Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                  October 18, 2008

Willfully Trapped by Apostasy

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Professor Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, whose support for the hideous Marxist (see a series of links provided by The Novus Ordo Files News Archive and Analysis - Novus Ordo Watch that document the accuracy of the adjective "Marxist" as used here) pro-abort United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, D-Illinois, made him the subject of Trapped by Apostasy thirteen days ago now, is unbent in his enthusiastic support for a man who believes that the civil law can and must recognize a nonexistent "right" of a women to kill her preborn baby. Professor Kmiec's bold, brazen support for out-and-out defender of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, remains a scandalous testimony to the corruption of the sensus Catholicus caused by the heresy of Americanism.

Once again, as many readers may not retain all of the information provided on this site, let me provide another thumbnail description of the heresy of Americanism before explaining that Professor Kmiec is a quintessential Americanist who is serving as an apologist for a man trained by a Communist, Frank Marshall Davis, and who cut his political eye-teeth doing the bidding of the hateful Marxist named Saul Alinsky, Barack Hussein Obama, a man whose legal jurisprudence, if you can call it that, is nothing other than pure positivism, which is the belief that there are no transcendent truths by which civil law can be judged as moral or immoral. Civil law must, a positivist believes, be judged solely on the basis of the circumstances of the times and the prevailing legal "opinions" extant in the "scholarly" community concerning the "necessity" of "adjusting" constitutional interpretation to the "real needs" of "real people." In other words, civil law must not be judged by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, no less how those precepts have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Here is what I wrote about Americanism by way of summary form nearly nine months ago now in Babbling Inanities of Americanism (this material can be skipped by those who are thoroughly conversant with it; as I do get questions now and again from a few readers who have not retained or digested this information, I am providing here once again in this article by way explanation)

Americanism is the exaltation of the spirit of individual human abilities to "build" the "better world" without a complete and humble submission to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the God the Holy Ghost, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church that He Himself created upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. It is thus the exaltation of religious indifferentism (the belief that it doesn't matter what religion one belongs to, if any religion at all, as long as one is a "good" person) over the necessity of belief in the one and only true Faith, Catholicism.

Have you ever seen the following saying on the back of a tractor-trailer truck? "Start your week right: Attend the Church of your choice." This is an expression of pure, unadulterated Americanism, the likes of which have been condemned by pope after pope prior to 1958 in no certain terms, no ambiguity, no nuance, no concessions to any false concept known as the "new evangelization," no disparagement of proselytism, no mention of engaging in "dialogue" with unbelievers, no efforts to discourage efforts to convert Protestants. . . .

Americanism is the exaltation of the measure of personal and national greatness on the basis of naturalistic standards over the necessity of referring all things at all times to the final end of man, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for all eternity. It is thus the exaltation of the Judeo-Masonic spirit of  "brotherhood" over the Catholic teaching of the Communion of the Saints.

Americanism is the exaltation of the spirit of egalitarianism over the truth of the hierarchy that exists in the Order of Creation and in the Order of Grace, that is, the Order of Redemption, making it necessary for there to a separation of Church and State in order that "free men" can choose for themselves how to live. Americanism is, all of its invocations of a generic "God" notwithstanding, the exaltation of the deification of man over man's due submission to God and the authority of His true Church in all that pertains to the good of souls and to matters of fundamental justice in according with the binding precepts of His Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Americanism is the exaltation of the spirit of "civil" and "religious" liberty" over the true sense of liberty that comes only from the Catholic Faith. That is, Americanism is the exaltation of human independence over a due submission to and reliance upon the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church that sees in the Cross the very means by which we are truly free, that is, free from an enslavement to the power of sin and eternal death.

Americanism is the exaltation of individualism over the due submission that we must render in all humility to Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church. Americanism thus feeds into Protestant Pentecostalism and the whole ethos of the "Catholic Charismatic Renewal" as it eschews a complete submission of one's mind and will to the binding teaching of Holy Mother Church's magisterium in favor of an "individual relationship" with God the Holy Ghost whereby people think that they have a "private pipeline" to God and can decide for themselves what part of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church they will and will not follow. . . .

Americanism represents the exaltation the mania of "action" divorced from prayer, making false distinctions between "active" and "passive" virtue," leading many Catholics to consider praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, for example, as "doing nothing" to help one's country. Pope Leo XIII and Saint Pius X both discussed this aspect of Americanism:

This overesteem of natural virtue finds a method of expression in assuming to divide all virtues in active and passive, and it is alleged that whereas passive virtues found better place in past times, our age is to be characterized by the active. That such a division and distinction cannot be maintained is patent-for there is not, nor can there be, merely passive virtue. "Virtue," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "designates the perfection of some faculty, but end of such faculty is an act, and an act of virtue is naught else than the good use of free will," acting, that is to say, under the grace of God if the act be one of supernatural virtue.

He alone could wish that some Christian virtues be adapted to certain times and different ones for other times who is unmindful of the apostle's words: "That those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son."- Romans viii, 29. Christ is the teacher and the exemplar of all sanctity, and to His standard must all those conform who wish for eternal life. Nor does Christ know any change as the ages pass, "for He is yesterday and to-day and the same forever."-Hebrews xiii, 8. To the men of all ages was the precept given: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart."-Matt. xi, 29.

