Six Out of Nine, Not That It Matters
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
What I wrote twenty-four days ago in
Suiting Disorder Quite Consistently is relevant once again in light of President Barack Hussein Obama's selection of United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace the retiring David H. Souter as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America:
Naturalists of the "conservative" stripe assess judicial nominees on the basis of "strict-constructionism" of the words of the Constitution of the United States of America. Positivists such as the pro-abortion, Marxist-trained statist named Barack Hussein Obama assess judicial nominees on the basis of a jurisprudence founded in pure subjectivism:
"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." (Obama hopes to replace Souter by October - More politics- msnbc.com.)
The "debate" that will take place along the naturalist fault-lines of the false opposites of "the left" and "the right" over David Souter's replacement on the Supreme Court of the United States of America would be a needless one if this country were known as the Catholic States of America, a land where men and women would understand that no one is truly free unless he yokes himself entirely to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, found this very day by Saint Helena, the fearless defender of the Faith from the time she was baptized by Saint Alban in Britain and the mother of Emperor Constantine, who saw the Cross in the sky as a sign of his impending victory over the forces of Galerius, as It is lifted high by the Catholic Church, a land would understand that civil law must be subordinated to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls, a land where those in civil authority recognized the Catholic Church as the true religion and pursued the common temporal good in light of man's Last End. The "debate" about David Souter's replacement is indeed just another sorry indication of the evil effects of a nation founded on the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity.
Civil law is not meant to be founded on the shifting sands of "popular sovereignty," as many "conservatives" and "libertarians" claim, or on the shifting sands of judicial positivism (the belief that morality is determined by the vote of judges as they assess the constitutionality of various pieces of legislation and/or executive/administrative actions and orders). Civil law is meant to be founded on a due subordination to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church.
No one in public life today, whether a Catholic or a non-Catholic accepts the truth that civil law must be subordinated in all things that pertain to the good of souls to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. No one in public life today, whether a Catholic or a non-Catholic, believes this simple reiteration of the perennial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the obligation of the civil state to recognize her as the true religion and to undertake its pursuit of the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity:
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.)
It should not surprise us, therefore, that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has not been selected by Caesar Obamus to succeed the pro-abortion David Souter, an appointee of former President George Herbert Walker Bush, who, at the recommendation of the pro-abortion Catholic United States Senator from the State of New York, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, nominated Sotomayor in 1991 to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for Southern New York, because she adheres to a truly Catholic understanding of jurisprudence and a thorough appreciation of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church enunciated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos. Sotomayor was selected because she adheres to the legal positivism and subjectivism that are but the logical consequences of a constitutional system that rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King is thus subject to the vagaries of whichever "opinion" happens to prevail amongst the public or the proclivities of those who serve in its institutions at any given point in time.
Caesar Obamus himself, citing the penultimate American exponent of legal positivism (the belief that the morality of human actions is determined solely by the limits of the civil law, which are themselves determined by the "will" of the people and/or their representatives in the institutions of civil governance), the late Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Untied States of America from December 8, 1902, to January 12, 1932, explained his selection of Judge Sotomayor as follows:
First and foremost is a rigorous intellect -- a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court. (Remarks of Caesar Obamus.)
Barack Hussein Obama's use of "respect for precedent" has nothing to do with a respect for the words of the Constitution of the United States of America in the things that appertain to Caesar and thus are within the realm of men to determine for themselves, keeping mind, as men must do at all times and in all circumstances, the greater honor and glory of God and the good of souls. No, Obama's invocation of a "respect for precedent" (stare decisis, "let the decision stand") has everything to do with "respect" the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Although Judge Sotomayor has ruled infrequently in cases involving abortion--and none involving any direct challenges to the core findings held by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), the fact that Obama went out of the way to mention "a respect for precedent" is a very good indication that he considers her to be a "safe pick" to continue David Souter's legacy of blood on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
It is also interesting to point out that, apart from referring to his own duties under the Constitution and the fact that he had consulted with "constitutional" scholars and that Judge Sotomayor had herself dealt with "constitutional" issues in her years as a Federal judge, Caesar Obamus did not make one single reference to the Constitution itself. Why should he have done so? After all, a document that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words as the foundation of social order contains the seeds of its own dissolution into irrelevancy as "experience" trumps "logic" and any consideration of an objective morality founded in the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. This kind of subjectivism is one of the major linkages between the errors of Modernity and those of Modernism, as will be explored yet again, if ever so briefly, at the conclusion of this commentary.
