Unintended Reconciling of Enemies
by Thomas A. Droleskey
To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men whose minds are not conformed to the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our King has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.
To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men whose hearts are not consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who believe that they can "plan" or "will" "solutions" to domestic and international difficulties, convincing us that they need more and more of our money to do so.
To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who wind up having no regard even for the constitutions and just civil laws that they have sworn to uphold (see He Swore to Uphold the Constitution, Not the United Nations).
To reject the sweet yoke of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to live under the iron rule of men who are mad, men who never want to admit that their schemes for prosperity at home and for peace in the world are doomed to miserable failure time after time after time (see All Caesars Go Mad.)
My own lifetime of nearly sixty years constitutes a little more than one-fourth of this nation's existence since the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, two hundred thirty-five years ago now. Most of those sixty years have seen this country immersed in one war or another, whether hot or cold, as the military-industrial complex about which President Dwight David Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, delivered on Tuesday, January 17, 1961, accustomed us to accept unjust wars, including wars without clearly stated goals and no true plans of what constituted victory, as just part of our daily lives. Consider again President Eisenhower's very prescient words:
Crises there
will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great
or small,there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular
and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current
difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense;
development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a
dramatic expansion in basic and applied research-these and many other
possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as
the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each
proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the
need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between
the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for
advantage-balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably
desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and
the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between
action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good
judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds
imbalance and frustration.
The
record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their
government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded
to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in
kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
A
vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our
arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential
aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military
organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my
predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War
II or Korea.
Until the
latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments
industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as
required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency
improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a
permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three
and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense
establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net
income of all United States corporations.
This
conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city,
every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize
the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the
councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never
let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,
so that security and liberty may prosper together. (Dwight D. Eisenhower -- Farewell Address.)
Although Eisenhower did not
understand that the authentic security of one's nation is premised upon
its subordination to the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be
exercised by the Catholic Church, placing him in concert with today's
conciliar officials in the counterfeit conciliar church, the late
president and former five star General of the United States Army did
have a keen insight into the dangers posed by the rise of what he termed
so accurately as the military-industrial complex, which thrives on the
constant warfare that former President George Walker Bush and his advisers envisioned as
"necessary" to "secure" this country and "liberate" other peoples. The
precepts of the Just War Theory demand that military force be used as a
last resort in situations when there is a real and legitimate threat to a
nation's security and/or in situations where justice has been so
disturbed internationally that the only recourse to defend one's nation
and/or to restore justice is military force.
The judgment to use military force, which is
supposed to be governed in the United States of America by a declaration
of war passed by both Houses of the Congress of the United State, in
such situations must take into account many factors, including whether
the good end sought will be outweighed by the foreseen evil to be done
in the prosecution of military action. Even the best efforts to protect
noncombatants from injury and death will fail. Bombs go astray.
Noncombatants might be misidentified accidentally as combatants.
Soldiers make mistakes in the field of combat. War carries with it
terrible consequences, which is why the Catholic Church has taught from
time immemorial that every step be taken to assure, as far as is humanly
possible in this fallen world, that noncombatants are indemnified and
that the damage done to a country's infrastructure and food supply does
not create worse conditions that are meant to be redressed by the use of
military force.
The chaos wrought by the unjust and immoral invasion
of Iraq by the armed forces of the United States of America on March 19,
2003, has taken the lives of over 4,472 American service personnel
needlessly and opened up Iraq's borders, which were controlled very
tightly by the late dictator Saddam Hussein, to all kinds of Mohammedan
terrorists bent on fomenting violence among Iraq's fractious Mohammedan
sects and upon American military personnel and civilians based in that
country. While the violence has abated somewhat in the past few years, the
situation in Iraq continues to be violent and unstable. Indeed, more American troops were killed last month, June, than in any one month since 2008. And left mostly unreported
in most of the "mainstream" media are the continued attacks upon Eastern
Rite Catholics (and members of various Orthodox sects) in Iraq since
the American invasion in 2003 (see Go Tell Iraq's Catholics--and American Babies--About The "Lesser of Two Evils", As Blind Now As He As Always Been and More Catholic Blood Flows from the "Religion of Peace".)
