Stemming From The Same Sentimental Root

by Thomas A. Droleskey

One of the things that I have tried to provide in my writing over the years is a sense of perspective on the events that occur in the midst of the world of naturalism in which we live, the world wherein men and their nations conduct their daily business without regard for the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication, the world wherein men believe that it is not necessary to have belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace in order to be virtuous and thus be pleasing in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity at all times.

Even Catholics are prone to fits of hysteria in the midst of various news items that are now broadcast over the internet in a nanosecond, well, maybe two nanoseconds in some instances. This is why I will write articles months in advance of expected news items that are sure to throw people into these fits of hysteria, which is what I did just about four months ago when I wrote We Don't Want to Learn Anything, the first part of which I will paste here for your review:

Let the hysteria begin! Yes, the very same people who have been willfully deaf, dumb, and blind in the past eight years as one anti-life policy after another has been pursued by the administration of the alleged "pro-life" "conservative," George Walker Bush, are screaming loud and long over the openly pro-abortion policies that will be pursued by the incoming administration of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

Get over the hysteria, please. The Obama-Biden administration will simply do what the administration of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., did as soon as it took office of January 20, 1993, namely, reverse the few Executive Orders and policies that had been issued during the administrations of Ronald Wilson Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush and James Danforth Quayle from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1993. Then President Clinton used several strokes of a pen to reverse various policies of the Reagan-Bush and Bush-Quayle administrations that sought, we were told, to restrict Federal funding for international family planning organizations involved in promoting abortion and to limit the Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

One of the Executive Orders issued by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton on January 22, 1993, authorized the Food and Drug Administration to conduct experiments to determine whether to market the human pesticide, RU-486, the French abortion pill. Clinical trials of this chemical abortifacient were conducted, and an article The New York Times in 1995 indicated that women were getting pregnant deliberately in order to try to kill their children by means of these clinical trials of RU-486, which were being conducted at the time by the Population Council. The United States Food and Drug Administration approved the marketing of RU-486 on September 28, 2000.

Then Texas Governor George Walker Bush was asked just five days later, during his first debate with then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., whether he would reverse the Food and Drug Administration's decision to market the human pesticide. Here is the transcript of the responses that Bush and Gore made to moderator Jim Lehrer of the Public Broadcasting System:

 

MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486?

BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will require a new attitude. We've been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug.

MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?

GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman's life or to act if her health is severely at risk. That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman's right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended.

MODERATOR: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you're elected president, you won't support legislation to overturn this?

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)

 

I very rarely write sentences consisting of capitalized words to make a point emphatically. The English language permits us to choose words without having to resort to capitalized words and multiple exclamation points at the end of sentences. I will make an exception in this instance, however;

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS FULL POWER TO DIRECT HIS SUBORDINATES TO REVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MADE BY A PREDECESSOR'S ADMINISTRATION.

George Walker Bush decided NOT to reverse the decision announced by the Food and Drug Administration on September 28, 2000, because he did not want to run the risk of electoral rejection for doing so. To assert that the President of the United States of America is powerless to reverse an administrative decision demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the Constitution of the United States of America or a deliberate effort to wash one's hands of a decision that one prefers to see stand as it was made.

As I demonstrated one year ago this month in Selective Use of Executive Power, President George Herbert Walker Bush and President George Walker Bush both pushed the limits of executive power to accomplish those things that truly mattered to them in their respective administrations. The younger President Bush was reported by a Republican member of the House of Representatives to have said that the Constitution is just a (expletive deleted) piece of paper when he, Bush, was questioned about the constitutionality of his administration's warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of American citizens residing in the United States of America. Bush never cared about constitutional limits, issuing all manner of orders to approve the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) on suspects held by third-party contractors in foreign countries.

It is beneath contempt for anyone to assert that George Walker Bush is "pro-life" when he has had nearly eight years to reverse the marketing of the human pesticide, RU-486. Eight years. Eight years. All it would have taken for George Walker Bush to reverse the marketing of RU-486 is to direct the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, which is a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, to reverse the marketing decision. It is that simple. Bush has chosen NOT to do this.

Don't fault the fully pro-abortion Barack Hussein Obama for having the integrity to use his absolute commitment to abject evil as the basis for the executive orders that he will issue within the first days of his presidency come January 20, 2009. He is pro-death. He is consistently pro-death. He will act with consistency in his commitment to advancing his pro-death decision. He does not pretend to be one thing while acting in a way that contradicts his stated positions, at least not on the issue of taking the lives of innocent children by chemical or surgical means.

