Merchants of Murder and Mendacity

The news of the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al., authored by an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, has unleashed a political maelstrom, which was, of course, the intention of the leaker(s).

Many of the secular commentators have focused on the contents of the draft opinion, which was authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, that overturned the Court’s decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. William Casey, et al., June 27, 1992, while other commentators have focused on the hypocrisy of “leftists,” who will break the law, leak documents, and engage in campaigns of rank character assassination to achieve their goals, one of which has been to maintain legal protection for the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by surgical means.

This commentary will attempt to slice through the indignation of the “right” and the arrogance of the “left” to provide readers of this website with a Catholic perspective on this latest sideshow conjured up by the adversary to convince well-meaning people that the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

I. The Leak and Its Intentions

First, although I am a political scientist who has taught courses in American National Government, Judicial Process, and Constitutional Law throughout my long since ended thirty years of college teaching and am thus quite familiar with the processes of how Supreme Court justices circulate draft opinions after oral hearings and the first conference and vote taken thereafter (usually on Fridays of the week in which the hearings were held), I find the leak of Justice Alito’s draft opinion to be entirely unsurprising.

Why do I find the leak unsurprising?

Well, as per usual, you readers ask the most penetratingly incisive questions. Thanks so much.

The leak of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. is unsurprising to this little pea-brained septuagenarian as those who have contempt for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, including the Fifth Commandment’s very simple injunction that “Thou shalt not kill,” can easily disregard and have contempt for those just civil laws and ethical ordinances when it suits their purposes. As I have noted so frequently on this website, it is illogical to expect justice from those who are personally unjust. There is not one secular commentator who understands this. Not one.

Why get all upset about human conventions when men are indifferent to the Sovereignty of Christ the King and His true Church? Our true popes warned us about what happens when men and their nations when men ignore Christ the King and His true Church in favor of secular governments:

This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Indeed, as we see all too clearly from the daily headlines and instant news reports, public life is stained with crime.

Alas, public life is stained with crimes upon persons and property in a visible manner because most men, no matter where they stand along the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic naturalistic fault lines, sin, objectively speaking, with impunity in ways that do not make headlines against the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural Law every day. These sins, which are very visible to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who shed droplets of His Most Precious Blood in his Agony in the Garden as He contemplated their number, gravity and enormity, make men more disposed to commit wanton acts of violence against others. Men whose lives are steeped in sin and whose only thoughts look downward upon the earth not upward towards Heaven will be prone to be agitated by the events of this passing world. Some such men will even go beyond agitation and seek to do bodily harm to others.

Acts offensive to God bring violence to men, starting with false worship and the religious indifferentism bred by “religious liberty.” Most Americans, including most Catholics who live in the United States of America, are oblivious to the harm of false worship and of religious indifferentism. Pope Leo XIII, of course, wared us of this harm that is so invisible to so many men but it nevertheless is very real and can be seen clearly by those who view the world through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith:

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The United States of America, for instance, was founded on the flattery of “popular sovereignty” even though actual power was exercised by a select elite at the time and remains exercised by a select elite (career politicians, bureaucrats, agents of the Deep State) today. The lie of “popular sovereignty” has convinced men in the “civilized world” to believe that everything is a matter of debate, including the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

The false principles of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry were used by the American founds to convince men that they do not need belief in, access to and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace to grow in virtue, neigh well to become saints. The Calvinist spirit of egalitarianism and the Judeo-Masonic spirit of religious indifferentism and materialism have proliferated all manner of errors in the name of “liberty.” Acknowledging nothing external to the text of its own words as a brake on the proliferation of errors, the Constitution of the United States of America, which is so revered by Americanist Catholics and by “conservative” Protestants and Talmudists, becomes as mutable as the words of Holy Writ in the hands of Modernist Catholics and Protestants of any stripe or variety.

The Catholic Church is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Second, the political motivation of the leaker(s) is so transparent that it is superfluous to say much else except that the leak was intended to put public pressure on the members of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” to add seats to the Supreme Court of the United States of America and to end the legislative filibuster in the United States Senate. Organized efforts to pressure “swing state” Republicans into opposing the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and to pledge support for Federal legislation to codify the surgical vivisection of preborn babies.

Third, these protests are also designed to energize pro-baby killing voters into marching to the polls in droves to punish those nasty “pro-life” Republicans, most of whom, of course, mouth platitudes about opposing abortion and the “sanctity of life” while supporting the slicing and dicing of preborn babies in one or more of the “hard” cases (rape, incest, life of the mother) even though innocent life is always inviolable.