As has been noted in other articles on this site,
Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug who liquidated political and ethnic
opponents at will. He did, however, maintain a sense of order in Iraq,
protecting the Christian minority there for a variety of reasons, one of
them most admittedly having to do with his own self-interest. The
neoconservative geniuses who planned the invasion of Iraq by exploiting
the events of September 11, 2001, and by manufacturing "evidence" to
"prove" that Hussein was stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction" that
he had long before destroyed (or had used after having been supplied them by the United States of America in the Iran-Iraq War and then on the Kurds in northern Iraq
in 1991 after the conclusion of the so-called "Gulf War") believed in their delusions that an American invasion would
usher in an American-style pluralist democratic republic. It never
dawned on these bright lights, many of whom, shall we say, deny the
Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that an
American invasion would go bad or that a "liberated" Iraq would make it
easier for various Mohammedan sects to wreak violence upon Catholics.
The flight of over a quarter of million of Iraqi Catholics from their
homeland since the American invasion in 2003 has been one of the most
tragic consequences of the neoconservatives' efforts to build a "better
world," principally, as they saw it, for the security of the State of
Israel, by means of the "enlightenment" provided by a quick war
prosecuted with advanced technologies.
Nearly three-quarters of a trillion of American taxpayer dollars have been spent thus far to buy the arms
that destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and to fight the armed
resistance against the invasion and occupation while at the same time
attempting to put down a civil war among Iraq's Mohammedans. Billions
more have been spent rebuilding the infrastructure that was destroyed by
"coalition" munitions, a rebuilding effort that has been characterized
by sloth and incompetence that have left millions of ordinary Iraqis
without basic services (water, electricity, sanitary facilities,
housing). American corporations and private contractors, at least one of
which was hired to engage in "enhanced interrogation" methods (read:
torture), and individual American entrepreneurs with ties to the
administration of former President George Walker Bush have been the real
beneficiaries of all this while almost nothing has been done to
alleviate the suffering of the nearly three-quarters of a million
Catholics who have stayed in Iraq, to say nothing of the plight of those
who left the country to go into exile, forfeiting their homes to
Mohammedan mobs eager to be rid of the "infidels" once and for all.
In Pakistan, where Catholics comprise less than one
percent of the population, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 has
resulted in a situation of great instability and random acts of violence
committed by various Mohammedan terrorist groups that were supposed to
be suppressed by the ten billion dollars in American aid to Pakistan
that have been given since the events of September 11, 2001. The
Pakistani government of General Pevrez Musharraf squandered that money
on matters unrelated to the "global war on terror." This has continued under Musharraf's successor, President Asif Ali Zardar. The same has been true in Afghanistan, where the Bag Man in a Karakul Hat, Hamid Karzai, continues his corrupt game of taking money from all comers, including the Iranians, who hardly have a defeat of the Taliban as one of their top foreign policy priorities.
Monies spent to make Americans "more secure" have
gone to undergirding regimes that are as corrupt and only slightly more
tyrannical than that of the United States of America, where the exercise
of tyranny is masked under the usual fascist guises of "national
security," patriotism" and the newer slogan of "the global war of
terror." All the while, you see, Catholics in Iraq and Pakistan and
elsewhere in the Mohammedan world have been put more at risk and
subjected to all manner of persecution without too many words of
concern, no less, protest emanating from Washington, District of
Columbia, United States of America. (For a review of the American presence in Iraq at the seven year mark last year, see Longer Than World War II.)