George Walker Bush, quite to the contrary, has said he is "pro-life" while refusing even to take a simple measure as directing the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration to reverse the marketing of RU-486. How many Catholics, no matter where they fall across the ecclesiastical divide, have held him accountable for this refusal to his executive power to reverse RU-486? This is one simple measure that could have been taken to reverse a little bit of the legacy of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. One simple measure. It was not taken.

Indeed, one can see in Bush's meandering, rambling response to Jim Lehrer ninety-seven months, eight days ago today all of the incoherency of his alleged "pro-life" position, including his absurd contention that "good people" can "disagree" on this issue, something Bush would never say about racism or anti-Semitism. God has given us the Fifth Commandment, which admits of no exceptions. It is that simple.

One of the first duties of those in civil power is to stop the shedding of innocent blood. Bush, who believes that innocent preborn children can be sliced and diced (or burned or vacuumed) in their mothers' wombs in certain "hard" cases, could have stopped the shedding of the blood of some babies if he directed a reversal of the Food and Drug Administration decision to market RU-486, choosing not to do and stating in the October 3, 2000, debate that the did not think he could do so as long as the pesticide was deemed "safe" for women? Not only is RU-486 unsafe for women, many of whom have died from the drug, it is deadly for babies.

Barack Hussein Obama is going to the executive powers of the office of the President of the United States of America to advance his policies of evil. George Walker Bush has refused to use those executive powers for the good. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration under his own presidential watch made the following decision on August 24, 2006, approving over-the-counter sales to women over the age of eighteen for the "Plan B" "emergency contraceptive," which is, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, an abortifacient. . . .

Evil, much evil, has been done by the George Walker Bush administration under the cover of a "pro-life" mask. Barack Hussein Obama, who has no qualms at all about supporting evil quite openly and without any apology whatsoever, is merely going to remove the mask from what has been a cruel joke played on "pro-life" Americans in the past eight years, a joke that almost next-to-none of them want to recognize as such.

Similarly, many are aghast that President-elect Barack Hussein Obama will restore full Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on stem-cell lines created after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001, the time and date chosen by the current President Bush to forbid Federal funding on embryonic human beings created thereafter. Although draconian researchers continue to decry this preposterous decision to let some babies be killed while protecting others, most "pro-life" Americans overlooked the simple fact that embryonic stem-cell research on embryonic human beings created after 9:00 p.m. on Thursday, August, 9, 2001, has continued by means of private funding. "W" has not sought to end the private funding of such embryonic stem-cell research and has himself continued full Federal funding on embryonic human beings created artificially and frozen before that time and date.

President Bush the younger used his first address to the nation on that Thursday evening on August 9, 2001, to express his support for "in vitro fertilization, an immoral means to create a human being artificially:

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.  A large number of these embryos already exist.  They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children.  When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother.  Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. (Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research.)

 

This is what I wrote at the time in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos:

Indeed, this whole controversy is the direct result of the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, as well as on matters of fundamental justice. For it is the rejection of the Deposit of Faith our Lord entrusted to Holy Mother Church that gave rise to the ethos of secularism and religious indifferentism, which became the breeding grounds for secularism and relativism and positivism.

A world steeped in all manner of secular political ideologies comes not only to reject the Deposit of Faith but to make war against all that is contained therein, especially as it relates to matters of the sanctity of marital relations and the stability of the family.

Contraception gave rise to abortion. Contraception also gave rise to the mentality which resulted in artificial conception. If a child's conception can be prevented as suits "partners," then it stands to reason that a child can be conceived "on demand" by using the latest technology science has to offer.

The Church has condemned artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization on a number of occasions as offenses to the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity of marital relations. Yet it is the very rejection of the Church's affirmation of what is contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law which leads people, including George W. Bush, into thinking that artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are morally licit to help couples deal with the problem of childlessness, ignoring the simple little truth that no one is entitled to a child.

Children are gifts from God to be accepted according to His plan for a particular couple. If a married couple cannot have a child on their own, they can adopt -- or they can use their time to be of greater service to the cause of the Church in the evangelization of the true Faith. No one, however, is entitled to a child.

Indeed, the whole tragedy of harvesting the stem cells of living human beings has arisen as a result of discoveries made by scientists experimenting on human beings conceived in fertility clinics to help couples conceive artificially.

