Three Out of Nine, Something That Matters
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
What I wrote on May 3, 2009, in
Suiting Disorder Quite Consistently is relevant once again in light of President Barack Hussein Obama's selection of the Solicitor General of the United States of America Elena Kagan to replace retiring Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America John Paul Stevens.
The now retired Associate Justice David Souter, who has been replaced by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was an ideological soul-mate of John Paul Stevens. Elena Kagan will be an ideological soul-mate of Sonia Sotomayor as what passes for legal jurisprudence on the Supreme Court of the United States of America moves from beyond the realm 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) to pure emotionalism devoid of even a shred of legal pretense. We have arrived at a point of, if you will, "outcome based" jurisprudence: you got an outcome you want, find some sophistic means to justify it in a judicial decision.
This is what I wrote last year after David H. Souter announced his retirement:
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 Elena Kagan has been selected by Caesar Obamus to succeed the pro-abortion John Paul Stevens, an appointee of the late President Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. (See
Another Infamous "John Paul".) If confirmed, as seems very likely, Elena Kagan, will hold the seat that was held by the ultra-liberal, shirt-chasing libertine named William Oliver Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court of the United States of America between April 14, 1939, and November 12, 1975. Kagan will also become the third Jewish member of the Supreme Court, meaning that there will be six Catholics (see
Six Out of Nine, Not That It Matters, which is being cannibalized liberally for purposes of this article; no need to reinvent the wheel over and over again). This matters quite a lot because it has been various "reform" Talmudic organizations that have been responsible for pressing--or at least assisting in the pressing--for court-sanctioned approval of chemical and surgical baby-killing and perversity and pornography and the removal of that hideous thing called nondenominational prayer from America's concentration camps, public schools.
You think that I am exaggerating the importance of Kagan's being yet a third adherent of the Talmud (along with the two associate justices nominated by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer). I am not. Elena Kagan's model for jurisprudence is an Israeli Supreme Court justice who is considered by legal scholars worldwide to be one of the most radical judges on the face of the earth:
President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has no track record on the bench as she’s yet to ever wear a robe. But her judicial philosophy is no mystery, and that is troubling.
You can tell a lot about people by their role models. For prospective judges, the convictions and philosophy of their heroes tells even more.
The President’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, called Aharon Barak “my judicial hero. He is the judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice.”
One of the troubling things about Kagan’s 2006 statement is her assumption that the role of judges is to “advance” abstract concepts and values, rather than faithfully apply the law that they have been given by the people through the Constitution or statutes passed by legislatures.
So who is Aharon Barak? Barak is the retired chief judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, and is considered one of the most liberal activist judges in the entire world, according to leading judges across the political spectrum. Consider the following:
• “[Aharon Barak] is unashamedly what, in U.S. terms, would be regarded as an ‘activist judge.’”—The Hon. Justice Richard Goldstone, a liberal former justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
• “I have my differences with Robert Bork, but when he remarked, in a review of The Judge in a Democracy, that Barak ‘establishes a world record for judicial hubris,’ he came very near the truth.”—Judge Richard Posner, a prominent federal appeals court judge in Chicago.
In fact, Barak himself calls his book The Judge in a Democracy, “a textbook for judicial activists.”
In his review of Barak’s book, entitled “Enlightened Despot,” Judge Posner called the book “Exhibit A for why American judges should be extremely wary about citing foreign judicial decisions.” Posner concluded that Barak “created out of whole cloth … a degree of judicial power undreamed of even by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices.”
Given that our current nominee for the Supreme Court thinks that Barak’s “advancement” of legal doctrine is heroic, we must pay particular attention to the novel rules of law he created in his judicial opinions:
• Barak held that the “basic laws” passed by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, could never be repealed.
• He claimed “the right to judge the deployment of troops in wartime” and that a court can countermand military orders.
• He argued that judges “cannot be removed by the legislature but only by other judges.”
• He “takes for granted that judges have inherent authority to override statutes.”