Caesar Obamus's invocation of the penultimate legal positivist, Oliver Wendell Holmes (I always preferred Oliver Wendell Douglas of Green Acres), is quite a telling commentary as Holmes believed the majority had the "right" to enforce its "will" upon the minority by "force" if necessary. He made this abundantly clear in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, in which he wrote a thoroughly utilitarian opinion justifying a compulsory sterilization law that has been passed by the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia:
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208] But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Buck v. Bell)
Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of law was indeed based on "experience" and not "logic." He used the discredited, diabolical precepts of utilitarianism (public policy must be based upon the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" even if "traditional" concepts of morality are violated in the process) and the sort of Social Darwinism that was near and dear to the heart of the woman who started the Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger (whose motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief issue of birth control"), as the foundation for his decision in the case of Buck v. Bell. Indeed, Holmes's overt rejection of the Natural Law as the foundation of jurisprudence (legal reasoning) and the civil law in favor of legal positivism extended quite explicitly to a rejection of the inviolability of innocent human life under of cover of the civil law, as Holmes made clear in a 1918 essay against the Natural Law in the Harvard Law Review:
The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.
Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)
One of the many paradoxes found in a system where a nation's constitution and civil laws, whether passed at the Federal or state levels, do not explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is that it spawns competing teams of naturalists and positivists to vie with each other as to whether they will be bound by a "strict constructionist" approach to the interpretation of the words of the United States Constitution or bound only by a general, Roussean sense of "experience," referred to quite specifically by the legal positivist Barack Hussein Obama, that was described as follows by the late Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:
Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.
The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.
The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.
To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy.
Sotomayor, who has been described by the White House as having been
"raised as Catholic and attends church for family and other important events" (see
Obama nominates New York Latina to Supreme Court), will join five other Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito). Although there are differences and nuances and shadings and even differences among the five Catholics who serve currently on the Supreme Court, each is legal positivist who rejects the use of the Natural Law as any kind of foundation for an interpretation of the United States Constitution and/or as a means of interpreting state laws and local ordinances.
Four of these Catholics (Robert, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) are legal positivists who believe in a "strict construction" of the words of the Constitution and that nothing extraneous to those words, including any interpretation or application of Natural Law principles, can be used in the process of judicial decision-making. The fifth Catholic, Anthony Kennedy, is from the school of legal positivism that believes it is necessary to use a "broad" interpretation of the Constitution in order to "discover" "rights" (such as the "right to privacy) in one case and then to "protect" or "refine" their application in subsequent cases, e.g., the "discovery" of the "right to privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut that led to the outcomes in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, an example that Kennedy used in his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate on December 15, 1987:
The CHAIRMAN. And this may save some time, because I had a
whole round of questions on this.
Let me put it to you very bluntly. Do you think Griswold was
reasoned properly?
Judge KENNEDY. I really think I would like to draw the line and
not talk about the Griswold case so far as its reasoning or its
result.
I would say that if you were going to propose a statute or a hypothetical
that infringed upon the core values of privacy that the
Constitution protects, you would be hard put to find a stronger case
than Griswold.
The CHAIRMAN. That doesn't answer the question. Is there a
marital right to privacy protected by the Constitution?
Judge KENNEDY. Yes—pardon, is there a
The CHAIRMAN. Marital right to privacy.
Judge KENNEDY. Marital right to privacy; that is what I thought
you said. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. (Questioning of Judge Anthony Kennedy by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., December 15, 1987)
The then Judge Anthony Kennedy had been asked by Senator Biden the day before about a conversation he had had with United States Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina, now deceased), who drew the inference that Kennedy's calling himself a "practicing Catholic" and that he, Kennedy, "admired" Helm's pro-life position was an indication that Kennedy would use his religious beliefs as a foundation of judicial decision-making. This concerned the pro-abortion Catholic, Biden, who had just helped to torpedo the nomination of another "strict constructionist" positivist, Judge Robert Bork:
Judge KENNEDY:
Now it would be highly improper for a judge to allow his, or her,
own personal or religious views to enter into a decision respecting
a constitutional matter. There are many books that I will not read,
that I do not let, or these days do not recommend, my children
read. That does not prohibit me from enforcing the first amendment
because those books are protected by the first amendment.