To every age has He been made manifest to us as obedient even unto death; in every age the apostle's dictum has its force: "Those who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences." Would to God that more nowadays practiced these virtues in the degree of the saints of past times, who in humility, obedience and self-restraint were powerful "in word and in deed" -to the great advantage not only of religion, but of the state and the public welfare.

From this disregard of the - angelical virtues, erroneously styled passive, the step was a short one to a contempt of the religious life which has in some degree taken hold of minds. That such a value is generally held by the upholders of new views, we infer from certain statements concerning the vows which religious orders take. They say vows are alien to the spirit of our times, in that they limit the bounds of human liberty; that they are more suitable to weak than ›o strong minds; that so far from making for human perfection and the good of human organization, they are hurtful to both; but that this is as false as possible from the practice and the doctrine of the Church is clear, since she has always given the very highest approval to the religious method of life; nor without good cause, for those who under the divine call have freely embraced that state of life did not content themselves with the observance of precepts, but, going forward to the evangelical counsels, showed themselves ready and valiant soldiers of Christ. Shall we judge this to be a characteristic of weak minds, or shall we say that it is useless or hurtful to a more perfect state of life?

Those who so bind themselves by the vows of religion, far from having suffered a loss of liberty, enjoy that fuller and freer kind, that liberty, namely, by which Christ hath made us free. And this further view of theirs, namely, that the religious life is either entirely useless or of little service to the Church, besides being injurious to the religious orders cannot be the opinion of anyone who has read the annals of the Church. Did not your country, the United States, derive the beginnings both of faith and of culture from the children of these religious families? to one of whom but very lately, a thing greatly to your praise, you have decreed that a statue be publicly erected. And even at the present time wherever the religious families are found, how speedy and yet how fruitful a harvest of good works do they not bring forth! How very many leave home and seek strange lands to impart the truth of the gospel and to widen the bounds of civilization; and this they do with the greatest cheerfulness amid manifold dangers! Out of their number not less, indeed, than from the rest of the clergy, the Christian world finds the preachers of God's word, the directors of conscience, the teachers of youth and the Church itself the examples of all sanctity.

Nor should any difference of praise be made between those who follow the active state of life and those others who, charmed with solitude, give themselves to prayer and bodily mortification. And how much, indeed, of good report these have merited, and do merit, is known surely to all who do not forget that the "continual prayer of the just man" avails to placate and to bring down the blessings of heaven when to such prayers bodily mortification is added.

But if there be those who prefer to form one body without the obligation of the vows let them pursue such a course. It is not new in the Church, nor in any wise censurable. Let them be careful, however, not to set forth such a state above that of religious orders. But rather, since mankind are more disposed at the present time to indulge themselves in pleasures, let those be held in greater esteem "who having left all things have followed Christ." (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, January 22, 1899.)

With regard to morals, they [the Modernists] adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Americanism breeds the bubbling inanities that are spoken constantly by the average citizen and by those in public life. . . .

It is important to make some careful distinctions when discussing the heresy of Americanism:

First, the Catholic Church's condemnation of the heresy of Americanism has nothing to do with whether the conditions extant in the thirteen English colonies situated alongside the eastern seaboard of what became the United States of America justified a revolt from the authority of King George III. This is a matter about which the Church has nothing to say. Arguments could be made in support of a revolt. Arguments could be made against such a revolt. It is interesting to note, however, that only about a third of the colonists supported a break from the United Kingdom in 1776 and that many of those who did not support the revolt were harassed rather mercilessly by the self-styled "patriots" (gee, where have we seen this phenomenon lately?). The Americanist heresy, however, has nothing to do with a debate over whether the conditions of a justified revolt, which are more or less synonymous with the tenets of the Theory of the Just War, existed in the thirteen English colonies in what became the United States of America.

Second, the Catholic Church's condemnation of the heresy of American has nothing to do with the specific institutional arrangements created by the Constitution of the United States of America. Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial that she can adapt herself to any legitimate form of government provided that she be recognized as the true Church and that she be accorded the ultimate right, following the discharge of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation, to interpose herself, albeit rarely and judiciously, with the civil authorities when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention. Holy Mother Church, however, has no specific models of government to which men must adhere. She can adapt herself to a monarchy or to a presidential-congressional or parliamentary-ministerial form or to some other sort of government.

So many Americanists emote about these red herrings that have nothing to do with Americanism at all. Those who want to continue to emote can do so. Those who want to understand why Americanism is a heresy can continue to read this article.

What is at issue in the Americanist heresy are the false principles upon which the American founding were premised and how those false principles adversely influence the minds, hearts and souls of Catholics in the United States of America to view the Church through the eyes of the world rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith. These false principles have convinced generations upon generations of Catholics in the United States of America to look to partisan politics as the means (at first) for their upward mobility in American society and then as the means by which social problems can be resolved, usually by means of the massive expansion of the size and power of all levels of government (Federal, state and local) in full violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity and by the use of the confiscatory taxing power of the civil state. Having been convinced of the basic compatibility of pluralist paradigm with the Faith, Catholics of a "leftist" bent consider the Democrat Party to be the true secular "church," outside of which there can be no secular "salvation."  (Do you get it now, oh doubtful readers who are still struggling with this heresy?)


Douglas Kmiec would have us believe that the existence of a pluralistic nation makes it inadvisable to seek to conform the civil law to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law:

Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.   (For Obama but against abortion.)