• Barak converted the term “separation of powers” into the proposition that “the executive and legislative branches are to have no degree of control over the judicial branch.”
• He also argued that “any government action that is "unreasonable" is illegal and that in the name of “human dignity” a court can compel the government to alleviate homelessness and poverty.
Kagan’s admiration for Barak should be no surprise, since she worked for Abner Mikva, one of the most liberal activist judges in American history.
Kagan is so admiring of judicial activists that she sought to silence congressional critics of activist judges. While dean of Harvard Law School in May 2005, Kagan joined a letter by law school deans that rebuked members of Congress as “irresponsible” and asserting that their criticism of activist judges was “harmful to our constitutional system and to the value of a judiciary.”
Apparently, no matter how political judges get, they should be beyond criticism. But it’s precisely when judges begin to act like politicians that they should be subject to the same open criticism that politicians are.
Back in 1995, Elena Kagan proposed a higher standard for Senate evaluation of Supreme Court nominees:
“When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public. The critical inquiry as to any individual similarly concerns the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add (or augment), and the direction in which she would move the institution.”
Senators should keep this standard in mind in evaluating where Kagan would “move” the court. As she has so openly embraced judge’s legislating from the bench, Kagan should be questioned about what matters she will take into her own hands. Will she advance her pro-abortion viewpoints or expand the power of judges to override pro-life laws they don’t approve of personally?
Americans have a right know. And the senators have a duty to ask whether Kagan plans to follow in Barak’s footsteps. (Kagan’s 'Judicial Hero')
The presence of six Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America means next to nothing as each is a legal positivism. Four of the six (Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito) adhere to the "strict constructionist" view of legal positivism. One, Anthony Kennedy, is "mainstream" legal positivist whose opinion in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, found the partial, conditional ban on partial-birth abortions to be justified as there were two other forms of baby-killing in the later stages of pregnancy that remained perfectly legal for the merchants of death to use in their perpetuation of the daily American genocide of the preborn (An Illusion of a Victory). The other, Sonia Sotomayor, is a non-practicing Catholic, who is a full-throated supporter of the "activist" brand of legal positivism. The presence of yet another adherent, however lax, of the Talmud means a great deal, especially when one considers the fact that that Antonin Scalia has been hiring lots of Orthodox Jews to serve as his law clerks (law clerks do a great deal of the legal research for the justices, assisting them to prepare for hearings on cases, sometimes going so far, as was case almost throughout the entirety of the time that the late Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall served on the Court between October 2, 1967, and October 1, 1991, of writing--or at least drafting--the justices' opinions).
The coming divide on the Supreme Court of the United States of America may well be between "reform" or non-observant Jews, both amongst three Jewish justices and their law clerks, and the Orthodox, observant Jews who serve as law clerks to Antonin Scalia:
Court watchers say you can count on one hand the number of Orthodox Jews who have served as clerks, but that figure will see a significant jump in 2008, when Harvard Law graduates Moshe Spinowitz, 28, and Yaakov Roth, 23, join the staff of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
“I think it’s sort of a coincidence. Things just sort of worked out that way this year, but it is 20% of a minyan,” Roth said, speaking to the Forward about the lawyers’ good fortune. In interviews with the Forward, both Roth and Spinowitz said they believed that their faith was something of a footnote to the arduous selection process and had been unremarkable both at Harvard Law and at their current clerkships for U.S. Court of Appeals judge Michael Boudin, where the two now sit in neighboring cubicles.
Of course, it wasn’t always this way. Jews, both observant and secular, once faced discrimination in admissions to elite universities and hiring at the top firms. Despite Orthodox Jews’ tiny numbers, their experience at the Supreme Court has been one small but telling barometer of the place of Jews within the broader society.
Nathan Lewin, a prominent Washington lawyer who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1960 and went on to clerk for Associate Justice John M. Harlan from 1961 to 1962, recalled being pleasantly surprised when Harlan said at his initial interview that a Saturday Sabbath observance would not be a problem.
