Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 8, 2013


Overthrow Christ the King, Overthrow All Truth,

Natural and Supernatural

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The Church recognizes as her own sphere faith and morals. She possesses and claims no mission in civil and political matters. The State appropriates to itself civil and political matters and assumes no authority in the domain of truth and morals. There is no room for conflict between Church and State; both move in separate and distinct spheres.

If the Church encroaches on the sphere of the State we should bid her be away; if the State enters into the sanctuaries of conscience, the proper empire of the Church, the appeal is to God, and the State is ordered to hold off its hands. There is not an American who will not say, "Better obey God than man," and this is all that Catholics ever would be permitted to say by the Catholic Church.

Separation of Church and State, as we have it in America, Church and State revolving freely in their respective spheres. Catholics fall behind none of their fellow-citizens in admiring it and demanding its continuance.

The Catholic Church wishes no aid from the State in the preaching of her Gospel. She rests her cause on its truth and beauty. But liberty from the State she wishes and clamors for, as a sacred and inalienable right; liberty in its fullest gifts under the common law of the land; liberty which other associations are entitled to and receive.

Yes, we claim liberty in our religious belief and observance and in the enjoyment of all our rights of citizenship.

I am a Catholic, I am a priest ad a bishop, but I am an American citizen, and I must be debarred from no rights or privileges accorded to other citizens, because I am a Catholic, or because I carry upon me the insignia of my priesthood. I can hold office and I can do work educational and charitable for the State, although I am Catholic and a priest, no one in the name of liberty shall debar me.

Separation of Church and State! Most assuredly. The State must not aid in the propagation of the faith of a Church, but she must not impede and hamper the Church in her work and close her out from the necessary opportunities to do it. Separation of Church and State! Most assuredly again. But let there not be in the working out of this separation wild and extreme measures, which would tend to make society godless and destroy in it all moral life and supernatural hopes. Often under the cover of separation of Church and State, infidelity and impiety are stealthily advancing their cause.

My words betray no fear for the future. Americans are a people of sincere religious convictions and of profound common sense, and they well know how to keep the Church and State separate, and yet give liberty its full sway, and guard religion and morals. (Archbishop John Ireland, "America and the Catholic Church," From a Sermon delivered on April 19, 1896, upon the occasion of the consecration of the Right Reverend Bishop O'Gorman. Full text found in The Voice of the Church, a book published by the Bishops of the United States of America in 1899, pp. 129-130.)


No fear for the future, John Ireland?

Americans "know full well how to keep the Church and State separate, and yet give liberty its full sway, and guard religion and morals," John Ireland?

Let's see how this pile of odiferous garbage is working out for the United States of America today:

A federal judge on Friday ordered that the most common morning-after pill be made available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger. But his acidly worded decision raises a broader question about whether a cabinet secretary can decide on a drug’s availability for reasons other than its safety and effectiveness.

In his ruling, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York accused the Obama administration of putting politics ahead of science. He concluded that the administration had not made its decisions based on scientific guidelines, and that its refusal to lift restrictions on access to the pill, Plan B One-Step, was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”

He said that when the Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, countermanded a move by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 to make the pill, which helps prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse, universally available, “the secretary’s action was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”

Ms. Sebelius said at the time that she was basing her decision on science because she said the manufacturer had failed to study whether the drug was safe for girls as young as 11, about 10 percent of whom are physically able to bear children. But her decision was widely interpreted as political because emergency contraception had become an issue in the abortion debate and allowing freer access for adolescents would prompt critics to accuse the president of supporting sexual activity for girls of that age.

At the time, Mr. Obama was campaigning for re-election, and some Democrats said he was conscious of avoiding divisive issues that might alienate voters. He said then that he was not involved in the decision but supported it. “I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine,” he said.

And he reiterated that position on Friday through the White House press secretary,Jay Carney, who said, “He believed it was a common-sense approach when it comes to Plan B and its availability.”