This is formal apostasy. God is God no matter how many false religions predominate in a "pluralistic" nation. His immutable truths bind the consciences of all men at all times in all circumstances without any exception whatsoever. The truths of the Natural Law exist in the nature of things and can be known, albeit imperfectly, by the use of human reason. These truths are not "imposed." They exist. Those who defy these truths send themselves into states of grave disorder as their actions place them in direct warfare with God's eternal laws, whether or not they realize this and without for one moment judging their subjective culpability. No one has the "religious freedom" to sin, which is the source of all personal and social disorder. And the civil state has a positive obligation to root out grave sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance from its laws and the very fabric of its popular culture.

God's voice is clear, not obscure, and It speaks authentically to souls only through the Catholic Church, Professor Kmiec. Period. Any other "voice" belongs to the devil and his minions.

Pope Leo XIII wrote of this in no uncertain terms in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.


Pope Leo XIII wrote in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1980, that Catholics have a positive obligation to seek to reverse unjust laws. An obligation is not negotiable, Professor Kmiec:

Hallowed, therefore, in the minds of Christians is the very idea of public authority, in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the Divine Majesty, even when it is exercised by one unworthy. A just and due reverence to the laws abides in them, not from force and threats, but from a consciousness of duty; "for God hath not given us the spirit of fear."

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work." Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

Wherefore, to love both countries, that of earth below and that of heaven above, yet in such mode that the love of our heavenly surpass the love of our earthly home, and that human laws be never set above the divine law, is the essential duty of Christians, and the fountainhead, so to say, from which all other duties spring. The Redeemer of mankind of Himself has said: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." In like manner: "I am come to cast fire upon earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?'' In the knowledge of this truth, which constitutes the highest perfection of the mind; in divine charity which, in like manner, completes the will, all Christian life and liberty abide. This noble patrimony of truth and charity entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Church she defends and maintains ever with untiring endeavor and watchfulness.


Anyone who asserts that the civil state must respect the "religious freedom" of anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic alike, to kill a preborn baby under cover of law in a "pluralist" nation has defected from the Catholic Faith. Abortion, willful murder, is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Catholics have a duty to denounce such laws and to denounce everyone who supports, both in principle in fact, them. Perhaps Douglas Kmiec would like to repeat after me:

Barack Hussein Obama supports the mystical destruction of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of innocent preborn babies in their mothers' wombs under cover of law. He is absolutely unfit to hold any office, whether elected or appointed, of public trust under any conditions whatsoever. Barrack Hussein Obama seeks to promote a grave sin under cover of law, thereby injuring the eternal good of souls and injuring also the common temporal good, which depends upon the state of souls, as a result.


Professor Kmiec has taken refuge in United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama's "response" to United States Senator John Sidney McCain III's discussion of abortion in the debate that was held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, on Wednesday, October 15, 2008:

In the final presidential debate Wednesday, Obama had seemingly finished giving his view on abortion when he added these words: Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances."

On those words the election may turn. Some Republicans are telling Catholics that supporting Obama is a sin. Catholics are instructed not to cast a ballot for an advocate of abortion, but these partisans overstate the church's teaching to make an even broader claim: Namely, that a pro-choice candidate is off-limits too. Were this true, Obama's substantial lead in the polls might be subject to religious preemption among the 25% to 30% of voters who are Catholic in such battleground states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Florida.

So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes, but as I found when I publicly endorsed Obama, you've then got "some 'splain'n' to do." It's a matter of conscience, but had Obama proclaimed himself to be pro-choice and said nothing more, it would have been problematic. But there are those additional words about appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby.

This is not just debate posturing. It is consistent with Obama's successful effort to add language to the Democratic platform affirming the choice of a mother to keep her child by pledging pre- and post-natal care, funded maternity leave and income support for poor women who, studies show, are four times more likely to pursue an abortion absent some tangible assistance.


"Nobody is pro-abortion." That is a lie. A lie. "Nobody" is "pro-abortion." Please, Douglas Kmiec and Barack Hussein Obama, don't insult the intelligence of Americans who know better, those who have been on the front-lines for decades in opposition to the daily slaughter of the preborn, whether by surgical or chemical means.

The Reverend Frank Pavone, a conciliar "priest" who is the founder of "Priests for Life" (isn't that title a commentary on the state of the counterfeit church of conciliarism?), wrote a review, tinged with false ecumenism at the end, of a book entitled The Sacrament of Abortion:

The Sacrament of Abortion is the title of a book written by Ginette Paris and published in 1992. In this short book, the author claims that abortion is a sacred act, a sacrifice to Artemis (known to the Romans as Diana).

Artemis is both a protector of wild animals and a hunter who kills them with deadly aim. How can these contradictory roles be found in the same female deity? The view proposed in this book is that a mother properly cares for life only if she possesses full power over life and death. Death is sometimes preferable. The one who can provide death, in order that one may escape an unfriendly life, is really loving the one who is being killed.

Abortion, then, is seen as "an expression of maternal responsibility and not a failure of maternal love" (p.8). "Artemis stands for the refusal to give life if the gift is not pure and untainted….As Artemis might kill a wounded animal rather than allow it to limp along miserably, so a mother wishes to spare the child a painful destiny" (p. 55).