During his tenure at Harvard, Lewin said, classes were held Saturdays, leading the handful of Orthodox male students to rush through their morning services — only to arrive at lectures without their books or pens. When exam time rolled around, the men paid for their own proctors to administer Saturday evening exams. And when recruiting season came, several law firms told Lewin that they would not hire an associate who refused to work Saturdays.
At the same time, Lewin recalled a fellow classmate and colleague on the Harvard Law Review who was impressed by his Jewish background: the Italian Catholic, staunchly conservative Scalia.
“He has commented at times on the fact that he thought that people who had a talmudic training had a head start,” Lewin said of Scalia. The two were “quite friendly” during their law school days, said Lewin, and last met socially at a kosher restaurant in Washington. (Number of Orthodox Court Clerks Jumps Thanks to Scalia.)
There is obviously no place for Christ the King or Mary our Immaculate Queen in such a situation as faces us now on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which has seen the naturalistic tide shift from Protestants and Masons to Catholics who adhere to legal positivism (and thus see no role for the application of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to judicial decision-making) to Jews who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ altogether. Both the Catholics the Jews on the Supreme Court are, despite their many other differences, of one mind and one heart in rejecting Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Everything else is just details. The day when a Mohammedan is added to the ranks of the Supreme Court cannot be too far in the future, it appears.
In his remarks nominating Elena Kagan delivered at the White House on Monday, May 10, 2010 President Barack Hussein Obama praised Elena Kagan's service as the Solicitor General of the United States of America as one of the qualifications she is said to possess to serve on the nation's highest court, citing the role she played in presenting the Federal government's position in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, January 21, 2010, once again showing his penchant for putting "feeling" above any grasp of human positive laws as they are written:
That understanding of law, not as an intellectual exercise or words on a page, but as it affects the lives of ordinary people, has animated every step of Elena’s career -- including her service as Solicitor General today.
During her time in this office, she’s repeatedly defended the rights of shareholders and ordinary citizens against unscrupulous corporations. Last year, in the Citizens United case, she defended bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections. Despite long odds of success, with most legal analysts believing the government was unlikely to prevail in this case, Elena still chose it as her very first case to argue before the Court.
I think that says a great deal not just about Elena’s tenacity, but about her commitment to serving the American people. I think it says a great deal about her commitment to protect our fundamental rights, because in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. (Remarks by the President and Solicitor General Elena Kagan at the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.)
Law is not a matter of emotion. It is a matter of truth, of subordinating human positive law to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law in all that pertains to the temporal and eternal good of souls and to the Natural Law in all that pertains to the just administration of temporal affairs. Caesar Obamus and Elena Kagan come from the unreal world of academe, which has a fundamental contempt for any concept of fundamental moral truths that exist independently of human acceptance of them. (For a good review of the the similar backgrounds of Barack Hussein Obama and Elena Kagan, please see Michael Barone's
Obama, Kagan and the Faculty Lounge.)
There's also a little problem with Obama's praise of Elena Kagan's work in the Citizens United case: Elena Kagan was clueless when she made her oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a case whose decision prompted Caesar Obamus to "call out" the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address:
Most people who oppose Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court will focus on either her defense of Harvard’s attempt to bar military recruiters from the campus or her lack of judicial experience. However, as HA reader Frank points out, her record as Solicitor General will provide an argument on competence, too. Kagan didn’t do her homework before arguing the Citizens United case on behalf of the Obama administration and the FEC — which her probably-soon-to-be colleagues on the Supreme Court wasted no time in pointing out. It came at the very beginning of her oral argument, when one might expect a Solicitor General to attempt to impress the panel with her grasp of law and precedent:
ORAL ARGUMENT OF ELENA KAGAN
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEE GENERAL KAGAN: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:
I have three very quick points to make about the government position. The first is that this issue has a long history. For over 100 years Congress has made a judgment that corporations must be subject to special rules when they participate in elections and this Court has never questioned that judgment.
Number two -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We never questioned it, but we never approved it, either. And we gave some really weird interpretations to the Taft-Hartley Act in order to avoid confronting the question.