Mr. Carney declined to comment on whether the administration would appeal the decision. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Allison Price, said the department was reviewing the 59-page order and the appellate options and “expects to act promptly.” Judge Korman gave the F.D.A. 30 days to lift any age and sale restrictions on Plan B One-Step and its generic versions.

Many groups that are part of Mr. Obama’s political base praised the decision to make the emergency contraceptive pill more easily available, saying the change would also make it easier for all women to obtain the pill because stores often keep it behind the counter or in pharmacy sections that may close at night.

Removing the restrictions is in some ways is more consistent with the administration’s position on other women’s reproductive health issues, including the free provision of contraceptives through Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul.

Scientists, including those at the Food and Drug Administration, have recommended unrestricted access for years, as have the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. They contend that the restrictions effectively keep many adolescents and younger teenagers from being able to use a safe drug in a timely way to prevent pregnancy, which carries greater safety risks than the morning-after pill.

Conservative and anti-abortion groups assailed the judge’s decision, suggesting that it may allow the pill to be given to young girls without their consent. They also say that girls who can skip the requirement to visit a doctor for a prescription may have sexually transmitted infections that go undiagnosed and untreated.

“This ruling places the health of young girls at risk,” said Anna Higgins, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council.

The judge’s decision, a rare case in which a court has weighed in to order that a drug be made available over the counter, could test the question of who gets the final say in such matters.

“Technically the secretary under the law has the right to make the decision,” said Daniel Carpenter, a professor of government at Harvard. “But there is other long-established law that says the decision is supposed to be based on the safety and efficacy of the drug.”

Some legal experts said the decision sent a strong signal to the White House.

“If they’re going to interfere with decisions of expert regulatory agencies, they must find credible scientific justification; otherwise judges will be inclined to step in and stop them,” said Lewis A. Grossman, a law professor at American University.

In his ruling, Judge Korman accused the federal government of “bad faith” in dealing with the requests over more than a decade to make the pill universally available.

“The F.D.A. has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the petition,” the judge wrote. “Indeed, it could accurately be described as an administrative agency filibuster.”

He added, “The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency’s misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the F.D.A. to engage in further delay and obstruction.”

The drug’s manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, declined to comment on the decision on Friday. In a separate order, the judge denied a motion filed by the company to preserve market exclusivity.

Plan B was approved in 1999 as a prescription-only product, and in 2001, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a citizens petition for it to be made available over the counter or without a prescription. Scientists, including an expert advisory panel to the F.D.A., gave early support to that request. But top agency officials rejected the application because, some said later, they worried they would be fired if they approved it.

President George W. Bush’s administration in 2006 allowed over-the-counter sales to women 18 and older but required a prescription for those 17 and younger. In 2009, Judge Korman directed that the pill be made available over the counter for those 17 and older.

A former Health and Human Services official during Mr. Obama’s first term said that when Ms. Sebelius overruled the F.D.A. in 2011, she was concerned about the lack of research about how the drug would affect very young girls. But the official, who declined to be named in order to discuss internal deliberations, said the secretary was also being pragmatic by not taking a stand that would have immediately drawn intense criticism from abortion opponents.

“We would have been fighting the contraception fight over whether we let a 7-year-old girl walk into Walgreens and get the morning-after pill,” the official said. “Let’s have it on terms we can win it on, rather than something that’s easy to mock.” The official said Ms. Sebelius would probably feel the same way today.

Several supporters of the judge’s decision on Friday, including representatives of women’s reproductive health groups and the American Academy of Pediatrics, said they believed that since the election was over, the Obama administration would have less of a political reason to oppose expanded access to the pill.

Susannah Baruch, interim president of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said advocates met with officials at the F.D.A. and the Health and Human Services Department soon after the election “around the question of whether they would do what the court is now ordering them to do.” But she said it had been “hard to read the tea leaves” to determine if those efforts had been making headway. (Judge Strikes Down Age Limits on Morning-After Pill.)