A man's, or a woman's, relation to his, or her, God, and the fact
that he, or she, may think they are held accountable to a higher
power, may be important evidence of a person's character and temperament.
It is irrelevant to his, or her, judicial authority. When
we decide cases we put such matters aside, and as—I think it
was—Daniel Webster said, "Submit to the judgment of the nation
as a whole."
The CHAIRMAN. SO Judge, when you said—if it is correct—to Senator
Helms: "Indeed I do, and I admire it, I am a practicing Catholic," you were not taking, at that point a position on the constitutional
question that has been and continues to be before the Court?
Judge KENNEDY. TO begin with, that was not the statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you tell us what
Judge KENNEDY. We had a wide-ranging discussion and those two
matters were not linked.
The CHAIRMAN. Those two matters were not linked. So the article
is incorrect?
Judge KENNEDY. In my view, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. I thank you. My time is up. (Questioning of Judge Anthony Kennedy by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.)
Anyone who believes in the delusion that the heresy of Americanism was "phantom" in nature, that is, that it never existed, ought to re-read Anthony Kennedy's testimony before the now Vice President of the United States of America, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., on December 14 and 15, 1987. Kennedy's answers reek of Americanism and Americanism's acceptance of legal positivism of one form or another as the foundation of law and jurisprudence.
Antonin Scalia, who had been confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1986, has a different brand of legal positivism than Anthony Kennedy, founded in a "respect" for the "original meaning" (originalism) of the words contained in the Constitution. He has on many occasions, including one time in my own hearing in a question-and-answer session at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, following a "communion breakfast" talk in May of 1987, said that, although he believes in the Natural Law, he could not use the Natural Law in the process of judicial decision-making.
Scalia went on to state that it is was belief that abortion is neither permitted or prohibited by the words of the United States Constitution, a contention that is arguable solely on the grounds of a proper reading of the text of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. According to Scalia, therefore, as abortion is a matter "reserved" for the states to decide for themselves as baby-killing is neither prohibited or permitted by the Constitution itself. He would be duty bound, he said, to uphold the constitutionality of a state law permitting abortion as long as it had been passed legally and did not violate that state's own constitutional provisions. "You write it," he told the crowd, "and I'll enforce it." This prompted me to write an extensive critique for The Wanderer of the fallacy of this exercise in positivism entitled, "You write it, I'll enforce it."
Each of the Catholics who serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America at the present time believe that the "people" have the final say as to what is considered legally acceptable, whether by means of the words of the United States Constitution, the provisions of state constitutions, the results of ballot initiatives at the state level designed to amend state constitutions or to overturn to revise state laws, or the language of state legislation. These Catholics (John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito) do not understood or do not accept that human beings may not, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, permit grievous violations of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law or the Natural and/or seek to justify those violations of God's Law as matters that are "reserved" to "the people" to decide as they see fit.
Those who serve in institutions of civil governance have a grave obligation before God to uphold the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to and explicated by Holy Mother Church, she who is the sole teacher and authentic governor of all men and all nations in all that pertains to the good of souls and thus the right ordering of men and their nations. This truth applies to all men in all circumstances at all times. Contrary to the contentions made publicly by Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, Catholics, in particular, do indeed have a grave obligation to use the Faith as the basis of each of their actions at all times.
Pope Leo XIII explained this very clearly 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.
After all, did not a good deal of the English common law, which is still recognized at the Federal level as applicable in cases tried in Federal courts, have its origins as Catholic judges in Catholic England during the Middle Ages attempted to apply the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in concrete circumstances without "statutory guidance" from any kind of legislature, at least until the emergence of the Magna Carta in 1215?
Sonia Sotomayor, if confirmed, as seems almost inevitable, will bring her own brand of legal positivism to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, a brand that might continue the sort of legal positivism that had been practiced by the man who, from October 16, 1956, to July 20, 1990, held the very seat for which she has been nominated: Associate Justice William Brennan, a Catholic, appointed by a Republican president (Dwight David Eisenhower), who provided one of the seven votes in favor of unrestricted baby-killing from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural birth in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton on January 22, 1973. Brennan died as a Catholic in "good standing" in the conciliar structures on July 24, 1997, without ever recanting in his vote in those--or subsequent--cases upholding a woman's nonexistent "right" to kill her preborn baby under cover of the civil law. Nothing will happen "canonically" to Sonia Sotomayor if she winds up being another William Brennan.