GENERAL KAGAN: I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this Court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case — first the contribution limits, then the expenditure limits that came in by way of Taft-Hartley — and then of course in Austin specifically approved those limits.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t understand what you are saying. I mean, we are not a self — self-starting institution here. We only disapprove of something when somebody asks us to. And if there was no occasion for us to approve or disapprove, it proves nothing whatever that we didn’t disapprove it.
GENERAL KAGAN: Well, you are not a self-starting institution. But many litigants brought many cases to you in 1907 and onwards and in each case this Court turns down, declined the opportunity, to invalidate or otherwise interfere with this legislation.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that judgment was validated by Buckley’s contribution-expenditure line. And you’re correct if you look at contributions, but this is an expenditure case. And I think that it doesn’t clarify the situation to say that for100 years — to suggest that for 100 years we would have allowed expenditure limitations, which in order to work at all have to have a speaker-based distinction, exemption from media, content-based distinction, time-based distinction. We’ve never allowed that.
In fact, the crux of the case was the issue of limiting expenditures as an expression of political speech, not contributions. Kagan started off her argument by misconstruing the issue and then offering a factually incorrect reading of precedent. Both Scalia and Kennedy objected to it before Kagan even had time to get the argument completed, although as the transcript notes, she didn’t pay much attention to them.
Without any judicial experience, Kagan has to rely on her performance at the Court as Solicitor General over a short period of fifteen months — and at best, it’s mixed. (Hot Air " When Elena met Antonin and Anthony.)
Never let facts get in the way of a conclusion that you try to present with a straight positivist face.
Actually, Solicitor General Kagan's record is not "mixed."
No, we don't take the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic Rudolph William Giuliani's word that Miss Kagan is not an "extremist" (see Giuliani: Kagan not an 'extremist'). Giuliani does not think that supporting the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs as a matter of principle is "extreme." And despite his protestations that he had no litmus test on abortion in making his selection to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, only someone who has taken all leave of his senses believes that Elena Kagan is not fully pro-abortion to the very core of her being.
After all, Kagan served as an Associate White House Counsel to President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, helping to shepherd the nomination of the fully pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace the then retiring Associate Justice Byron White in 1993. No one should be in the least bit in the dark about where she stands about baby-killing, and that is the one and only issue that matters as no one who supports the execution of a single, solitary innocent human life under cover of the civil law is fit to hold any office, whether elected or appointed, of public trust in the United States of America or anywhere else in the world.
Elena Kagan has told us that she is a pro-abort by working for the pro-death William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and for the equally pro-death Barack Hussein Obama. She told us so two days ago when she praised two "activist," pro-abortion judges. Abner Mikva and the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked early in her legal career, praising Caesars Clintonus and Obamus at the same time:
My professional life has been marked by great good fortune. I clerked for a judge, Abner Mikva, who represents the best in public service, and for a Justice, Thurgood Marshall, who did more to promote justice over the course of his legal career than did any lawyer in his lifetime.
I have had the opportunity to serve under two remarkable Presidents who have devoted themselves to lifting the lives of others and to have inspired a great many more to do the same. (Remarks by the President and Solicitor General Elena Kagan at the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.)
Any questions. Case closed against Elena Kagan.
Elena Kagan may be very well-intentioned. She may be pleasant and affable on a personal level, having committed herself, as Caesar Obamus noted two days ago, to recruiting more "conservative" professors to teach on the faculty of Harvard Law School when she served as that institution's dean from July 1, 2003, to July 1, 2009, the last few months of her deanship having overlapped her service as Solicitor General of the United States of America, which began on March 19, 2009. This does not qualify her to serve in any office of public trust. Nor is she qualified because she happens to have the good grace, unlike that of her fellow New Yorker, Sonia Sotomayor, to root for the "Amazins'" of Flushing, Queens, New York, the New York Mets:
But Elena is respected and admired not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament -- her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, “of understanding before disagreeing”; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder.