Oh, well, why should there be any protests over the
plight of Catholics in the Mohammedan world in the wake of the American
invasion of Iraq, which is not a "crusade" against Mohammedanism or
"Islamo-fascism," by the way. George W. Bush has gone out of his way to
call Mohammedanism a "religion of peace." The American invasion ousted a
corrupt secular Mohammedan dictator and replaced him with equally
corrupt religious Mohammedans who have fought with each other as they have squandered
American aid money and do little to stop sectarian violence or to come
to a meaningful, enforceable agreement on sharing the nation's oil
wealth, oblivious to the suffering of Iraq's Catholic community. Please,
the the "global war on terror" is not a "Christian" crusade against
Mohammedanism. Far from it. If it were, ladies and gentlemen, there
wouldn't be such silence in the wake of the persecution of Catholics in
Iraq, now would there?
Furthermore, of course, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has made it possible for Iraq's Shiite Mohammedan majority, repressed by Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Mohammedan, for reasons of the aggrandizement of his own clan and the Baath Party, to grow closer and closer to the Shiite Mohammedans who have governed the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran, which was former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney's next place to expand the ever-expanding "global war on terror" while the terror on the innocent preborn continues unabated in this country and the world, since the departure of the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi on January 16, 1979, and the return of the monstrous Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on February 1, 1979.
All of a sudden, it appears, some American policy-makers appear to be alarmed by the presence of lots of Iranian arms in Iraq to aid the Shiite militias, many of which have attacked Catholics and Catholic churches in Iraq. One of those to express alarm at the presence of so many Iranian arms in Iraq is the new United States Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, a pro-abortion Catholic who remains in perfectly "good standing" in the Diocese of Monterrey, California:
BAGHDAD — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Sunday that weapons supplied by Iran had become a “tremendous concern” for the United States in recent weeks
in Iraq, where more American troops died in June in combat-related
episodes than in any month since June 2008.
“We’re seeing more of those weapons going in from Iran, and they’ve
really hurt us,” Mr. Panetta said before arriving here on an unannounced
trip, his first to the Iraqi capital as defense secretary.
Mr. Panetta is the third top American official to raise an alarm about
Iranian influence in Iraq in recent days. The American ambassador to
Iraq, James F. Jeffrey, said last week that the United States had
“forensic” evidence that weapons and weapons parts from Iran were being
used by Shiite militias against American troops. His remarks were echoed
two days later in Washington by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mr. Panetta did not elaborate on what the forensic evidence entailed.
Mr. Panetta’s comments, made a day before he is to meet with the Iraqi
prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, were aimed at urging the Iraqi
military to take stronger action against Shiite militias and to see Iran
as the Obama administration does — not just as a threat to American
troops, but as a potential cancer in the country.
“The key right now is to make sure that we do everything possible to
ensure that the Iraqis within their own country are doing what they can
to stop the flow of those weapons and to stop the Shia from using them,”
Mr. Panetta said. Iraq did begin a crackdown on Shiite militias in the
south in recent days, but the American military would like the Iraqis to
do more.
The Shiite-led government has traditionally been more comfortable taking on Sunni militants.
American officials say that Iran supplies the militias with high-powered
rockets and parts for powerful bombs that can pierce armor. In June, 15
American service members were killed in Iraq, nine of them in rocket
attacks, American officials said.
Iran’s motive, American officials say, is to claim credit for driving
American forces out of Iraq at a time when those forces are more than
halfway out the door in a withdrawal planned long ago. All 46,000
remaining United States troops in Iraq are to leave by the end of this
year under an agreement between the two countries, but both Iraqi and
American military commanders believe that some American forces should
stay beyond 2011.
Few Iraqi politicians are willing to admit publicly that they need
American help, and Obama administration officials say they will consider
staying only if the Iraqis ask. The subject is particularly sensitive
because the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr helped the current
government come to power and has said many times that the United States
should leave immediately.
In April, Robert M. Gates, Mr. Panetta’s predecessor as defense
secretary, all but begged the Iraqis to ask for troops to stay and said
time was running out. Three months later, the situation is largely
unchanged, although the Iraqis appear to be inching toward a decision.