Artemis, of course, is the same goddess whose worshippers felt so threatened by Paul's proclamation of the Gospel in Ephesus, where a riot nearly broke out and a vast crowd shouted for two hours, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" (Acts 19:34). The worshippers of Artemis today should likewise feel that their beliefs are threatened, because the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ is that He alone has authority over life and death. Neither the mother, nor the father, nor the state, nor the individual herself, can claim absolute dominion over life. "Nobody lives as his own master, and nobody dies as his own master. While we live, we are responsible to the Lord, and when we die, we die as His servants. Both in life and death, we are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:7-8).

The fact that some defend abortion as a sacred act should alert us to the depth of the spiritual warfare that is going on. Abortion has never been merely or even primarily a political issue. It is a false religion. When pro-life Christians, for example, pray in front of an abortion mill, it is not simply a matter of pro-life people opposing false medicine. It is the true Church in conflict with a false Church. One former clinic security guard, after being converted, admitted why he was angry at pro-life sidewalk counselors: "You were coming to protest in front of our church. That clinic was where we conducted our worship."

May all believers, and their clergy, take renewed strength to speak out against abortion. Not only is doing so consistent with the proclamation of the Gospel; it is the proclamation of the Gospel. (Abortion - Pro Life - The "Sacrament" of Abortion.)


"Nobody" is "pro-abortion"? Do you really want to meet God in the face at the moment of your Particular Judgments, Douglas Kmiec and Barack Hussein Obama, and assert that "nobody" is "pro-abortion"? Really? Truly?

The Reverend Thomas Eutenauer, another conciliar "priest" who is the President of Human Life International, discussed the belief that baby-killing is considered a "sacrament" in an article that he wrote on August 10, 2007, making some very good points about the fact the battle against abortion is not going to be won at the polls:

The standard Catholic description of a real Sacrament is that it is an “efficacious sign instituted by Christ to give grace.” The “sign” is whatever the particular Sacrament is meant to convey: Baptism—cleansing from sin, Eucharist—union with Christ, Penance—forgiveness of sins, etc. “Efficacious” means that it actually produces the effect it signifies, and it “gives grace” as sort of a conduit of divine life into our souls. A Catholic Sacrament is holy in itself and does not need a holy person to administer it, and on the basis of the Sacrament’s innate holiness, the children of the Church are sanctified and in turn sanctify the world in which we live.

The demonic “sacrament” of abortion has the same characteristics as a real Sacrament except that it reverses any concept of holiness and perverts its meaning. This is because the devil always mimics God’s plan to communicate His life to us and does everything he can to draw us away from that life. In this case, abortion is a “sign” that points to death; it is “efficacious” in that it brings death through bodily destruction; it “destroys grace” in that each act of abortion is a mortal sin that seduces and corrupts all of those who take part in it.

Furthermore, abortionists, witches and Satanists put their “faith” in the “sacrament” of abortion. Don’t take my word for it. In a 1999 LifeSite interview, retired abortionist Patricia Baird-Windle, self-professed wiccan (witch), actually said, “Abortion is a major blessing, and a sacrament in the hands of women. ... At the very crucible of the sacrament of abortion work is that some women have an abortion out of love for the baby, [some] out of love for the children they already have and are having a hard time feeding.” Rarely am I shocked by what abortion apologists say, but this perverse logic leaves me utterly speechless. It shouldn’t surprise me, though; Ms. Baird-Windle claims responsibility for 65,000 abortions in the three death centers that she owned.

There’s more. An Episcopal “priestess,” Carter Hayward said, “Abortion would be a sacrament if women were in charge. Abortion should be a sacrament even today. I suspect that for many women today, and for their spouses, lovers, families and communities, abortion is celebrated as such, an occasion of deep and serious and sacred meaning.” No comment is really necessary here.

Let us never pretend that abortion is just a social or political phenomenon that has to be voted out of office to be defeated. We must do everything we can to restore legal protection to our most innocent citizens, but our battle against the devil will not be won at the polls. It will be won on our knees before the Lord and on our feet before the centers of death. More than ever we need men and women of tested holiness who are willing to fight the spiritual battle for the lives of God’s precious babies and the souls of their mothers and fathers. Even abortionists like Baird-Windle are caught up in a demonic religion which can be challenged and defeated by those of us who belong to the true Church of Christ, the only spiritual power strong enough to defeat the “sacrament” of abortion.

(Please see sidebar for a page of numerous “abortion as sacrament” quotes from those who justify this demonic practice. If you want to see how corrupt the extreme feminist establishment with regard to their “sacrament” please look at the publication of a 1975 book called “Abortion is a Blessing” on the “Freedom From Religion Foundation” website. http://ffrf.org/books/AIAB/.) (Spirit & Life

[Thomas A. Droleskey note: We can pray that Father Eutenauer comes to understand that the refusal of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King  and its embrace of the apostasy of "religious liberty" has contributed to the institutionalization of abortion under cover of law in nations around the world, all of the rhetoric of its leaders notwithstanding. The conciliarists' pro-life rhetoric is couched in conciliarspeak and based upon a "reconciliation" with the false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of Modernity.]


"Nobody" is "pro-abortion"? Just another lie from a man, Barack Hussein Obama, steeped in the lies of Modernity and at war by means of his statism and collectivism and redistributionism with the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity that was reiterated so clearly and unequivocally by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931:

When we speak of the reform of institutions, the State comes chiefly to mind, not as if universal well-being were to be expected from its activity, but because things have come to such a pass through the evil of what we have termed "individualism" that, following upon the overthrow and near extinction of that rich social life which was once highly developed through associations of various kinds, there remain virtually only individuals and the State. This is to the great harm of the State itself; for, with a structure of social governance lost, and with the taking over of all the burdens which the wrecked associations once bore. the State has been overwhelmed and crushed by almost infinite tasks and duties.