The embrace of legal positivism by Catholics does indeed demonstrate the great influence that the Americanist heresy has had over the course of 232 years now. That is, the belief that it is "permissible" to separate one's "private" beliefs from public policy statements and positions and from judicial decision-making is accepted by a fairly substantial percentage of Catholics no matter the particular sort of naturalism (liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, socialism, statism) to which they are attached and through which they view the world.
Many "pro-life" Catholics in public life find "constitutional" or "secular" grounds to oppose evils such as abortion or contraception or "marriage" between those engaged in acts of unnatural vice contrary to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, eschewing any "confessional" advertences to Catholic truth as the only foundation of personal and social order. Other Catholics use "constitutional" or "secular" or emotional grounds to support such evils.
This kind of political ecumenism has brought the same sort of stillborn results as the false ecumenism of concilairism itself. And the reason that this is so is because the true bishops of the United States of America prior to the "Second" Vatican Council and their conciliar "successors" thereafter did not, at least for the most part, ever teach Catholics that Catholicism is one and only foundation of personal and social order and that we must refer each of our actions to our Final End at all times, something that Pope Saint Pius X made clear in Singulari Qudam, September 24, 1912:
Accordingly, We first of all declare that all Catholics have a sacred and inviolable duty, both in private and public life, to obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth enunciated by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. In particular We mean those principles which Our Predecessor has most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter "Rerum Novarum." We know that the Bishops of Prussia followed these most faithfully in their deliberations at the Fulda Congress of 1900. You yourselves have summarized the fundamental ideas of these principles in your communications regarding this question.
These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. All who glory in the name of Christian, either individually or collectively, if they wish to remain true to their vocation, may not foster enmities and dissensions between the classes of civil society. On the contrary, they must promote mutual concord and charity. The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen's strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. "The precise opposite is the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion.
As this simple truth of the Catholic Faith is ignored by Americanist practitioners of legal positivism from the false "opposites" of the naturalist "left" and the naturalist "right," Catholics who serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America must find themselves engaged in endless semantic exercises of interpreting a document, the Constitution, that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words, thus conflicting with each other in a manner akin to the battles fought between "literalist" Protestants and "liberal" Protestants over how to interpret Sacred Scripture. As both sets of Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church as the sole repository and infallible teaching of all that is contained in Divine Revelation, including Sacred Scripture, one side strains to find "original meaning" while the other more or less ignores the words of Sacred Scripture altogether in order to "move faith with the times." This is exactly the battle that is fought on the battleground of the Constitution, not the Bible, among Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America (and elsewhere in public life) who subscribe to the tenets of legal positivism.
What is true for Catholics who subscribe to legal positivism as the means to deal with constitutions and other laws enacted by institutions of civil governance--and what is true for Protestants who interpret the Bible in a positivist manner--is true also for the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who believe that they must "read anew" certain passages of Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Fathers of the Church as they have been taught by the Church in the past, believing that Scholasticism has "corrupted" the meaning of Holy Writing and of the writings of the Fathers. This is of the essence of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "new theology" and his lifelong approach to dogmatic truth, which he has labeled the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity.
Like those who subscribe to legal positivism, Modernists must reject the dogmatic authority of the Catholic Church in order to justify their apostasies and sacrileges and blasphemies. Pope Saint Pius X pointed this out in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only one truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, "written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their author'' declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with St. Augustine: "In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author willfully and to serve a purpose." And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that "everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes in them," namely, the Scriptures. But the Modernists pursue their way eagerly. They grant also that certain arguments adduced in the Sacred Books in proof of a given doctrine, like those, for example, which are based on the prophecies, have no rational foundation to rest on. But they defend even these as artifices of preaching, which are justified by life. More than that. They are ready to admit, nay, to proclaim that Christ Himself manifestly erred in determining the time when the coming of the Kingdom of God was to take place; and they tell us that we must not be surprised at this since even He Himself was subject to the laws of life! After this what is to become of the dogmas of the Church? The dogmas bristle with flagrant contradictions, but what does it matter since, apart from the fact that vital logic accepts them, they are not repugnant to symbolical truth. Are we not dealing with the infinite, and has not the infinite an infinite variety of aspects? In short, to maintain and defend these theories they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object of contradictory statements! But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?