On Sunday, Mr. Panetta echoed Mr. Gates. “If they are to make a proposal
with regards to a continuing U.S. presence there, they have to make a
formal request — that we would obviously consider,” he said.
Mr. Panetta arrived in Baghdad from Helmand Province, in Afghanistan,
where he met with American Marines and Afghan Army soldiers at Camp
Dwyer, a sprawling military base and the site of a busy medevac hospital
in the southern desert. Mr. Panetta said he was encouraged by what he
saw. “I think the bottom line is we are on the right path here,” he
said.
In Washington, Obama administration officials frequently cite military
gains in the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar as evidence that the
Taliban have largely been driven from the south. But Marine commanders
offered a more complex assessment.
“The war is certainly not over here,” said Brig. Gen. Lew Craparotta, a
senior commander of the 20,000 Marines in Helmand Province. General
Craparotta said that although the Taliban had not come back with the
same strength in this summer’s fighting season as they had last year,
Marines were still taking direct fire and under threat from homemade
bombs every day, particularly in areas like Sangin and north toward the
Kajaki Dam.
Col. David Furness, a commander of a Marine regimental combat team in
central Helmand, said that Afghan Army soldiers were taking far heavier
casualties than the Americans and yet were getting up each morning and
returning to battle. “In the final analysis, it’s their fight,” he said,
adding that the Afghans, with American training, were now good to beat
the Taliban on their own. But once the Americans leave, he said, the
Afghans “have to maintain the will to do so, and I don’t know how that
will go.” (U.S. Ties Weapons From Iran to Increased Iraqi Violence.)
Some "crusade" against Mohammedanism.
The growing influence of Iran in Iraq, despite various border disputes over oil rights and lingering grievances from the Iraq-Iran War that Saddam Hussein launched on September 22, 1980, and continued until August 20, 1988, as the government of the United States of America supplied Hussein with tons upon tons of chemical weapons that were used against the Iranians, going so far at one point to also plan the bombing runs of Iraqi fighter pilots, is just another manifestation of the law of unintended consequences.
Those who refuse to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith will convince themselves that they can "solve" domestic and international problems by their own unaided powers and their "clever" ideas that turn out almost invariably to be not-so-clever after all. Thus it is that George Walker made it possible for at least a partial reconciliation of Iraq and Iran This may have been unintended. However, it was the inevitable result of looking through at the world through prism of the myth that is "American exceptionalism," which makes most of Americans and their country to be so very so "exceptional" as to be exempt from the obligation of God's law that mandates that men and their nations surrender to the sweet yoke of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church, the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
The myths of Americanism are vast. Vast. They begin with the men who had Founding Hatred for Christ the King. One of these men, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in The Federalist, Number 68, that the presidency would be occupied by a long line of virtuous men. Those not possessed of the true Faith must believe that they can "produce" structural arrangements by which they can govern themselves collectively that will sustain virtue, a contention that is of the essence of the heresy of Pelagianism. Here is what Hamilton wrote:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that
the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an
eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low
intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man
to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a
different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the
whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make
him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the
United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant
probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability
and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the
Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in
every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though
we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says:
"For forms of government let fools contest --
That which is best
administered is best," --
yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its
aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration. (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 68, March 12, 1787.)
Talk about myths and delusions? "A constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue"? All right. Just check out Not A Mention of Christ the King for a little reality check. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton? George Walker Bush? Barack Hussein Obama? Characters "pre-eminent for ability and virtue"? All right. Fine and dandy. Believe what you want. Almost no one reads these articles anyway!