As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.


This puts the lie to the Socialist answer that Barack Hussein Obama gave to Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Saturday, October 11, 2008, that we need to "spread the wealth around." How can anyone claim with a straight face that Barack Hussein Obama stands for anything that is in accord with the authentic Social Teaching of the Catholic Church? He is a statist to the core of his being.

Moreover, the whole premise as to why law professor Douglas Kmiec can support Barack Hussein Obama is false and opposed to the peace and prosperity of eternity.  Obama's support for "education" to "prevent" "unintended pregnancies" is fallacious and opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here is the answer that Obama gave in the debate on October 15, 2008:

Obama: The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.

But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby."

Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation.

We should try to reduce these circumstances. (October 15, 2008: The Third McCain-Obama Presidential Debate


This is what Douglas Kmiec believes is a cause for support the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama?

Columnist Robert Novak, who is suffering from brain cancer and writing articles sporadically, noted that the candidate supported by Douglas Kmiec, Barack Hussein Obama, said the following at a rally in Johnstown, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Saturday, March 29, 2008:

"Look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." (An Illegitimate Baby: Blessing or Punishment?)


This is your "acceptable" candidate, Professor Kmiec? "I don't want them punished with a baby"? This is your acceptable candidate?

The conception of a child is the natural result of the powers given to man by God to continue the species. God has created a man to join into Holy Matrimony to procreate and educate children, who are to serve Him in this life as members of His true Church and to be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace so as to give Him glory for all eternity in Heaven. While it is a matter of shame, to be sure, to commit a Mortal Sin, the conception of a child is not a punishment. It is the natural result intended by God of the union of a man and a woman in that which is proper to the married state even if this power is used sinfully.

As to Obama's "plan" to deal with "unintended pregnancies, I have a question: What is "appropriate education" for youth? Classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? Nice try, Doug and Barack. Nice try. Your "appropriate education for youth" has been condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.

Explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is forbidden. It is an incentive to sin, not to virtue. The young can be taught to conquer the ravages of fallen human nature by being taught to know, love and to serve God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and by attempting to cooperate on a daily basis with the Sanctifying Grace as they consecrated themselves to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. And if, God forbid, a young person should fall into a Mortal Sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, then they must be taught to get into the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and to make reparation for their sins after receiving Absolution from a true bishop or a true priest. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. No, not an infallible guarantor of sanctity or virtue, only the necessary precondition for the efficacious pursuit of sanctity and thus for the establishment and maintenance of social order.

Sure, the counterfeit church of conciliarism has embraced the very thing that Pope Pius XI prohibited and called an incentive to sin. This is but one of the many proofs of its apostate nature. Unlike that counterfeit church of conciliarism, however, Catholics make no concessions at all to the falsehoods and false methodologies of naturalism.

Thus it is, Professor Kmiec, that Barack Hussein Obama's desire to provide "appropriate education for youth" indemnifies him not one little bit for his unrepentant support for baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means. We have had over forty-five years of such "appropriate education for youth." Behold the wretched results. To believe that Barack Hussein Obama's support for "appropriate education for youth" and for "adoption" makes this pro-abort Marxist reprobate fit for the vote of any believing Catholic is as delusional as those who believe that John Sidney McCain III is an acceptable candidate for public office because of the Republican Party's national platform plank that calls for a no-exceptions constitutional amendment to protect the inviolability of innocent preborn life despite the fact that he, McCain, supports no such thing. Delusional.

Barack Hussein Obama has said that one of his first acts as President of the United States of America would be to sign the so-called "Freedom of Choice" bill that would attempt to nullify all state laws, most of which are not without their immoral loopholes (see Fully Informed About Consent, Good Intentions Do Not Redeem Moral Flaws, and No Exceptions to Catholicism, Not One, Ever, each of which was written before I came to accept the truth that those who defect from the Faith cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately), that attempt to "regulate" the killing of the preborn. How, Professor Kmiec, is this "bringing the country" together or "bridging gaps of opinion"? How is this nothing other than pandering to the pro-death lobbyists who have funded Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy quite handsomely?

Professor Kmiec is correct when he notes that a reversal of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe v. Wade would leave surgical baby-killing "legal" in most states. That does not mean, however, that we render support to active pro-aborts who have used their careers to protect chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of law. And while it is indeed true we are not resolving the daily slaughter of the preborn by means merely natural, whether those means be of the "leftist" or the "rightist" bents of the falsehood that is naturalism, the mere fact that there is a "diversity of opinion" on the issue of baby-killing under cover of law does not mean that we surrender to this seemingly "unbridgeable" gap of "opinion." No.

The existence of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law is the logical, inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and cemented in place by the rise of Judeo-Masonry and the scores of naturalistic "philosophies" and ideologies spawned thereby. There is no other way to retard this evil than by praying and working for the conversion of the United States of America to the true Faith.

We must nevertheless fulfill our duties as Catholics to denounce unjust laws and those who support them as we pray and make sacrifices for the conversion of our fellow citizens and of our very nation to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Pope Leo XIII explained our duties in this regard in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:


But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error.