But it is not solely by objective arguments that the non-believer may be disposed to faith. There are also those that are subjective, and for this purpose the modernist apologists return to the doctrine of immanence. They endeavor, in fact, to persuade their non-believer that down in the very depths of his nature and his life lie hidden the need and the desire for some religion, and this not a religion of any kind, but the specific religion known as Catholicism, which, they say, is absolutely postulated by the perfect development of life. And here again We have grave reason to complain that there are Catholics who, while rejecting immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a method of apologetics, and who do this so imprudently that they seem to admit, not merely a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural, such as has at all times been emphasized, within due limits, by Catholic apologists, but that there is in human nature a true and rigorous need for the supernatural order. Truth to tell, it is only the moderate Modernists who make this appeal to an exigency for the Catholic religion. As for the others, who might he called integralists, they would show to the non-believer, as hidden in his being, the very germ which Christ Himself had in His consciousness, and which He transmitted to mankind. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony with their doctrines -- methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the making of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are Catholics into heresy; and tending to the utter subversion of all religion.
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history.
And thus it is that Saint Augustine, condemning the theological positivism of Protestants some eleven hundred years before Martin Luther, explained to us that a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church as the sole repository of the Sacred Scriptures would result in a situation where "everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes in them." And it is the theological positivism of Protestantism, wrought by its overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the confessionally Catholic civil state, that has made possible the recrudescence and the triumph of legal positivism in the minds and hearts of so many Catholics in public life, including the five who now serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the sixth who will join them shortly. The Modernism of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose "popes" have rejected the Social Reign of Christ the King and the confessionally Catholic civil state, has played its own role in helping the cancer of Protestantism's positivism to spread more and more into the hearts and minds of Catholics and into their institutions of civil governments.
Six out of nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America will be Catholic by the time the Court reconvenes on the first Monday in October, Monday, October 5, 2009, after its summer recess begins at the end of next month. What does this matter? Not a thing. Not a thing at all. It matters not to what should matter most to us as Catholics who love our country and want to see its conversion to the true Faith: the Social Reign of Christ the King.
There are some postings I discovered yesterday, when researching Judge Sotomayor's current religious affiliation (it was on a site called "Belief.net" that a man named Steve Waldman confirmed from a spokesman in the White House that Caesar Obamus's Supreme Court nominee still identifies herself as a Catholic), on a Protestant website that each of the six Catholics who will be on the Court by the time that it reconvenes on October 5, 2009, will take "their marching orders from Rome." Those who made such remarks understand what the Catholic Church should be like, that Catholics should adhere to their Faith at all times.
Alas, those poor Protestants, steeped in a haze of errors, do not realize how successful Martin Luther's revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself has instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church has been. Many Protestants in the United States of America do not realize that the pluralism wrought by Protestantism's revolution against the Catholic Church and the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ King has "evangelized" most Catholics in this country to accept uncritically the false, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles that have been let loose in the world as a result of the rebellion started by the sinful Augustinian monk named Martin Luther. And the "Rome" that these Protestants fear so much is in the hands of men who have accommodated themselves long ago to many Protestant precepts, including those of "separation of Church and State" and "religious liberty."
Pope Leo XIII, writing in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, explained that the relatively "unseen" dangers posed by the acceptance of the Americanist spirit would wind up causing Catholics to view the Church through the eyes of the world rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the Holy Faith:
Who can doubt that she will act in this same spirit again if the salvation of souls requires it? In this matter the Church must be the judge, not private men who are often deceived by the appearance of right. In this, all who wish to escape the blame of our predecessor, Pius the Sixth, must concur. He condemned as injurious to the Church and the spirit of God who guides her the doctrine contained in proposition lxxviii of the Synod of Pistoia, "that the discipline made and approved by the Church should be submitted to examination, as if the Church could frame a code of laws useless or heavier than human liberty can bear."
But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.
