Union of False Opposites

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although my unswerving rejection of the naturalistic farce that is partisan politics and public policy making here in the United States of America has earned me many detractors and has played its own role in ending all possibility, humanly speaking, of ever being employed again in my chosen field as a professor of political science, I will never tire of reminding the few remaining readers of this website that American electoral politics and public policy making are indeed farcical. And I will never tire of explaining that this farce is the precise result of the false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles upon which the Constitution of the United States of America is founded. False ideas lead to bad consequences. Always. Inevitably. Inexorably.

Let me explain this again as succinctly as I can in order to give yet another concrete example of how our electoral and policy-making processes must degenerate to the point at which any conception of the two major organized crime families of naturalism in the United States of America, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, borders on the willfully delusional.

I came to investigate the truth of the sedevacantist thesis at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 principally, although not exclusively, because Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continued to deny the the binding nature of Catholic Social Teaching concerning the necessity of the civil state's recognizing the true religion and yielding to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church on all that pertains to the good of souls. Civil rulers are bound by the Divine Positive Law to pursue the common temporal good in light of the pursuit of man's Last End, something that true pope after true pope taught us in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries following the founding of the naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity whose principal paradigm is the American model of "religious liberty" and cultural "pluralism."

Pope Saint Pius X summarized this teaching very succinctly in Vehmenter Nos, February 11, 1906:

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.)

 

Most Americans, including most traditionally-minded Catholics all up and down and across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time of apostasy and betrayal, do not understand these truths. I did not, thinking superficially during the first ten years or so of my teaching career that we could adhere to the "true" meaning of the words in the Constitution, oblivious to the simple truth even in the natural order of things that fallen men will always disagree about the meaning of things when they do not accept that God has appointed an ultimate authority, the Catholic Church, to guide them infallibly on matters of Faith and Morals that can never be subject to the arbitrary whims of a popular, legislative of judicial "majority." Any document that fails to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church over the consciences of men and that she alone can remind them ultimately that they have no authority from God to propose to do or to in fact carry out things contrary to the good of souls becomes the instrument of its own undoing as men will always say, "Who are you to tell me what the Constitution means. That's your interpretation, not mine." This is nothing other than the same phenomenon that the devil used to convince Martin Luther and all subsequent Protestants (and Modernist Catholics, of course) that they could read the words of Sacred Scripture as they desired to so as they were they own interpreters of Holy Writ. Why should men accord an immutable meaning to the words of a mere governmental constitution when they refuse to do so with Sacred Scripture. The logic, , is completely unassailable.

Sadly, though, many American Catholics, especially in sedevacantist circles, it appears, have been influenced by the heresy of Americanism, condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, that is at the essence of the insidious organization known as "The John Birch Society" (see No Christ the King? No Rosary? No Good Cause). True love of one's nation does not exalt the myths of its founding. True love of one's nation, which is as duty of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, seeks her good, the ultimate expression of which is her Catholicization in every aspect of public law and public policy and popular culture. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Nothing else. And this is why all naturalistic organizations promising a better tomorrow through "Americanism" or the "American way" are enemies of souls of souls and of all true social order as they are opposed to the Social Reign of Christ the King for which so many millions of Catholics have shed their blood. No amount of "information" about the particular problems that exist in the nation and the world today can redeem any naturalistic organization that fails to understand root causes and thus proposes "solutions" that will continue to fail. We must remember that the principal proximate cause of our contemporary problems is the diabolically-inspired Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King begun by Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., and institutionalized by the naturalistic principles of Judeo-Masonry in the modern civil state, starting with the United States of America.

It was not until I was reproached at a conference held by the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars that I began to recognize how wrong I had been in the preceding ten years. One scholar told me very bluntly, very directly: "You are wrong in seeking to reconcile the American founding with legitimate principles of the Catholic Faith. You need to read the Social Encyclical letters of our popes." He was correct. I was incorrect, forced to admit my errors. I then spent several years studying the encyclicals, realizing that my earlier work had been so erroneous. And it was after that correction that I understood that I had to spend the rest of my life as a champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King, something that has cost me my academic career and has cost me dearly even in many traditional Catholic circles that are imbued with the ethos of the heresy of Americanism.