Although some, including United States Senator Raphael Edward Cruz (R-Texas), have stated that there is no possibility that the leader could be one of the three "liberal" associate justices, I am not so sure. One justice, who froths at the mouth with indignation in support of baby-killing, does come to mind even though it is likely that one of the twelve law clerks who work for Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan is the leaker, who is now, of course, a “hero” to pro-aborts for having sought to galvanize the pro-death forces into action to defend the killing of innocent babies, whose only “crime” was to have been conceived as the natural end of the gift that God has given unto men to continue the species, as a “constitutional right” and in the bogus name of “women’s reproductive health.” It is likely that the leaker, if he or she is a law clerk, will have a lucrative career as a legal analyst on MSNBC or CNN before running for public office on his or her protection of the relentless bloodletting of the innocents.

Fourth, all the leaker (or leakers) has (have) done is to accelerate the timing of the protests that were going to take place inevitably once the final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. is handed down. Although the protests are centered principally at this time on bullying Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Michael Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the protests will accelerate over the summer and into the fall to use surgical baby-killing as a means to deflect attention away from Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s deliberate efforts in 2020 to raise energy costs by means of terminating work on the Keystone Pipeline and ending the leases on Federal lands for oil drilling and natural gas exploration, to increase the annual Federal budget deficit and thus the national debt by inflationary and completely unfunded out-of-control expenditures that have benefited various donor and constituency groups of the organized crime family called the Democratic Party, constant overreaches by the so-called Centers for Disease Control to extend the coronavirus mask and “vaccine mandates,” a foreign policy that is incoherent, has emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine, and has Red China poised to invade the Republic of China on the island of Taiwan in the knowledge that their bought-and-paid-for stooge will do nothing to stop them, efforts to censor dissent from the “received truths” propagated by the Federal government, an organized campaign by the White House and the United States Department of Injustice to monitor and intimidate parents into ceasing all criticism of so-called “woke” educational curricula in American’s concentration camps, and from the serial influence peddling of the Biden family.

As will be discussed later in this commentary, the leaker’s belief that a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. to overturn the completely unconstitutional holdings in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton will change anything in this country is as naïve as the belief held by many Catholics in this country that such a decision will mean the end of surgical baby-killing. The only thing that is going to change is that the legislatures in the so-called “blue” states will strengthen access to the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and that the legislatures in the so-called “red” states will seek to limit, not outlaw, all abortions, chemical and surgical. This was explained at length in Beyond the Headlines: Making Catholic Sense of New Efforts to End Surgical Baby-Killing and The Supreme Masters of Sophistry: Unable to Admit the Fifth Commandment Exists (Combined Parts One and Two)

It is time for Catholics of good will to realize that we must stand on right principles and a clear-headed, rational understanding of the prophetic understanding of the simple fact that the Fifth Commandment’s prohibition of the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human being (a prohibition that binds even during the conduct of a just war) admits of no exceptions. Thus, anyone who says he makes “exceptions” to the Fifth Commandment as a matter of principle is not “pro-life.” No one who denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage is “pro-life,” and no judicial decision that permits the people and/or their elected representatives to permit or restrict the killing of any innocent human being under the cover of the civil law is any kind of “victory” about which we can celebrate.

II. Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden Defends the Indefensible by Invoking God

Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., was asked about the leak of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. by members of the mainslime media on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, the Feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross. Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden lived down to his demagogic self as he repeated every pro-abortion platitude that he himself has mouthed for the past nearly fifty years while being indemnified repeatedly by the conciliar authorities, including the current conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, Wiltin’ Gregory:

Q    What do you think of the ruling — or the draft that leaked, sir?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I just got a call saying that it’s been announced that it is a real draft, but it doesn’t represent who’s going to vote for it yet.  I hope there are not enough votes for it.

It’s the main reason why I worked so hard to keep Robert Bork off the Court.  It reflects his view almost — almost word — anyway.

Look, the idea that — it concerns me a great deal that we’re going to, after 50 years, decide a woman does not have a right to choose within the limits of the Supreme Court decision in Casey, number one. (Remarks by President Biden Before Air Force One Departure.)

Interjection Number One:

Although will be written about the late Judge Robert Bork in a very short while, suffice it to say that that he did believe that direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings was a matter to be determined by the people and/or their elected representatives. He did not believe in Natural Law jurisprudence. He took the position that was articulated constantly by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, namely, that the Constitution of the United States of America is “silent” on abortion, meaning that it is up to the “people” to determine whether to prohibit or restrict it.