Before returning to John Ireland's elegy of praise in behalf of "separation of Church and State" that has been condemned by one true pope after another, it is necessary to dispense with the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic named Kathleen Sebelius and her "touching" concern for the "safety" of girls under the age of sixteen who might purchase the so-called "Plan B morning after emergency contraceptive:" that is nothing other than an abortifacient.

First, Kathleen Sebelius has no concern whatsoever for the safety of the innocent babies who will be killed by the abortifacient. In this Kathleen Sebelius, who remains a "Catholic" in "good standing" in the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas, despite her support for one abject moral evil after another, is merely repeating then Texas Governor George Walker Bush's concern for the "safety" of women who might use the baby-killing potion called RU-486, the human pesticide otherwise known as the French abortion pill, after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services in September of 2000:


BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision.

MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to --

BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women.

GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision.

BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug.  (2000 Debate Transcript) [Droleskey comment: Uh, Mister Former President, the President of the United States of America can make appointments to the Food and Drug Administration who could indeed overturn such a decision by means of an administrative fiat.)

Second, there is a special irony represented by the fact that the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Sebelius, serving in the pro-abortion, pro-perversity administration of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., did that which then Texas Governor George Walker Bush said on October 3, 2000, he would be powerless to do: reverse a decision of the "scientists" employed by United States Food and Drug Administration.

Third, Sebelius and former President George Walker Bush are joined at the hip in having expressed "concern" for the "safety" of women while being utterly unconcerned about the lives of innocent babies. So much for the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-life." How many times do I have to drive home the point that any notion that there is a "difference" between the false opposites of the organized crime families of the naturalist "right" and the the naturalist "left" is delusional. There is no such difference. It's all just so much rhetoric.

Fourth, let us also remember the simple fact that the supposedly "pro-life" administration of President George Walker Bush and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney, who is now an open supporter of "gay marriage," first approved over-the-counter-sales of the "Plan B morning after emergency" abortifacient in August of 1986:


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced approval of Plan B, a contraceptive drug, as an over-the-counter (OTC) option for women aged 18 and older. Plan B is often referred to as emergency contraception or the "morning after pill." It contains an ingredient used in prescription birth control pills--only in the case of Plan B, each pill contains a higher dose and the product has a different dosing regimen. Like other birth control pills, Plan B has been available to all women as a prescription drug. When used as directed, Plan B effectively and safely prevents pregnancy. Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.

Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals, will make Plan B available with a rigorous labeling, packaging, education, distribution and monitoring program. In the CARE (Convenient Access, Responsible Education) program Duramed commits to:

  • Provide consumers and healthcare professionals with labeling and education about the appropriate use of prescription and OTC Plan B, including an informational toll-free number for questions about Plan B;
  • Ensure that distribution of Plan B will only be through licensed drug wholesalers, retail operations with pharmacy services, and clinics with licensed healthcare practitioners, and not through convenience stores or other retail outlets where it could be made available to younger women without a prescription;
  • Packaging designed to hold both OTC and prescription Plan B. Plan B will be stocked by pharmacies behind the counter because it cannot be dispensed without a prescription or proof of age; and
  • Monitor the effectiveness of the age restriction and the safe distribution of OTC Plan B to consumers 18 and above and prescription Plan B to women under 18.

Today's action concludes an extensive process that included obtaining expert advice from a joint meeting of two FDA advisory committees and providing an opportunity for public comment on issues regarding the scientific and policy questions associated with the application to switch Plan B to OTC use. Duramed's application raised novel issues regarding simultaneously marketing both prescription and non-prescription Plan B for emergency contraception, but for different populations, in a single package.

The agency remains committed to a careful and rigorous scientific process for resolving novel issues in order to fulfill its responsibility to protect the health of all Americans. (FDA Approves Over-the-Counter Access for Plan B for Women 18 and Over .)