In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men.
It is well, then, to particularly direct attention to the opinion which serves as the argument in behalf of this greater liberty sought for and recommended to Catholics.
It is alleged that now the Vatican decree concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff having been proclaimed that nothing further on that score can give any solicitude, and accordingly, since that has been safeguarded and put beyond question a wider and freer field both for thought and action lies open to each one. But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all. And further, those who avail themselves of such a way of reasoning seem to depart seriously from the over-ruling wisdom of the Most High-which wisdom, since it was pleased to set forth by most solemn decision the authority and supreme teaching rights of this Apostolic See-willed that decision precisely in order to safeguard the minds of the Church's children from the dangers of these present times.
These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.
We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church.
Pope Leo XIII prophetically warned the Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons, to whom Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae was addressed, that the propositions contained in the term Americanism had grave implications for the life of the Faith of ordinary Catholics:
But if [the term "Americanism"] this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.
Ah, the Americanist precepts have helped to bring to birth a "church" in the rest of the world that is indeed like that desired by the Americanists, something that one of Americanism's leading exponents, the late Father Isaac Thomas Hecker, the founder of the Paulist Fathers, and other leading Americanists, including Gibbons himself, explicitly hoped would be the case:
American Catholicism" is not, in the thought of is promoters, a way of thinking and of practicing Catholicism solely in the contingent and changing things that would be common to the United States, in accordance with the particular conditions that are found on American soil. If this had been so, we would not have believed it incumbent upon us to be concerned with it.
No, their pretension is to speak to the entire universe: "The ear of the world is open to our thinking, if we know what to say to them," Msgr. [Bishop of Richmond, John] Keane had written to the Congress of Brussels. And in fact they are speaking, and their word has not been without echo upon each part of France. If, at least, they had not put into the ear of the world anything other than what the Church leaves to our free discussion; but, no, as we shall see, we shall come to understand that their words are more or less imposed upon that which belongs to the very fundamentals of the Catholic faith.
The Abbot Klein had said in the preface he gave to The Life of Fr. Hecker: "His [Fr. Hecker's] unique and original work is to have shown the profound harmonies joining the new state of the human spirit to the true Christianity." "The American ideas that he recommended are, he knew, those which GOD wanted all civilized people of our time to be at home with ..."
"The times are solemn," Msgr. Ireland had said, in his discourse, The Church and the Age. "At such an epoch of history ... the desire to know is intense ... The ambition of the spirit, fired up by the marvelous success in every field of human knowledge ... The human heart lets itself go to the strangest ideals ... Something new! Such is the ordered word of humanity, and to renew all things is its firm resolution.
"The moment is opportune for men of talent and character among the children of the Church of God. Today the routine of old times is dead; today the ordinary means lead to the decrepitude of the aged; the crisis demands something new, something extraordinary; and it is upon this condition that the Church shall record the greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages" (Discourse given in the Cathedral of Baltimore, October 18, 1893, on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Episcopal consecration of Cardinal Gibbons.) (Monsignor Henri Delassus, Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy, available from Catholic Action Resource Center, pp. 9-10.)
"The greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages"?
A once Catholic university, named in honor of the Mother of God herself, bestowing an honorary doctorate upon a man who believes in the mystical dismemberment of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of innocent preborn children under cover of the civil law?
"The greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages"?
Catholics serving in public life who believe that their Faith can have no effective influence in the decisions they make as executives, legislators or judges?
"The greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages"?
Catholics believing that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve as the foundation of personal and social order?
"The greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages"?
A "pope" calling a "mosque" a "jewel" that stands out "on the earth" and as a "sacred" place and who prays as a Jew without once mentioning the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
"The greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages"?
Only those who believe that Catholicism is not the one and only foundation and who believe that God is pleased with false religions and false worship can claim that Americanism has led to "the greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages"?