Our Lord hates error of all kinds. The errors of the American founding led directly to the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "world view" concerning "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State." It is so very important for Catholics to understand right principles in order to quit being deceived by the lies of naturalism and the naturalists who populate television and radio "talk" programs that spew out nothing other than the sort of "injurious babbling" condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.

I continue the work of this website to help those sent to it by Our Lady to view all things in light of the Holy Faith so that they can understand the connection between the errors of Modernity, both of the "left" and the "right," and the errors of Modernism spawned thereby. The more that people persist in error, of course, will be the more that they spin their wheels on useless causes and permit their souls to be agitated by the devil's minions in those two principle organized crime families of naturalism in the United States as well as by various interest groups whose principal raison d'etre is to raise money to produce fund-raising appeal letters to raise more money as our problems continue to worsen). Naturalism cannot retard any social problems. Only Catholicism can do so, something that Pope Saint Pius X noted very clearly in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

 

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.

I have written over 1200 articles on my website in the past five years alone. About half of these deal with the Social Reign of Christ the King. (See, for just a few examples: A Catechism of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Not A Mention of Christ the King,  Union of Americanists, and From The Potomac to the Tiber and Back.)

Yes, there is much repetition in these articles. I repeat myself frequently as I am aware that people forget. They read things and then forget what they have read almost as soon as they have read an article. They need to be reminded, which is why Holy Mother Church in her true liturgy of the Roman Rite gives us an annual cycle of reading, knowing that some of her children might get a few things right about the pursuit of sanctity before they die if they immerse themselves in her Sacred Liturgy day after day for years on end. People need to read and reflect as "discussions" usually degenerate into a useless "back and forth." People need to read what our popes have taught, recognizing that they must submit to the teaching of our true popes as docile sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church.

Absent the firm foundation provided by the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by Holy Mother Church, therefore, there can be no true pursuit of the common temporal good as social order is premised upon order in the souls, and Catholicism is the only means to provide such order in the souls of men. When the true Faith is absent from the lives of men, both individually and in their actions together with others collectively in the institutions of civil government, then men must surrender to the relativistic exigencies of the moment, concerning themselves principally, if not exclusively, with the acquisition, retention and expansion of money and power.

This is illustrated by the simple fact that the leaders of the so-called "majority party" in the United States House of Representatives, the Republican Party, permitted a bill to come to the floor of the House that extended ObamaCare's provisions to pay for veterinary treatments of one's animals:

 

Yesterday, House Republican Leadership allowed a bill to come to the floor of the House to expand the scope of an Obamacare program. The bill passed by a vote of 280-138—with 95 Republican votes.

The Veterinary Public Health Amendments Act (HR 525), introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), would increase the number of veterinarians with public health training via federal subsidies. One of the bill’s provisions expands the Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program—a loan program created in Obamacare (Title V, Section 5204)—to include veterinarians in the definition of eligible public health officials.

After Obamacare was enacted, Democrats recognized that the loan program would not cover veterinarians and so they passed legislation late last year to expand its scope. According to an alert sent out by the conservative Republican Study Committee:

 

In the last Congress, H.R. 2999 attempted to expand eligibility for this loan repayment program to veterinarian public health professionals. The bill passed by voice vote in the early morning hour (1AM) of September 30, 2010, shortly before Members were about to recess to campaign for the November election. The Senate did not act on the bill….

Now, H.R. 2999 has resurfaced this Congress. Its exact text is reflected in H.R. 525 that is scheduled for a vote on the floor….At a time when conservatives are looking for federal programs to terminate, many Members may not want to expand eligibility for a federal health loan forgiveness program to any specialty group, especially for a program that Obamacare ushered in.