That George W. Bush endorses this immoral enterprise (which is big business, by the way) and actually commends it as a way to "help" couples is deplorable.

It is as though he is saying the following: "We are not going to kill any more Jews for their body parts. We will only use the body parts of the Jews we have killed already. After all, we have people who will benefit from this research, do we not?"

Living human embryos do not have the "potential" for life, as Bush asserted on August 9, 2001. They are living human beings! To seek to profit from their destruction is ghoulish, and will only wind up encouraging the private sector to fund all stem-cell research, creating more "stem cell lines" from the destruction of living human beings. ("Preposterous," Christ or Chaos, September, 2001)

 

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama and his former opponent, United States John Sidney McCain III, R-Arizona, both supported the restoration of full Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research during their recently concluded campaigns. McCain would have done the same thing that Obama is said to ready to do once he assumes office. Why the hysteria?

I mean, the supposedly "electable" candidate in the Republican presidential primaries and caucuses of 1996, the hapless, inarticulate, ever-mercurial thirty-third degree Mason named Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., was one of the first members of the United States Senate to come out in open support of then President William Jefferson Clinton's executive order restoring Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. No one in the "pro-life" "establishment" (National Right to Life Committee, Priests for Life, Christian Coalition) held that against him when they urged voters, however quietly, to support Dole over Patrick Joseph Buchanan.

Why is Obama's support for this evil so terrible while it is apparently no "big deal" that Robert Joseph Dole, Jr., and John Sidney McCain III supported this same evil during their campaigns for the presidency? Blindness? Compromise? Wishful thinking? Utter stupidity? Hypocrisy? Why is it bad for a Democrat to support an evil while it is necessary to be silent when Republicans do so? As far as I know, God created the Catholic Church, not a political party, to be the means of ordering the lives of men and their nations

The outgoing President, George Walker Bush, funded embryonic stem-cell research up to a certain time and date and had not a problem in the world with the private funding of such "research" on human beings created thereafter. Obama is, once again, just removing the mask as he shows his integrity quite openly as a supporter of one evil after another. Bush has pretended to be "pro-life" while pursuing policies that have done much to advance the killing of innocent human beings here and abroad, to say nothing of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children who have been wounded and/or born with birth defects as a result of the monstrous use of depleted uranium bombs by the military forces of the United States of America.

Mrs. Judie Brown pointed out the mythology associated with the contention that George Walker Bush "stopped" the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research when he did no such thing even when he vetoed bills to "expand" the funding he approved on August 9, 2001:

You have probably heard that right at the top of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's agenda is the promise of "hope to families with devastating diseases."

What she is promising, of course, is a Congressional action that will result in tons of federal tax dollars being spent on failed research using the dead bodies of embryonic children.

The White House, of course, is saying "the president has made it clear he believes in stem cell research so much -- the administration has done more to finance stem cell research, embryonic and otherwise, than any administration in history."

You see, Bush never really banned research using the bodies of embryonic children, he merely curtailed how much research could be done using tax dollars. So it would appear that everyone ... Democrat and Republican ... is on the same page.

The tragic reality underlying such statements is that over the course of the last 34 years, politicians and a whole lot of pro-lifers have let the principle of personhood slide away into oblivion for the sake of winning elections. And the result is staring us all in the face. (Embryo Wars.)

 

We will also hear, of course, that President-elect Obama is going to be appointing a Cabinet full of pro-aborts. This will certainly be the case, and this is terrible. Granted. Tell me, however, who raised their voices in objection to the appointment of pro-aborts such as Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Andrew Card, Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Christine Todd Whitman, Michael Mukasey, Mary Matalin, et al., to various positions in the current administration? Who? Who in the clergy has spoken up? Who in the laity has spoken up? Or is it easier to blind one's eyes and cover one's ears in order not to have the moral responsibility to speak up and to state the simple truth that no one who supports a single abortion, whether chemical or surgical, under cover of law, is qualified to hold any office of public trust, whether elected of appointed, at any level of government (state, local, national)?