As I noted in Trapped by Apostasy, Douglas Kmiec, who was born in the same year as I was, 1951, knows nothing of this. I wouldn't have known any of this unless I had been challenged at a professional conference in the mid-1980s to reconsider my efforts to reconcile the founding of the United States of America with the Faith. I had believed that the constitutional regime and electoral system provided Catholics with a means to convert the nation to the Faith, and I was told that I had to read the social encyclical letters. I did so, recognizing that I had been wrong in my efforts to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is, however, nevertheless very tragic that Professor Kmiec has persisted in his support for a unrepentant supporter of baby-killing and statism despite his having been shown his multiple errors, chief among them being his conciliarist view that God is leading people to make decisions contrary to His eternal laws in accord with the heresy of "religious liberty." The authentic voice of God never leads anyone into sin. Ever.

When all is said and done, however, Mr. Kmiec's shilling for Barack Hussein Obama continues a long tradition of Catholics in the United States of America subordinating the Faith to the careerist exigencies of professional politicians. Dr. Joseph Varacalli, a former colleague of mine from Nassau Community College and a co-founder of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, wrote a book in 2001 entitled Bright Promise in which he discussed the many ways in which Catholic immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe were coopted by the egalitarian, pluralist and majoritarian ethos extant in the United States of America. The only difference between the latter part of the Nineteenth and early part of the Twentieth Centuries, when most Catholics did the bidding of the Democrat Party no matter which egregious anti-Catholic or/or formal member of a Masonic lodge ran for President, and now is that most Catholics do the bidding of both major organized crime families in the United States of America, the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, in almost exactly equal numbers. (See also Cut From the Same Cloth.)

Catholics continued to support the egregious anti-Catholic Thomas Woodrow Wilson even after he told Father Clement Kelley, then a representative of the American bishops, that he would not intervene to stop the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico:

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

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


The Catholic bishops, mind you, expressed their full support for Woodrow Wilson's call to involve the United States of America in the Great War (World War I) after Wilson challenged "Mister" Gibbons to show that his group of adherents with recent immigrant roots in Europe would be "patriotic" to the cause of the government of the United States of America as it involved itself in a war started by nationalism in Europe and one that would serve as a vessel for Wilson to spread American 'exceptionalism" as the foundation of "new world order" in Europe. It did not matter to the American bishops that this anti-Catholic reprobate, Wilson, betrayed their co-religionists in Mexico as he gave full support to the revolutionaries.

The same sort of lapdog behavior was exhibited by Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967, throughout his career as an ecclesiastical and political power broker. Mrs. Randy Engel's The Rite of Sodomy details Spellman's shameless shilling for Roosevelt and for the Americanist heresy of the separation of Church and State:

Yet during the Second World War, when President Roosevelt issued an order that required post exchanges to stock condoms and required quarter-masters (including Catholic officers) to distribute prophylactics, Spellman was again silent. further the Roosevelt Administration consistently failed to prosecute violations of the Comstock Law that prohibited the interstate traffic and foreign importation of articles of "immoral use" to prevent conception.

With the exception of one or two well-publicized attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics in New York City, Spellman tended to ignore the increased encroachment of government sponsored Malthusian programs at home and abroad. He viewed the issue of population control through a political rather than a moral lens. This was in sharp contrast to his predecessor Cardinal Hayes who had fought the Anti-Life Establishment tooth and nail and won.

That Cardinal Spellman was more than willing and able to compromise Catholic moral teaching when it suited him politically was amply demonstrated by the Puerto Rican birth control debacle of 1960.

In the mid-1930s, Cardinal Hayes effectively squashed all attempts by the Roosevelt Administration to impose a Malthusian program of population limitation on Puerto Rico. Hayes, a master of "punishment politics," told FDR either to withdraw the birth control initiative his administration had started on the island or face the loss of Catholic vote in the upcoming election. Roosevelt took Hayes' warning to heart and ordered that the Comstock Law be enforced in the [Territory] of Puerto Rico [which became a Commonwealth after World War II]. On September 15, 1936, the "Grand Experiment" was put on hold.

After Hayes' death in 1938, the American hierarchy, including the Powerhouse in New York, began to take a more lenient position toward federal and private population control initiatives on the island, especially under the Eisenhower Administration from 1953 to 1961.

With the repeal of the Comstock Law, and the massive influx of millions of U.S. dollars from the American-based Gamble, Rockefeller, McCormick and Ford Foundations, together with the dollar-hungry pharmaceutical industry, the Church in Puerto Rico braced itself for a major anti-life assault. The Puerto Rican bishops also had to contend with the loss of the traditional legal and political support they had come to expect form the American hierarchy.

In 1960, the Puerto Rico hierarchy decided to make one last concerted effort to drive the Sangerite forces from the island. The Catholic resistance was lead by two American Bishops--James F. Davis of San Juan and James E. McManus of Ponce. The Catholic Church in Puerto Rico helped to organize a national political party--the Christian Action Party (CAP). The new political front was composed primarily of Catholic laymen and its platform included opposition to existing permissive legislation on birth control and sterilization.

When increasing numbers of CAP flags began to fly from the rooftops of Puerto Rico's Catholic homes, the leaders of the opposition parties, who favored turning Puerto Rico into an international Sangerite playground for massive U.S.-based contraceptive/abortifacient/sterilization experimental programs, became increasingly concerned for their own political futures. Then unexpected help arrived in the unlikely person of His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York.