Fifth, Kathleen Sebelius is a fool to think that fifty years of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments--and the attendant explosion of filthy magazines and books and motion pictures and television programs and demonic music--can do anything other than to break down the natural psychological resistance of children to that which is age-inappropriate to them, thus leading them to want to do things with their bodies that are inherently unsafe because they are opposed to their eternal and temporal good up to the point of losing their lives.

All right, so much for the games that naturalists play. It's all a farce, a complete and utter farce.

Now, back to John Ireland's elegy of praise in behalf of "separation of Church and State."

First, let us compare John Ireland's praise in 1896 of the "separation of Church and State" as it exists in the United States of America with its condemnation by Pope Leo XIII of that very thing just a year before in Longiqua Oceani, encyclical letter to the bishops of the United States of America:


Separation of Church and State, as we have it in America, Church and State revolving freely in their respective spheres. Catholics fall behind none of their fellow-citizens in admiring it and demanding its continuance. (John Ireland, 1896.)

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. 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. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

John Ireland was an apostate.

Second, let us compare John Ireland's belief that the State must not aid in the propagation of "the faith of the Church" to the teaching of the Catholic Church as expressed succinctly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

Separation of Church and State! Most assuredly. The State must not aid in the propagation of the faith of a Church, but she must not impede and hamper the Church in her work and close her out from the necessary opportunities to do it. Separation of Church and State! Most assuredly again. But let there not be in the working out of this separation wild and extreme measures, which would tend to make society godless and destroy in it all moral life and supernatural hopes. Often under the cover of separation of Church and State, infidelity and impiety are stealthily advancing their cause. (John Ireland, 1896.)

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." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The civil state has a positive obligation to recognize the true Faith as its officials seek to foster the common temporal good in of man's last end, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. Civil leaders have an obligation to seek the common temporal good in accord with the binding precepts Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Christ the King to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Holy Mother Church has the right from Christ the King Himself to interpose herself with civil leaders when they propose to do things--or have in fact done things--that are grievously harmful to the good of souls.

Third, John Ireland's purely Americanist, naturalist belief that there could never be the "wild and extreme measures" that would lead to "impiety and infidelity" in the American conception of "separation of Church and State is laughable on its very face as nations that do not recognize the true Church as its official religion are bound to degenerate over the course of time as ours has done. The decline in the past fifty years or so has been particularly noticeable because of the dearth of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces as a result of the sacramentally barren liturgical rites of conciliarism and the efforts on the part of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "Petrine Ministers" and "bishops" to weakly oppose various social evils on purely naturalistic or interdenominational or nondenominational grounds.

Our true popes have told us that calamity faces those nations that practice any kind of "separation of Church and State:"


But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

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," 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."

4. 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 Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

In other words, like everything else happening in the United States of America at this time, the decision of Judge Edward B. Korman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is just another consequence of the false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America rest. We are only witnessing the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of the founding principles, enunciated in the main by men who had a founding hatred for Christ the King.

Yet it is that "conservatives" in the United States of America believe that we are going to turn all of this back in the voting booths. Wrong. While there are efforts being made in various state legislatures to stop most surgical executions of babies, those efforts will be challenged in Federal courts, resulting in cases that will be combined for review by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. As currently constituted and considering that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has been a consistent vote in favor of retaining the "core principles" of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 2009, the well-intentioned efforts at the state level will come a cropper just as surely as challenges to the so-called Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act (ObamaCare) came undone nine months ago now (see Here To Stay). As I have tried to explain before, Stick A Fork In"U.S.," We Are Done, Cooked.

Also remaining steadfast in their refusal to fight moral evil with the leaven of Catholic truth, the conciliar revolutionaries have proved themselves to be just as naturalistic as "conservatives" in the political realm, which is why all of their efforts have come to naught and will continue to fail utterly.