My friends, why don't we want to learn from the facts of our situation? Why do we get our eyes closed and our mouths shut during the administration of an alleged "pro-life" conservative who has governed as a statist and as a fascist as he has campaign for and with one pro-abort politician in his own political party after another (Rudolph William Giuliani, George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rick Lazio, et al.). Bush even endorsed the fully pro-abortion United States Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, against a partly pro-life/partly pro-abortion challenger, then United States Representative Patrick Toomey in 2004. How can you claim, as Bush does, that you are working for a day when every child "will be welcomed in life and protected by law" when you support the surgical killing of babies in some instances yourself and when help to elect men and women who support abortion, both chemical and surgical, in all instances?

 

Thus it is that the action taken today by President Barack Hussein Obama to undo the "limits" imposed on the use of Federal funds for the destruction of embryonic human beings is simply reflective of the unstable nature of naturalist, religiously indifferentist civil state wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the multifaceted, inter-related forces of Judeo-Masonry. What one president does can be undone by yet another president. What one Congress does can be undone by another Congress. What one decision of the Supreme Court of the United States does can be undone by yet another decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. What Pope Saint Pius X wrote about the nature of theological Modernism is also true of the anti-Incarnational foundation of the socio-political Modernism of Modernity:

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church.

 

This could be paraphrased to read that "for the Naturalists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in society."

Pope Leo XIII made pretty much this exact point in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are -- the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.

When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall -- namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.

 

There is indeed "no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice" in the minds of the naturalists of the false opposites of the "left" and the "right" in the United States of America.

To wit, a President George Walker Bush, steeped in the sentimentality of Protestantism and of American naturalism produced thereby, supported the very evil, in vitro fertilization that has created countless numbers of embryonic human beings as part of a process to defy the Sovereignty of God over the means by which human life is transmitted. As I noted in my 2001 commentary, "Preposterous," no married couple has a "right" to a child. A child is a gift from God., Who alone decides how many children, whether few or many, if any at all, to a married couple. It is an inversion of the relationship between the creature and His Creator for the creature to create artificially what is to bestowed by God solely through the natural means that he gave to Adam and Eve for the propagation of the human race.

George Walker Bush, lacking any knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice because he hath not knowledge of First and Last Things as these have been revealed by the true God and entrusted to His true Church, which alone has the authority to teach infallibly in His Holy Name, believed in all sincerity that married couples do have a right to a child and that in vitro fertilization was necessary to assist childless couples to have children. Bush believed that a moral "dilemma" had been "created," if you will, by the existence of these embryonic human beings, who are deemed by medical and other "scientific" researchers to possess the "potential" for curing or treating a variety of ailments, including Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.

Bush's "compromise" was indeed preposterous as Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research continued in his administration and as private funding was never banned (nor did Bush ever seek such a ban on private funding of embryonic stem-cell lines created after 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 9, 2001). The "compromise" was designed to placate a "pro-life" political base that is easily fooled by empty rhetoric and "pro-life" policies that actually accept the killing of some innocent human beings and at the same time give "hope" to those looking for "cures" or "treatments" for the diseases just mentioned.

Even here, however, we see the prevalence of sentimentality. Although it is licit and indeed commendable to seek cures and treatments for diseases so as to alleviate the suffering of human beings, each of whom is made in the image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity, it is not licit to use immoral means to do so. The purpose of human existence is to not to live pain-free lives or to seek to extend the length of our lives by all means, moral or immoral, considered necessary to do so.

There are times when it is prudent to forego certain courses of treatment designed to prolong one's life , especially in the later years of life as we have been created not to live forever but to be live in such a way as to be ready at all times to die as members of the Catholic Church who are in states of Sanctifying Grace. And, yes, there are times when a person can choose, usually after advice received from a priest in the internal forum of the Confessional or in external forum, to forego the use of analgesics or other sorts of pain-relieving measures in order to unite oneself more fully with the Cross of the Divine Redeemer in order to make reparation for one's own sins and for those of the whole world as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.

It is also important to remember that we must accept suffering as the price of our salvation. God wills not to cure us of various physical maladies because these have been sent to us to help us to draw closer to Him through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as we use our sufferings to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. We must be grateful for our crosses, understanding that each and every single one of them has been fashioned perfectly for us by the hand of God from all eternity and that nothing we suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused His Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with those Seven Swords of Sorrow. We must understand that God is blessing us with diseases for which there are no cures as He means to refine us as gold is refined in the fire.

Our Lady explained to Lucia dos Santos that some of the people whom Lucia asked to be cured would be healed, others would not be healed:

Lucia made some requests for sick people, to which Mary replied that she would cure some but not others, and that all must say the rosary to obtain such graces, before continuing: "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary." (Mary's words at Fatima, July 13, 1917.)