One month before the hotly contested national election, Spellman arrived in Puerto Rico ostensibly to preside over two formal Church functions. While on the island, Spellman agreed to meet with CAP's major political rival, Governor Luis Munoz Marin, leader of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and a supporter of federal population control programs for Puerto Rico.

In an interview that followed his meeting with Munoz, Spellman, known for years as FDR's errand boy with a miter, claimed that politics were outside his purview. The cardinal's statement was interpreted by the press as an indictment of the partisan politics of Bishops Davis and McManus. To underscore his message, as soon as Spellman returned to the States he made a public statement in opposition to the latest directives of the Puerto Rico bishops prohibiting Catholics from voting for Munoz and his anti-life PDP cohorts. Catholic voters in Puerto Rico should vote their conscience without the threat of Church penalties, Spellman said.

Boston's Cardinal Cushing, John F. Kennedy's "political godfather," joined Spellman in expressed "feigned horror" at the thought of ecclesiastical authority attempting to dictate political voting. "This has never been a part of our history, and I pray God that it will never be!" said Cushing. Cushing's main concern was not the Puerto Rican people. His main worry was that the flack caused by the Puerto Rican birth control affair might overflow into the upcoming presidential campaign and hurt John Kennedy's bid for the White House.

The national election turned out to be a political disaster for CAP. Munoz and the PDP won by a landslide. Bishop Davis was forced to end the tragic state of confusion among the Catholic laity by declaring just before the election that no penalties would be imposed on those who voted for PDP.

Two years later, with the knowledge and approval of the American hierarchy and the Holy See, the Puerto Rican hierarchy was pressured into singing a secret concordat of "non-interference" in government-sponsored birth control programs--a sop being that the programs would now include instruction in the "rhythm method." While insisting on their right to hold and express legitimate opposition to such programs, the Puerto Rican bishops promised they would "never impose their own moral doctrines upon individuals who do not accept the Catholic teaching."

When the Sangerite storm hit the mainland in the late 1960s, AmChurch would echo this same theme song, opening the floodgates to a multi-billion dollar federal-life-prevention (and destruction) program. (pp. 647-649)

Another Americanist, Richard Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston from 1944 to 1970, told legislators in Massachusetts that the Catholic Church would not "impose" his "view" on a bill that had been introduced by then State Senator Michael S. Dukakis to legalize the sale of contraceptives:

Early in the summer of 1965, the Massachusetts legislature took up a proposal to repeal the state's Birth Control law, which barred the use of contraceptives. . . . In a state where Catholics constituted a voting majority, and dominated the legislature, the prospects for repeal appeared remote. Then on June 22, Cardinal Cushing appeared on a local radio program, 'An Afternoon with Haywood Vincent,' and effectively scuttled the opposition. Cardinal Cushing announced: 'My position in this matter is that birth control in accordance with artificial means is immoral, and not permissible. But this is Catholic teaching. I am also convinced that I should not impose my position upon those of other faiths'. Warming to the subject, the cardinal told his radio audience that 'I could not in conscience approve the legislation' that had been proposed. However, he quickly added, 'I will make no effort to impose my opinion upon others.' So there it was: the 'personally opposed' argument, in fully developed form, enunciated by a Prince of the Church nearly 40 years ago! Notice how the unvarying teaching of the Catholic Church, which condemned artificial contraception as an offense against natural law, is reduced here to a matter of the cardinal's personal belief. And notice how he makes no effort to persuade legislators with the force of his arguments; any such effort is condemned in advance as a bid to 'impose' his opinion. Cardinal Cushing conceded that in the past, Catholic leaders had opposed any effort to alter the Birth Control law. 'But my thinking has changed on that matter,' he reported, 'for the simple reason that I do not see where I have an obligation to impose my religious beliefs on people who just do not accept the same faith as I do'. . . . Before the end of his fateful radio broadcast, Cardinal Cushing gave his advice to the Catholic members of the Massachusetts legislature: 'If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it. You represent them. You don't represent the Catholic Church.' Dozens of Catholic legislators did vote for the bill, and the Birth Control law was abolished. Perhaps more important in the long run, the 'personally opposed' politician had his rationale." (Catholic World Report, November 2003)

In more recent decades we have seen the likes of the late Joseph Bernardin and Roger Mahony serve as apologists for various pro-abortion politicians, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. I am sure that Professor Douglas Kmiec is far, far from alone in carrying on the ignoble American Catholic tradition of subordinating the truths of the Faith to the interest of statist and fully pro-abortion candidates for public office. He has lots of company in the ranks of the conciliar "hierarchy," clergy and members of various religious members as well as probably close to forty percent of lay Catholics. Such is the legacy of the heresy of Americanism and conciliarism's embrace and propagation of it.

Time does not permit a listing of the numerous ways in which "conservative" "bishops" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have enabled phony pro-life candidates of the Republican Party in the past twenty-seven to thirty years. They are willing to subordinate the truths of the Faith in order to "stop" the allegedly "greater of two evils" from gaining office even though they are silent about the so-called "lesser of two evils'" support for the chemical assassination of the preborn and for the surgical execution of innocent babies in certain "hard cases."