The way out of this mess runs through Our Lady's Fatima Message that has been deconstructed by the conciliar revolutionaries, starting with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has even gone so far as to deny that an actual physical apparition of Our Lady took place in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, in 1917 (see Theological Commentary on the Fatima Message that is explained in my own On Full Display: The Modernist Mind). It runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, something that Our Lady explained ninety-four years ago today as she revealed the Second Secret of Fatima to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos, their cousin:
"I want you to come here on the 13th of next month,
[August] to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honour of Our Lady
of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the
war, because only she can help you."
"Continue to come here every month. In October, I
will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for
all to see and believe."
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."
"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners
go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my
Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved
and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not
cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate
of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know
that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish
the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of
the Church and of the Holy Father.
"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the
consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of
Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia
will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her
errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the
Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to
suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate
Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she
will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."
Mary specifically told Lucia not to tell anyone
about the secret at this stage, apart from Francisco, before continuing:
"When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive
us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially
those who are most in need.' "
Lucia asked if there was anything more, and after
assuring her that there was nothing more, Mary disappeared off into the
distance. Mary's words at Fatima
Our Lady promised on July 13 1917, to return to
request the consecration of Russia by the Holy Father. She came to visit
Sister Lucia in Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to specify the terms of
this consecration:
"The moment has come in which God asks the
Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the world, to make the
consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by
this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for
sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation:
sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray." (Mary's words at Fatima.)
As I have noted on
this site before, some will protest that the Church never passed on the
June 13, 1929, apparition of Our Lady to Sister Lucia in Tuy, Spain,
believing that the terms of the proper consecration of Russia were
spelled out in the July 13, 1917 apparition, which terms were fulfilled,
they believe, when Pope Pius XII singly consecrated Russia to Our
Lady's Immaculate Heart in 1952. Others, however, believe, as I do, that
Our Lady came in 1929 to make the specific request for the consecration
of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by a pope with all of the world's
bishops. As was pointed out in Our Lady Does Not Act on Her Own nearly four years ago now, the Church never ruled on Our Lady's December 10, 1925,
apparition to Sister Lucia dos Santos wherein she specified the
practice of the Five First Saturdays to be kept in reparation for sins
against her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart:
Have compassion on the heart of your most
holy Mother, covered with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at
every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation. Look, my
daughter, at my heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men
pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at
least try to console me and say that I promise to assist at the hour of
death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the
first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy
Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for
fifteen minutes while meditating on fifteen mysteries of the Rosary,
with the intention of making reparation to me."
The Church has given, at least in a de facto sense, recognition to this private apparition made in 1925, making it plausible, at the very least, that the 1929 apparition of Our Lady to Sister Lucia in the convent at Tuy, Spain, in
which Our Lady called for the collegial consecration of Russia by a
pope with all of the world's bishops to be an elaboration on that same
July 13, 1917, message in the Cova da Iria in which she first called for
the Communions of reparation on the First Saturdays and called for the
consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart by the pope.
Although
even some who accept the legitimacy of the 1929 apparition contend that
the time for such a collegial consecration has passed, noting correctly
that World War II could have been prevented by such a collegial
consecration, Sister Lucia continued to insist that the collegial
consecration needed to be done. With all due respect to those who do not
accept these conclusions, I would like to submit that the state of the world-at-large and that of the Church Militant on earth during this time of apostasy and betrayal is a direct chastisement for the fact that Popes Pius XI and XII were advised badly to refrain from consecrating Russia collegially with all of the world's bishops to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
We must, therefore, bear the cross with joy and gratitude in this time of chastisement, recognizing that the errors of Modernity in the world and those of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism are intertwined with each other as but similar manifestations of the errors of Russia (see Conversion of Russia Update). We have much to suffer for our own sins. We must suffer well as we place not our trust in the princes of naturalism in this world or the princes of false "reconciliation" and "dialogue" with false religions in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We must place our trust in the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we give this heart, out which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus was formed, all of the sufferings of the present moment so that she can present whatever merit we earn from patiently and lovingly enduring them to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period. It is Catholicism alone that men and their nations are reconciled to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Queen.
We must, therefore, enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