Why did 95 Republicans feel the need to expand the scope of Obamacare, even if at the margins? Why did Republican Leadership schedule the bill for a floor vote in the first place? Why are Republicans continuing to vote for these bills that expand government instead of looking to cut it? (House Republican Leadership Permits Vote to Extend ObamaCare to Veterinarians.)

 

What was that I wrote in Written In Sand and Still Caught in the Trap of Naturalism four and one-half months ago now? Oh well.

Only a word or two about the specifics of this absurd legislative proposal will suffice before reminding those who read this article that such absurdities are but the logical result of the false premises upon which this nation is founded.

As I noted in One Man's Life Changed By Doctor Droleskey, my late father, Dr. Albert Henry Martin Droleskey, retained a good sense of Catholic proportion concerning animals even though he had lapsed from the practice of the Faith while in veterinary college at the then named Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas from February of 1938 to June of 1943 and did not return to the Faith until late-1982. My father would never have approved of chemotherapy to treat a cancer-stricken dog or cat. He knew that animals who were stricken with a terminal illness should be put to sleep. There is no purpose to animal suffering. None whatsoever.

The use of expensive means to save a pet's life when an animal is afflicted with some terminal disorder is itself disordered. There is no purpose to animal suffering. Indeed, it is cruel to subject animals to extensive and expensive treatments to prolong their lives to feed the emotional needs of their owners who are unwilling to have a proper sense of detachment from them. Those of us who have pets are to be kind to them as God's dumb creatures. We are not, though, to make idols out of them whose lives must be preserved by all possible means. That two hundred eighty members of the United States House of Representatives, including ninety-five members in the allegedly more "conservative' of the two political major political parties, voted to extend ObamaCare benefits to veterinarians speaks of the loss of all due proportion that must by necessity occur when men and their nations are not informed by the truths of the Catholic Faith.

The professional career politicians in the leadership of the false opposite of the naturalistic "right" that is the Republican Party have given up the legislative battle on ObamaCare, being unwilling even to attempt to defund $105 billion to implement this statist monstrosity in a recent Continuing Resolution that, most tragically, kept the Federal government operational even though Congress has yet to enact a budget for Fiscal Year 2011. These professional politicians have decided to roll the dice and let ObamaCare be killed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. All these politicians care about is money and power. When are we going to learn this once and for all? There will be always be enough "realists" in the Republican ranks to side with Democrats to blunt the influence of those recently elected, who are being taken to the woodshed by Republican leaders so that they will be "instructed" that money and power are indeed all that matter in the imaginary world that is Washington, District of Columbia, built on the quicksand of indifference to the true God of Divine Revelation and support for one evil after another, including the evils represented by the violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity.

Some will protest at this point that the founders of the United States of America would never have approved of such an absurdity, that they would never have approved in the increase in the size of the power and scope of the Federal government that has taken place since the War between the States. They would never have approved the use of the interstate commerce clause in Subsection 8 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution to justify such things as compelling Americans to buy health insurance or to use ObamaCare, as some believe that it can be used, to dictate to us what we can eat lest we be taxed or fined. They would never have approved of the concept of a "living Constitution" that is so very similar to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's concept of a "living tradition" that can be adapted to the "times. Indeed, the two views are really the same insofar as it asserts that men are not necessarily bound to the "interpretations" given to the plain meaning of words that were written in another era.

It is certainly true that the founders, many of whom had a founding hatred for Christ the King, would be aghast at how the plain meaning of the words of the the Constitution have been replaced with "meanings" that fit the circumstances of the time.