The “people” and/or their representatives have so such authority as mere contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies will one day undergo the corruption of the grave do not get to decide anything about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment except to determine the penalties to imposed upon those who are found guilty of violating it. Bork, like Scalia, was a legal positivist, even though he argued vehemently that he was not.

It is very interesting to note that Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden’s official minders in the White House Press Office scrubbed the following statement he made during the press conference from the “official” transcript issued by the White House Politburo as Biden made a pro-life argument about the source of rights, something that many commentators have noticed and commented upon:

This reminds me of the debate I had with Robert Bork," he said, claiming, "Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights is because the government gave them to you." The president recalled his 1987 comments to Bork "when I was questioning him as chairman," which seemed a little muddled. 

"I said, ‘I believe the rights that I have, not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I’m just a child of God, I exist. I delegated by joining this union, to delegate oblig– some rights I have to the government for social good." (Biden Torched for Appealing to His Rights as a Child of God.)

What utter incoherence.

Of course, one’s rights come from God, the very same God who has given us the Fifth Commandment.

Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden is a blaspheme and a mocker of God as is the Argentine Apostate who lives in the Casa Santa Marta behind he walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, as far as I know, has said not one word about the Supreme Court leaker or Biden’s remarks on May 3, 2022. That this vile, vile reprobate, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., can continue to speak in this way without any rebuke from a conciliar “pope” course of fifty years speaks volumes about the state of apostasy and betrayal in which we find ourselves.

Alas, no woman has the right from God to choose to kill her preborn child. No human being has any moral right to choose to do that which is evil. Human beings have the free will to choose to do evil, but they do not have any moral right to do so, and he has rights because he exists within the Providence of God, then so do all human beings from the very moment of their conception.

As for the social good, perhaps it would be wise to review Pope Saint Pius X’s summary of Catholic teaching concerning the responsibilities that those in civil government have to foster conditions conducive to the sanctification and salvation of souls:

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)  

By the way, one of the correlative proofs of how the conciliar "popes" have defected from the Catholic Faith is that they have done what our true Roman Pontiffs have never ceased to do, to "refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. To refresh your memories on this point, please see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.

Men who do not understand or accept this simple statement will live their entire lives steeped in a pursuit of earthly pleasures and wealth and success that will never make them happy. They will scheme and plot to get ahead of other men in this world without a moment's thought as to the Particular Judgment that will be rendered upon their soul by Christ the King at the moment of their deaths. They will speak in utterly profane and even blasphemous terms as they disparage each other as it suits their purposes to do so. The only thing that matters to the high priests of naturalism is their own self-importance, their own campaign war chests, their own ability to influence policy and key appointments so as to maintain their places in positions of power.

Obviously, fallen human nature inclined the courtiers who served Catholic kings and emperors during the Middle Ages to joust with each other for positions of influence and power. Some kings and emperors made war upon Holy Mother Church. True. There were, however, always those exemplars of the Social Reign of Christ the King who, despite their own faults and failings, sought to pursue justice in the temporal realm in light of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. And even some of the mediocre and even rotten apples who served in some capacity or another in civil government during the Middle Ages understood their mortality, possessing at least a remote sense that it might be somewhat important to make a good confession of their sins before they died.

Pope Pius XII wrote in his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939, about the tempering of the imperfections of men during the Middle Ages by their possessing at least some sense of the Catholic faith:

It is true that even when Europe had a cohesion of brotherhood through identical ideals gathered from Christian preaching, she was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality. (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.)

Such a sense is entirely lacking in a world of naturalism whose grip on men has been furthered in the past five decades by concilairism's own "reconciliation" with its false principles, to say nothing of conciliarism's de facto embrace of the heresy of "universal salvation," leading so many to believe in the lie of Martin Luther, namely, that there is little that one can do to lose his salvation as long as he has made some kind of "profession of faith" in his heart and with his lips. A world where men either do not believe in eternal life or that "everyone goes to Heaven" is a world where amorality and practical atheism will reign supreme as the lowest common denominators of personal behavior and of social policy. It is also a world where most men, whether of the "left" or of the "right," believe that social order, however defined, can be maintained by the "good will" of men, a Judeo-Masonic concept that was smashed to smithereens by Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

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

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

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

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

Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract -- that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

This is a perfect description of the Judeo-Masonic world in which we live. No amount of the insane babbling of naturalists is ever going to “fix” that which is premised upon one falsehood after another.

Social good?

How can a man who willingly lets his son get rich off Red Chinese government-backed oligarchs and who supports two of the four crimes that call out to Heaven for vengeance speak of the social good?