 

What is good enough for the Mother of God should be good enough for all men on the face of the earth in all places and at all times. It is that simple. No one can use a morally illicit means to seek to cure any physical malady.

Naturalists, whether of the "left" or of the "right," have no understanding of this whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. They project onto a generic conception of "God" their own sentimentally-driven views of "right" and "wrong." And it is impossible for the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have rejected the necessity of the confessionally Catholic civil state as a precondition for the just social order to have any effective influence over these naturalists as they, the lords of conciliarism, have said that it is "enough" for the Catholic Church to have a "voice" in the marketplace of of ideas, thereby making possible the triumph of one falsehood after another because the Sacred Rights of Christ the King are never invoked as the sole standard of the right ordering of men and their societies.

Pope Pius IX explained in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1964, what happens in the midst of the insanity of the religious liberty that has been endorsed by the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

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."

 

Behold men who dare to resist truth a they trust in the "flowing speech of human wisdom," George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, both of whom accept "religious liberty" as a "cornerstone" of American "liberty" as they disagree now and again only on the particularities of the errors of naturalism they seek to protect under cover of law, disagreeing not at all about naturalism itself.

Then again, why should naturalists such as George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama Obama seek to observe the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Christ the King by His true Church when those who have been seen, albeit falsely, as his Vicars on earth make advertence to the very false premises of the American founding as the means to protect "social values"? This is precisely what Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did when speaking to Bush on July 23, 2001, to warn him not to proceed with the funding of embryonic stem-cell research::

A global world is essentially a world of solidarity! From this point of view, America, because of her many resources, cultural traditions and religious values, has a special responsibility.

Respect for human dignity finds one of its highest expressions in religious freedom. This right is the first listed in your nation's Bill of Rights, and it is significant that the promotion of religious freedom continues to be an important goal of American policy in the international community.

I gladly express the appreciation of the whole Catholic Church for America's commitment in this regard.

Another area in which political and moral choices have the gravest consequences for the future of civilization concerns the most fundamental of human rights, the right to life itself.

Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation and acquiescence in the face of other related evils such as euthanasia, infanticide and, most recently, proposals for the creation for research purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the process.

A free and virtuous society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death.

In defending the right to life, in law and through a vibrant culture of life, America can show the world the path to a truly humane future, in which man remains the master, not the product, of his technology.

Mr. President, as you carry out the tasks of the high office which the American people have entrusted to you, I assure you of a remembrance in my prayers.

I am confident that under your leadership your nation will continue to draw on its heritage and resources to help build a world in which each member of the human family can flourish and live in a manner worthy of his or her innate dignity. (CNN.com - Transcript: Pope John Paul II - July 23, 2001.)

 

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II extolled as "one of the highest expressions of "human dignity" what Pope Gregory XVI referred to as an insanity "religious liberty," which was termed a heresy by Pope Pius VII and condemned as "injurious babbling" by Pope Pius IX. There was not one word in Wojtyla/John Paul II's admonition to then President George Walker Bush of the binding nature of the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, only references to the "inalienable rights of man" and to "human dignity" and "religious values." This was not an appeal founded upon Catholic truth but upon the interdenominational principles of The Sillon, themselves the product of the anti-Theism of the French Revolution and the ethos of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry, that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

The Incarnation has occurred. The Word Who was made Incarnate in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost has redeemed us by the shedding of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. He has created one Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to be the sole means of human instruction in matters pertaining to Faith and Morals, the sole means of human sanctification and thus of human salvation. Men need to hear these truths and to understand that they have no right from God to engage in their injurious babbling as they are devoid of knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice. How can men who believe themselves to be veritable "gods" come to an acceptance of the truths of the true Faith if those truths are not proposed to them in unmistakably Catholic terms by those who represent themselves, albeit falsely, to the shepherds of the true Church?

Admitting full well that forces have been at work for the past five to six hundred years that have shaped the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity in which we live and that are responsible for deforming the souls of Catholics and non-Catholics alike even before the advent of conciliarism, it is also nevertheless true that conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the "modern world," especially by means of embracing "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State," has helped to reaffirm Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the fundamental, foundational errors of Modernity. The Catholic Church's condemnation of "liberty of conscience" to promote error was firm and consistent right through the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, who said the following in 1946:

“The Catholic Church, as we have already said, is a perfect society and has as its foundation the truth of Faith infallibly revealed by God.  For this reason, that which is opposed to this truth is, necessarily, in error, and the same rights which are objectively recognized for truth cannot be afforded to error.  In this manner, liberty of thought and liberty of conscience have their essential limits in the truthfulness of God in Revelation.” (Pope Pius XII, Ecco che gia uno anno, October 6, 1946.)