The new "Petrine Minister" has boasted that he does not employ the supernatural to oppose such evils as abortion. While it is true that biology teaches us that a human being exists at the moment of conception, it is also true that it is the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment that codify the absolute prohibition of the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life at any time for any reason. Naturalism can never be used to oppose naturalism, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now masquerading as "Pope" Francis, does not accept. Indeed, he is arrogant in refusing to acknowledge this simple truth:

Bergoglio says, “The moral problem of abortion is pre-religious in nature because the genetic code of the person happens in the moment of conception. A human being is already there. I separate the topic of abortion from any religious concept. It is a scientific problem. To not let the development continue of a being who already has all the genetic code of a human being is not ethical. The right to life is the first of human rights. To abort is to kill someone who cannot defend himself.”

Skorka says that though Judaism allows some room for abortion in certain situations -- such as when the mother’s life is endangered -- “our culture has in large part lost respect for the sanctity of life and that is the problem that needs to be addressed.”

Argentina legalized same-sex marriage in July 2010. Skorka says the issue was handled in a way that did a disservice to the profoundness of the analysis the topic deserves. “There are already many same-sex couples who live together who deserve a legal solution to questions of pension, inheritance, etc., that might fit into a new legal model, but to equate the homosexual couple to a heterosexual couple is something else,” he said.

To serve its people, Bergoglio says, religion has the right to its say over certain topics in private and public life. “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”

“We condemn the spiritual harassment that happens when a minister imposes directives, behaviors, requirements in such a way that deprive the other of freedom,” Bergoglio says.

Still, he agrees with Skorka that in natural law and the Bible, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. He describes gay marriage as an “anthropological setback” because it weakens an “ancient institution that was forged according to nature and anthropology.”

He goes on to explain that other concepts like living together before marriage, while not right from a religious perspective, do not carry the stigma they did 50 years ago.

“It is sociological fact that certainly does not have the fullness and greatness of marriage, which is an ancient value that deserves to be defended,” Bergoglio says. “That is why we warn against its devaluation and, before modifying jurisprudence, there must be ample reflection on what all comes into play.” (Book co-written with Argentine rabbi sheds light on Apostate Francisí views.)


"I separate abortion from any religious concept"?

Human beings must be taught to love God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church. They must be taught to obey His commandments for love of Him, upon which obedience depends the entirety of personal and social order.

Jorge, you apostate, you, it's kind of like this:


Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)


The minister "does not have a right to force the private life of anyone"?



How is it a use of force to exhort sinners to convert?

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ expressed His understanding of the frailty of fallen human nature as He saved the life of his friend Saint Mary Magdalene from being stoned to death as she was caught in the act of adultery. He then told her to reform her life:

[6] And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. [7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. [10] Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

[11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. (John 8: 6-11.)


Jorge Mario Bergoglio is unwilling even to do this as he calls "same-sex marriage" an "anthropological setback." What about it being offensive in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity? What about the sin of Sodom being one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply a southern cousin of the likes of John Ireland James Gibbons. Coming from the Americas, he is a perfect son of the Americanism born right here in the United States of America that incorporates the errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry into an open attack on the Incarnation of the the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb at the Annunciation.

Purely natural means to retard evil?

Think again:


We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and his conciliar "bishops," many of whom have endorsed the so called "morning after emergency" abortifacient to be administered to women who have been the victims of bodily assault, do not think, speak or act in such terms. There is a reason for this: they are not Catholic. They are men who have tried to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892). They are outside of the pale of the Catholic Faith.

Yes, overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King and you must overthrow all truth, natural and supernatural, in the process. It is that simple. Things are going to get much, much worse in the years ahead. Much worse.

We must simply do our parts to sanctify our souls as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, keeping in mind that God has known from all eternity that we would be alive in these challenging times. There is work for us to do as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart. We must consider it our privilege to do this work as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Do not live in fear. Our Lord told us not to fear those who kill the body, fear only him who can destroy the soul:

And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him.

Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? Yea, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: you are of more value than many sparrows. And I say to you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. But he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say; For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. (Luke 12: 4-12.)


We must never deny Christ the King before men. We must always raise the standard of Christ the King as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly with Rosary processions by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Revelation, John Ireland and Jorge Mario Bergoglio notwithstanding.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!


Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.