These "conservative" "bishops" have been silent about the support for the mass murder and torture of innocent civilians around in Iraq and elsewhere in the "pro-life" conservative's "global war on terror," a "war" that has the full support of John Sidney McCain III, who has said not a word about the repeated and wanton killings of innocent Iraqis by American military personnel on the "hunch" that these innocent, unarmed Iraqis might pose a threat to them, to say nothing of the reckless bombings of civilian population centers that have killed many thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians. I mean, which one of these "conservative" "bishops" has said one word in protest of the introduction of contraceptives into Iraq in the name of the "liberation" of Iraqi women soon after our troops invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003.

No,according to these "conservative" "bishops." to criticize the "lesser of two evils" for such policies would be to make the election of the "greater of the two evils" more possible. These "conservative" "bishops" are trapped by the apostasy that they have inherited from their Catholic predecessors, men who enabled career politicians one after the other no matter the multiplicity of ways in which those career politicians demonstrated that they were at war with the Catholic Faith. The trap posed by the apostasy of Americanism leads to an utter blindness to the truth that it is impossible for there to be order within the souls of individuals or within a nation absent a due submission to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church and without individual men having belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace. The conciliar "bishops" understand none of this.

John Sidney McCain III, who supports surgical baby-killing in some instances, does not view abortion as an act of true domestic terrorism and has been unwilling to label Obama as a supporter of this terrorism, saying only that Obama believes in an "extreme" supporter of abortion. There is no such thing. One either supports the inviolability of each innocent human being or he does not. And if he does not, no amount of calling oneself "proudly pro-life" can change the simple fact that he is simply less pro-abortion than someone who supports baby-killing in all instances, a supporter all the same of a warfare against God and the good of one's own country that can result only in the ruin of men and their nations.

To believe that John McCain represents a "way out" of the trap created by the devil with the rise of the naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian civil state is to continue the same mistake that was made in the past--and continues to be made--by Catholics who have adhered so reflexively to the careerists put forth by the Democrat Party. John McCain has no understanding that God will never "bless" a country that kills innocent babies, whether by chemical or surgical means, and that has no regard for the lives of innocents abroad who get in the way of wars of American "exceptionalism."

As bad as Barack Hussein Obama is, and he is going to do lots of bad things if he gets elected as President of the United States of America seventeen days from now, John Sidney McCain III has been incapable of competing with him successfully, at least thus far, because he has no clear moral or spiritual compass of his own in a country where material interests usually trump all others. A naturalist whose "views" of the world are shaped by illogic and/or sentimentality or the passions of the moment is no match in most instances for a naturalist who has an agenda of one naturalistic evil after another.

Nothing I have written on this site or have spoken in various lectures or interviews is going to defeat John Sidney McCain on November 4, 2008, if he winds up losing to Barack Hussein Obama. John Sidney McCain III will have wound up defeating himself as he stands for little else other than his own career self-interest. And if Obama loses, which is still quite possible, it will be because there is still some degree of resistance among enough Americans to the sort of Marxism that Obama exhibited in his answer to "Joe the Plumber" one week ago today. Christ the King, however, will not be a factor in the decision one way or the other, and that's exactly as the devil wants it to be as the evils of statism and globalism and/or American exceptionalism continue to be promoted no matter who gets elected.

Some of us, however, who are absolutely no better than anyone else, have made the decision to escape from the trap of apostasy posed by Americanism and conciliarism's embrace and propagation of it. We will not enable the naturalists of the "left" or the naturalists of the "right" with our votes, thereby feeding into what Mrs. Solange Hertz calls the "democratic heresy" (see The Fraud of Voting), that sovereignty resides with the people and not with Christ the King. For it is that "democratic heresy" that makes it possible for Catholics to promote for election those who support abortion in all instances and/or to consider those who support surgical abortion in some instances (and chemical abortions in most instances) as veritable champions of the Natural Law and the just moral order by way of comparison.

Those caught up in the Americanist trap are constantly diverted from the time they could spend before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament in prayer and the number of Rosaries they could pray each day in order to delude themselves into thinking that their concerted, well-intentioned "action" is going to make a "difference" in the country. It hasn't in the past. It won't now.

The petty politicians of today will pass. Their naturalistic ideologies (conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, positivism, relativism, materialism, etc.) will pass, each and every one of them. What will replace them? Who will replace these petty politicians?

Consider these words spoken to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Christ the King, Himself:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)


May we never stand in opposition to the Social Reign of Christ the King and to Mary our Immaculate Queen, especially by serving as apologists for complete and thorough pro-aborts such as Barack Hussein Obama.

As I noted in Trapped by Apostasy thirteen days ago:

There is a way out of the the trap of apostasy that is Americanism, and it runs through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary through to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and as we distribute blessed Green Scapulars to those whom God's holy and ineffable Providence places in our paths each day. We trust in Our Lady. It is that simple. Those of us consecrated to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary can be the most effective instruments of converting our nation to the true Faith if we offer our Rosaries and all of daily prayers and actions and sufferings and humiliations in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world.

As the late William C. Koneazny, the founder of the old Catholic Rendezvous meetings in Salisbury, Connecticut, noted before he died, "In the end, Our Lady is going to come and throw the bums out."

Yes, Bill, in the end Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph when a true pope consecrates Russia to that same Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops in fulfillment of her Fatima Message.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon, a triumph that will be heralded by unceasing shouts of:

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Luke the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Peter of Alcantara, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2008, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.