 

It it is that that the conciliarists have, for all of their protests against abortion and in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem-cell research that are couched in the conciliarspeak of "human dignity" and "human values" and "the civilization of love" and "human solidarity" and "religious liberty" and the "inalienable rights of man," dared to contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church as explicated by the true popes. Why shouldn't men like George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama be awash in the muck of sentimentality? How can anyone expect that the irrationality and absurdity of George Walker Bush's "limited" Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research could withstand the inexorable push made by other sentimentalists who cannot accept God's Holy Will in their lives and who want a cure for chronic and/or incurable diseases by all means necessary, including those that involve the destruction of embryonic human beings?

President Barack Hussein Obama's decision to restore the Clinton-era program of Federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research was simply the reverse side of the naturalist coin of sentimentality that led George Walker Bush to find a "Solomon"-like balancing act that was premised on an acceptance of the "necessity" of in vitro fertilization and upon the belief that a way must be found to use existing embryonic stem-cell lines to "help" those suffering from various diseases." The late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn explained in his commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978, that the "leftist" currents of naturalism are always more consistent than that "humanism," as he called it," that has "lost its Christian heritage:"

Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century’s moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

An Unexpected Kinship

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism. (A World Split Apart by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)

 

Although the late Dr. Solzhenitsyn, who spent time in a Soviet gulag during the blood reign of Josef Stalin, did not realize or accept--indeed, he bitterly rejected--the fact that the Catholic Church is one and only sole custodian of this Christian heritage that alone is the bulwark against naturalism, he did see the truth that "the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious." In the context of the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, you see, the current of sentimentality that is strongest is the one that promises to alleviate human suffering here and now, thus the basis of the Wizard of Obama's TelePrompter-delivered remarks yesterday, Monday, March 9, 2009, that expanding existing Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research:

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research – from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit – and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome – that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work. (TelePrompter-delivered remarks of President Obama's remarks on the execution of embryonic human beings)

 

What could be more quintessentially American than appealing to the "majority" and their "consensus"?

Yes, it was to majoritarian sentiment that Andrew Jackson appealed when writing to justify state-sovereignty on the issue of slavery.

It was to majoritarian sentiment that many white southern governors and white southern United States senators and representatives appealed to justify the "Jim Crow" laws of segregation.

It was to majoritarian sentiment that that white Protestant land-grabbers who believed in their "God-given" destiny to lands that they did not own sought to take by armed force the lands that that belonged to the Indians, many of whom had been converted to the true Faith by Father Pierre Jean De Smet, S.J., and others of the "Black Robes" of the Society of Jesus.

It was to majoritarian sentiment that Adolf Hitler himself appealed when holding a plebiscite on August 19, 1934, to justify his combining the office of German Chancellor and German President under the Weimar Constitution of 1919 following the death of President von Hindenberg and his own liquidation of German military officers who refused to join the Nazi Party, winning his plebiscite with 89.9% of the vote.

Majoritarian sentiment, Mister President? That is your foundation for the execution of innocent human beings whose only "crime" has been their artificial creation by people desperate to defy God's Holy Will in their lives and His immutable Commandments?

Well, Barack Hussein Obama has lots of company. President Thomas Woodrow Wilson justified the shedding of the blood of thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Mexico in the second decade of the Twentieth Century by appealing to his belief that "liberalism" itself was made possible for the shedding of blood during the French Revolution:

"Wilson replied [to a Father--later Bishop of Oklahoma City--Clement Kelley, who was a representative of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Archbishop of Baltimore, for whom Wilson had such contempt that he addressed him as Mister Gibbons]: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

"Having thus instructed his caller in the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries (Robert Leckie, Catholic and American, p. 274.)

 

Yes, President Obama believes that he will help human beings suffering from chronic or incurable diseases by killing other human beings. Why should this man who knows nothing of First and Last Things as they have been entrusted to the true Church by God Himself have any more respect for that true Church than those who had a founding hatred for Christ the King. And why should those founders' themselves have had any more regard for the true Church that the man whose unrepentant sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments prompted him to rebel against that true Church and to justify his diabolically-inspired revolution that overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King in much of Europe?