These traits were particularly evident during her tenure as dean. At a time when many believed that the Harvard faculty had gotten a little one-sided in its viewpoint, she sought to recruit prominent conservative scholars and spur a healthy debate on campus. And she encouraged students from all backgrounds to respectfully exchange ideas and seek common ground -- because she believes, as I do, that exposure to a broad array of perspectives is the foundation not just for a sound legal education, but of a successful life in the law.
This appreciation for diverse views may also come in handy as a die-hard Mets fan serving alongside her new colleague-to-be, Yankees fan Justice Sotomayor, who I believe has ordered a pinstriped robe for the occasion. (Laughter.) (Remarks by the President and Solicitor General Elena Kagan at the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.)
As much as my naturalistic ties of sentimentality to the New York Mets still remain in my being despite my not having attended a game since I walked out of the now demolished William A. Shea Municipal Stadium on Tuesday, July 16, 2002, being a Mets' fan does not redeem the candidacy to the highest court in the United States of America of one who is committed to an agenda of evil under cover of the civil law in the name of "compassion," "human rights," and "justice."
Elena Kagan will face some tough questioning in the weeks ahead. She will be confirmed, probably with more than a handful of votes from members of the Republican caucus in the United States Senate, people who are not going to launch a filibuster against the floor vote to confirm her. She will then join a Supreme Court where each of the justices, Catholic and Jewish alike, reject categorically this statement of simple Catholic truth:
"If Jesus Christ," proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, "if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God". . . .
"To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine."
In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:
"Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies."
Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:
"Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?" (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers , which is available from Mr. Hugh Akin's Catholic Action Resource Center)
Each of the six men and three women who will sit on the Supreme Court of the United States of America when its 2010-2011 convenes in October do not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ must reign as King as men and their nations. Each either denies or considers as irrelevant to public life and social order the fact that the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, became Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation and has redeemed us by the shedding of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and rose again from the dead on Easter Sunday, ascending to God the Father's right hand in glory forty days after His Resurrection, that is, on Ascension Thursday. Such is the rotten fruit of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the rise of Judeo-Masonry, of which Americanism, an important building block of conciliarism, derives its origins and its strength up to this present day.
The fact that Protestants and Masons will have no representation of the Supreme Court of the United States of America come its new term in less than five months from now matters not as the religiously indifferentist, naturalistic spirit of Judeo-Masonry is possessed and expressed openly by every member, Catholic and Jewish alike, who is serving on the Court at this time and as the Court will be constituted after Elena Kagan takes her place as an associate justice thereon. It is important to call to mind these words of Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, in this regard:
For, from what We have above most clearly shown, that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view -- namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a new state of things in accordance with their ideas, of which the foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere naturalism.
What We have said, and are about to say, must be understood of the sect of the Freemasons taken generically, and in so far as it comprises the associations kindred to it and confederated with it, but not of the individual members of them. There may be persons amongst these, and not a few who, although not free from the guilt of having entangled themselves in such associations, yet are neither themselves partners in their criminal acts nor aware of the ultimate object which they are endeavoring to attain. In the same way, some of the affiliated societies, perhaps, by no means approve of the extreme conclusions which they would, if consistent, embrace as necessarily following from their common principles, did not their very foulness strike them with horror. Some of these, again, are led by circumstances of times and places either to aim at smaller things than the others usually attempt or than they themselves would wish to attempt. They are not, however, for this reason, to be reckoned as alien to the masonic federation; for the masonic federation is to be judged not so much by the things which it has done, or brought to completion, as by the sum of its pronounced opinions.
The sum of Judeo-Masonry's pronounced opinions is represented exquisitely by each member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Elena Kagan's views, though different in details from those of her more "conservative" colleagues of the naturalistic bent, have the same anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist roots as those "conservatives." Those possessed with the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism proceed with their daily lives and public work as though the Incarnation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus was a matter of complete indifference to personal and social order, and thus the sterile, sophistic arguments between "strict constructionists" and "judicial activists" will continue to contribute to the worsening of American jurisprudence.
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.
