises upon which our nation is founded must produce false conflicts amongst various types of naturalists so as to make it appear as though our problems are so "urgent" that we "don't have time" to waste on converting the nation so that we will succumb to the devil's strategy of gradualism and accustom ourselves to thinking and acting in naturalistic terms without ever once publicly defending the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen. And the proximate blame for an Obama-Biden victory will rest on George Walker Bush, whose reckless and irresponsible domestic and international policies have helped to bring the United States of America to the brink of being a Third World nation economically as babies are being killed at the same rate, both chemically and surgically, now as they were on January 20, 2001. God is not going to let this all continue indefinitely.

Like Padre Pio (who was just a little bit concerned about immodesty, was he not?) five centuries later, Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., made no compromises with evil. None. When cowardly priests in Geneva failed to stopped pagan practices right in their midst, Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., stepped in to do so:

Most of the valleys on the Italian descent of the Alps were also inhabited by heretics, especially in the diocese of Turin. St Vincent visited them in order, preaching in each of them the Catholic truth and attacking error with vigorous and irresistible energy. By the mercy of God, they each received the Divine Word with much ardor, piety and respect. The Saint's learning, his fervor and miracles opened the eyes of all. He observed that the chief cause of error and heresy was the total absence of preaching. He gathered from the inhabitants of the country that for thirty years no one has preach to them except Vaudois who came regularly among them twice a year. In the valley of Loferio, he reclaimed the Bishop of that poor erring flock; in that of Angrogne he destroyed the schools in which the ministers of error were educated; at Val-du-Pont he led the Cathari to renounce their abominations; at Val-de-Lanz he converted the descendants of the murderers of Saint Peter Martyr. He discovered in the diocese of Geneva a gross and wide-spread error. It was customary to celebrate every year, on the day following Corpus Christi, a feast in honor of the Orient, and confraternities were established under the name of St. Orient. No preacher dared to declaim against this monstrous error; the religious and the secular clergy were threatened either with death or the withdrawal of offerings and alms. But St. Vincent was above all such servile fears. He spoke freely against this abuse and effectually put a stop to it. He found matters in a still more lamentable state in the diocese of Lausanne, where the peasantry were accustomed to offer an idolatrous worship to the sun. He instructed them in the worship of God and put to flight all such superstitious practices. (Father Andrew Pradel, O.P., St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of Judgment, published originally in 1863 and republished in 2000 by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 79-80.)

 

An interesting footnote to this passage was given us by Father Pradel:

There was a striking resemblance between the St. Orient of the Albigenses and the Grand-Orient of modern Freemasonry. (Father Andrew Pradel, O.P., St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of Judgment, published originally in 1863 and republished in 2000 by TAN Books and Publishers, p. 193.)

 

Modernity and Modernism both are constructed from the diabolical formulae of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. While it is indeed despicable for the likes of Donna Brazile and Steve Cohen and others in the "leftist" camp of naturalism to blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, it is also reprehensible to believe that "progress" of some sort, at least, will be made by remaining silent about the offenses given to God by those in the "rightist" camp of naturalism in the midst of the insanity of the farce of American electoral politics. "Mario Pilate/Pontius Cuomo" describes not only the former Governor of the State of New York but the entire "personality," if you will, of a corrupt system of governance that is premised upon a rejection of the necessity of men and their nations subordinating themselves in all that pertains to the good of souls to the Deposit of Faith as It has been entrusted by Our Lord exclusively to His Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. "Truth? What is that?"

Saint Francis de Sales gave us a few thoughts to consider in An Introduction to the Devout Life:

At the end, after the time God has allotted for the duration of this world and after many signs and portents at which men will "wither away through fear" and apprehension, fire like a raging torrent will burn and reduce to ashes the whole face of the earth. Nothing that we see here will escape it. (Saint Francis de Sales, An Introduction to the Devout Life, p. 62.)

 

"Nothing that we see here will escape it." Not even the "glories" of the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian United States of America. We can advance the cause of the Social Reign of Christ the King now by refusing to participate in farce and by refusing to be silent about grave offenses to Him and to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, or we can answer to Him as Our King and Judge at the moment of our Particular Judgments for our belief that naturalism can be retarded by naturalism rather than by Catholicism and It alone.

Yesterday was the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, Our Lady of Mercy. Great work was done by Saints Raymond of Pennafort, Peter Nolasco, and Raymond Nonnatus in behalf of the rescuing of Catholics who were enslaved by the Mohammedans. We need to ask Our Lady of Ransom to have mercy upon us as we try to fulfill her Fatima Message by making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, praying our Rosaries and offering our prayers and penances and sufferings and mortifications and almsgiving to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Let us work in behalf of the governor of the human race, Christ the King, no matter who calumniates us in the process. Every Rosary we pray, each moment we spend before Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, every offering we make to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary can do far more for the good of souls and of our nation than all of the concerted, insane and absurd effort to make naturalism bear fruit against itself.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Ransom, pray for us!

 

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Linus, pray for us.

Saint Thecla, pray for us.

Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?