 

"Assuredly," said Luther, "a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion."

 

Men and their nations must come to ruin when they reject the reign of Christ the King in their own hearts and souls and in the very lives of their nations. No naturalistic force on the face of this earth--not "conservatism," not "libertarianism," not "anarcho-libertarianism," not the Republican Party, not the Constitution Party, not the Libertarian Party, not even the Right to Life Party--can retard the spread of moral evils that have their remote cause in Original Sin and their proximate causes in the Actual Sins of us all, sins that have received the sanction of the civil law over the course of the past five centuries now as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

There is a certain irony in the Wizard of Obama's statement about embryonic stem cell research that was quoted in part above. Just as it was preposterous for his predecessor, George Walker Bush, to believe that Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research would remain "limited' to his absurd "compromise," so it is preposterous for Obama to believe that the "line" can be held against human cloning. Here is the text from that part of his TelePrompter-delivered address of yesterday:

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society. (TelePrompter-delivered remarks of President Obama's remarks on the execution of embryonic human beings)

 

Barack Hussein Obama has as little chance of prevailing against human cloning as George Walker Bush had about maintaining his allegedly "limited" use of Federal funds for the execution of embryonic human beings. Why is cloning wrong? Because we don't like it? Because we don't feel "comfortable" about it? Because it smacks of the Brave New World? There is no rational basis to support in vitro fertilization and the execution of embryonic human beings conceived in that illicit process and then to turn around and oppose human cloning? The one and only foundation of opposing the latter is by opposing the former because both are repugnant to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to and explicated by the Catholic Church.

Yes, I will repeat this again--and I will keep on repeating it until I die: Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Pope Leo XIII explained this throughout his twenty-five year pontificate, including two of his last encyclicals, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, and A Review of His Pontificate, March 17, 1902:

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,-and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue.  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientus, November, 1, 1900.)

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely Wise, Good, and Just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men. It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the States and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel it does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes. It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty. Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

 

Naturalists will always fail in their insane dreams and schemes that they try to justify with their most injurious babbling.

We must not be frightened by the naturalists. We must not go into fits of hysteria. Our Lady has promised us that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end? Is this not enough for us?

What I wrote four months ago at the end of We Don't Want to Learn Anything is useful to review once again (and I, still not entirely well from my stomach virus that could use the attention of our kinesiologist in Ohio--penance is better than ever in 2009 as my sins deserve far, far worse!):

There can be no compromise with Modernity or Modernism. None whatsoever. Our goal must be, as ever, to plant the seeds for what Pope Saint Pius X urged us in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, to restore: the Catholic City:

This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

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

 

We help to restore the Catholic City every time we receive Holy Communion worthily in a true offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by a true bishop or a true priest.

We help to restore the Catholic City as we spend time each day in prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each Rosary we pray.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each good, sincere, humble, integral Confession we make of our sins.

We help to restore the Catholic City with each blessed Green Scapular we pass out to a lost soul who has been abandoned to the ways of the world by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

We help to restore the Catholic City by consecrating ourselves to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, offering up all of our prayers and penances and sacrifices and mortifications and humiliations to His Most Sacred Heart through her Immaculate Heart.

We help to restore the Catholic City by enthroning our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We help to restore the Catholic City by fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in our own lives as best we can.

We help to restore the Catholic City by remembering that this is the time that God has ordained from all eternity for us to live in, seeking therefore to cooperate with the graces He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, to persevere to the point of our dying breaths in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church.

The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must never despair. We must simply ask her to be valiant, faithful and tireless champions of her Divine Son, Christ the King, at all times and in all circumstances, looking never for "results" in this life, seeking only to remain faithful to Our King through her, Our Queen, until we draw our dying breaths.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas and of the unborn, pray for us.

 

We must overcome the sentimentality and hysteria wrought by naturalism. We must be calm in the midst of the storm as we entrust our souls exclusively to true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds that endorse such crimes against the Sacred Rights of Christ the King as "religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and State." Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. We must stand by her at the foot of her Divine Son's Most Holy Cross every day in the offering of Holy Mass as we seek to plant a few seeds, despite our sins and failings for the day when all hearts, consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary, enthroned as they must be as well in our own homes, will proclaim:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

The Forty Holy Crowned Martyrs, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?