The presence of six Catholics who believe in positivism of one form or another is a triumph of the Americanist spirit, not of Catholicism, not of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
What I wrote twenty-four days ago is relevant yet again:
We are not to be concerned about the views of the Supreme Court. We are to seek the favor of the highest "court" of all, that of Christ the King, as Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., noted in his commentary, contained in The Liturgical Year, on the feast of Saint Athanasius, which we celebrated yesterday, May 2, 2009:
The Court of our divine King, during his grandest of seasons, is brilliant beyond measure; and to-day, it is gladdened by the arrival of one of the most glorious champions of the world of truth for his holy cause. Among the guardians of the word of truth, confided by Jesus to the earth, is there one more faithful than Athanasius? Does not his very name remind us of dauntless courage in the defense of the sacred deposit, of heroic firmness and patience in suffering, of learning, of talent, of eloquence--in a word, of everything that goes to from a Saint, a Bishop, and a Doctor of the Church? Athanasius lived for the Son of god; the cause of the Son of God was that of Athanasius; he who blessed Athanasius, blessed the eternal Word; and he who insulted Athanasius insulted the eternal Word.
Never did our holy faith go through a greater ordeal than in the sad times immediately following the peace of the Church, when the bark of Peter had to pass through the most furious storm that hell has, so far, let loose against her. Satan had vainly sought to drown the Christian race in a sea of blood; the sword of persecution had grown blunt in the hands of Diocletian and Galerius; and the Cross appeared in the heavens, proclaiming the triumph of Christianity. Scarcely had the Church become aware of her victory when she felt herself shaken to her very foundation. Hell sent upon the earth a heresy which threatened to blight the fruit of three hundred years of martyrdom. Arius began his impious doctrine, that he who had hitherto been adored as the Son of God was only a creature, though the most perfect of all creatures. Immense was the number, even of the clergy, that fell into this new error; the Emperors became its abettors; and had not God himself interposed, men would soon have set up the cry throughout the world that the only result of the victory gained by the Christian religion was to change the object of idolatry, and put a new idol, called Jesus, in place of the old ones.
But he who had promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church, faithfully fulfilled his promise. The primitive faith triumphed; the Council of Nicaea proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father; but the Church stood in need of a man in whom the cause of the consubstantial Word should be, so to speak, incarnated--a man with learning enough to foil the artifices of heresy, and with courage enough to bear every persecution without flinching. This man was Athanasius; and everyone that adores and loves the Son of God, should love and honour Athanasius. Five times banished from his See of Alexandria, he fled for protection to the West, which justly appreciated the glorious confessor of Jesus' divinity. In return for the hospitality accorded him by Rome, Athanasius gave her of his treasures. Being the admirer and friend of the great St. Antony, he was a fervent admirer of the monastic life, which, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, had flourished so wonderfully in the deserts of his vast patriarchate. He brought the precious seed to Rome, and the first monks seen there were the ones introduced by Athanasius. The heavenly plant became naturalized in its new soil; and though its growth was slow at first, it afterwards produced fruit more abundantly than it had ever done in the East.
Dom Prosper Gueranger qualified his opening paragraphs about Saint Athanasius by describing Arianism as having let loose "the most furious storm, so far," that Holy Mother Church had gone through. Modernism, which is the theological adaptation of the falsehoods of Modernity to make "belief" "reasonable" to the mythical entity known as "modern man" with his "modern mind, is by far the worst storm that Holy Mother Church as faced as Catholics have indeed accommodated themselves to philosophical and theological falsehoods suiting the purposes of disorder in their own souls and thus disorder in their nations and in the world quite consistently.
In the midst of this storm, however, God has raised up new apostles after the pattern of Saint Athanasius, true bishops and true priests who are unyielding in their refusal to make any concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds.
The falsehoods of Modernity and Modernism are given no quarter in the Catholic catacombs of today, places that keep alive the spirit expressed by Saint Athanasius in a letter to his flock:
May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...
"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.
"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Letter of St. Athanasius)
Let these words continue to be our consolation in these days when it is easier for most people to believe in the mythologies of naturalists in the political realm and the Modernists in the theological realm who esteem false idols than it is to hold steadfast to the Faith by embracing It no matter the consequences.
We turn to Our Lady with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pledging to her in this month of May to pray the Litany of Loreto every day in addition to praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. We can crown Our Lady as Queen of our hearts by making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by enslaving ourselves to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart, giving unto whatever merit we earn each day so that she can dispose of that merit however she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity and for the good of souls in the Church Suffering in Purgatory and here in the Church Militant on earth.
The final victory belongs to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. We must consider it a privilege that we are alive in these times to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