The founders were, however, but mere mortals. Their words were not, contrary to those who suffer from what Dr. John C. Rao calls founderology, written under the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost and are thus not received from the hand of God. It is only logical, as noted at the beginning of this article, that subsequent generations would have as little respect for their work as succeeding generations of Protestants and Modernist Catholics have had for Holy Writ and Sacred Tradition, which Protestants reject out of hand. Reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church to exercise the Social Reign of Christ the King in a prudent and measured way that befits the demands of the moment and the threats that are being posed to the good of souls, my good and extremely few readers, and you reject the only way by which fallen creatures have any chance at all of preventing any otherwise just and reasonable system of government from degenerating into some form of statism sooner or later.

As similar as the notions of a "living Constitution" and "living Tradition" are, however, there is an essential difference: the Sacred Deposit of Tradition is immutable as It has been given to us by God Himself, who inspired It to be expressed in precise and exact terms that must have the same meaning now as at the time they written under the direct inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, Who guided the Council Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople to express the immutability Tradition as follows:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

 

It is the conciliar "reconciliation" with Modernity's embrace of "new" ways for "modern man" that makes it all the more difficult for Catholics across the vast spectrum of the ecclesiastical divide to break free of the hold that naturalism has on them, which is why so many of them reaction with taut expressions of emotion to accuse those of seeking to plant the seeds for the conversion of this nation to true Faith as being unrealistic, unpatriotic and filled with "self-hatred" for their country, which each of us who has been born or naturalized in the United States of America is called to love under the duties of filial piety that flow from the Fourth Commandment. True love, however, wills the good. And the ultimate good of our country is her Catholicization.

Pope Saint Pius X put the matter very directly in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

 

 

 

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Conciliarism is really an expression of the multiple errors of Modernity, including those associated with the false principles of the American founding.

What do we "do" in the meantime? We trust in Our Lady. It is that simple.

This is why we should continue to pray the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including those sins protected under cover of the civil law and promoted actively by American commercial enterprises around the world, as we pray also for the conversion of our nation and the conversion of those who are its leaders at this time.

We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, conscious of the fact that must make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant and of the world-at-large, accepting with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Rosary is, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, the best means to avoid the distractions put on by the naturalists for our amusement as they take our legitimate liberties away from us without so much as word of protest from most of the people in this country, including most of those who are Catholics.

Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, imploring the help of Good Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, especially on this his feast day? Aren't we willing to lose all here in this passing, mortal vale of tears for Jesus, Mary and Joseph in order that we have all in Heaven for all eternity with them?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix

A Reprise: Why Do I Refer To The Naturalist "Left" and Naturalist "Right" As "False Opposites"?

 

Although I have explained the terms that I use on these site any number of times in various articles, I do know that human beings forget. Some people forget definitions and concepts. I have had the tendency in recent years to forget names of people who have crossed our lives only a time or two in our travels across the nation, something that I used to remember quite well decades ago. It's not decades "ago" any longer, I am afraid, which is how some e-mails fall between the cracks.

Thus it is that I thought it useful to rework an explanation of the "false opposites" of the "left" and "right" that I had included parenthetically in the first posting of this article as a more easily readable appendix.

I refer to the "false opposites" of the "left" and the "right" because, despite their differences over  the powers "government" over that of the "individual," both the "left" and the "right" reject Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order. The adherents of the "left" and the "right" believe that it is neither prudent or necessary to acknowledge that the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother has changed human history. Such adherents also reject any suggestions that both men and their nations must be subordinate to Christ the King and the authority of His true Church on all that pertains to the good of souls and that the civil government has an obligation to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End.

No matter the differences between "conservatives" and "liberals," my friends, they both have one mind and one heart in the belief that man does not need the teaching and sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church to guide them in their private and social lives. This is, of course, the triumph of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of naturalism that was dissected so well by Pope Leo XIII. It matters little as to who is or is not a formally enrolled member of the "lodges" when most Catholics and non-Catholics alike are infected with the ethos of naturalism.

Similarly, any civil leader who believes that can, either by himself or with others, pursue genuine order without the help of Our Lady and the use of her Most Holy Rosary is a fool. We must give public honor to Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen.

That's the point I try to make repeatedly on this site.

Viva Cristo Rey!