To the next part of Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden’s remarks six days ago:

But even more equally as profound is the rationale used.  And it would mean that every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. 

I realize this goes back a long way, but one of the debates I had with Robert Bork was whether — whether Griswold vs. Connecticut should stand as law. 

The state of Connecticut said that the privacy of your bedroom — you — a husband and wife or a couple could not choose to use contraception; the use of contraception was a violation of the law.

If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question — a whole range of rights.  And the idea we’re letting the states make those decisions, localities make those decisions would be a fundamental shift in what we’ve done.

So, it goes far beyond — in my view, if it becomes a law and if what is written is what remains, it goes far beyond the concern of whether or not there is the right to choose.  It goes to other basic rights: the right to marry, the right to determine a whole range of things.  Because one of the issues that this Court — many of the members of the Court — a number of the members of the Court have not acknowledged is that there is a right to privacy in our Constitution.

I strongly believe there is.  I think the decision in Griswold was correct overruling; I think the decision in Roe was correct, because there’s a right to privacy.  There can be limitations on it, but it cannot be denied. (Remarks by President Biden Before Air Force One Departure.)

Interjection Number Two:

The so called “right to privacy” was invented by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, when the Court struck down a long unenforced Connecticut statute that forbade the sale, not the use, of contraceptives to married couples.

Just as the widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality led to the widespread acceptance of baby-killing-on-demand, so is the case that the Court’s “reasoning” in Griswold led directly to the outcome in Roe. Griswold v. Connecticut, though, was the jurisprudential foundation for them all, however, as the court’s seven justice majority (Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan—then the court’s lone Catholic justice, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg) “found” a “right to privacy” emanating from alleged “penumbras” (“shadows” or “emanations”) in the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Even Associate Justice Hugo Black, the Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama who became a court liberal on many matters, found that kind of judicial activism too much to stomach, denouncing it very plainly even though he did not like the law, which we know as Catholics is objectively just and good of its nature, in question:

The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions.[1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .

I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[16]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions.[17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965.)

The late Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, a Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in his native Alabama, who had was fellow Freemason Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on August 13, 1937, did not like the Connecticut statute under review in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Indeed, he defended a fellow Klansman who had murdered Father James Coyle in 1921 when he, Black, a thirty-five year-old attorney in private practice. Nonetheless, though, Black understood the principles of just constitutional interpretation, articulating very clearly what would happen if the Court continued to “invent” “rights” that had no foundation in the Constitution of the United States of America whatsoever.

Griswold v. Connecticut opened to judicial floodgates to Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020. Griswold set the stage for the wrongly decided dominoes that would fall thereafter.

Penance is better than ever in 2022, and thus I return to Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden’s press scrum of May 3, 2022:

Q    Do you think this leak has irreparably changed the Court?

THE PRESIDENT:  Beg your pardon?

Q    Do you think that this leak has irreparably changed the Court?  We’ve never seen this happen before.

THE PRESIDENT:  You know, if — if this decision holds, it’s really quite a radical decision. 

And, again, the underlying premise — and, again, I’ve not had a chance to thoroughly go into the report — the decision.  But it basically says all the decisions related to your private life — who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decisions — whether or not — how you raise your child —

What does this do — and does this mean that in Florida they can decide they’re going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, that it’s against the law in Florida?

And so, there’s a whole — it’s a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence if it were to hold. (Remarks by President Biden Before Air Force One Departure.)

Interjection Number Three:

What a dope.

What an infernal, serial reciter of falsehoods that run contrary to both faith and reason, to the Ten Commandments and to the Natural Law.

What a dope.

One will notice that Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden did not answer the question about whether the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. He did, however, call Justice Alito’s draft opinion to be “radical,” which is quite interesting as the Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, was a radical invention of a “right” nowhere found or implied in the text of the Constitution of the United States of America and a radical rejection of the Hippocratic Oath, which forbade both euthanasia and abortion as follows:

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

The entire “jurisprudence,” if one can it that, of the Supreme Court of the United States of America since Griswold v. Connecticut has been premised on making debatable the inarguable and then arguing that the inarguable is false, which is then said to be “sacrosanct” and inarguable.

No one has the “right” to choose to kill a preborn baby or any other innocent being, whether by chemical or surgical means, “brain death”/human organ vivisection, starvation and dehydration, “palliative care”/hospice, euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide, physician assisted-suicide or any other means.

No man has any “right” to “marry” another man and no woman has a right to “marry” another woman. (By the way, Obergefell v. Hodges, established the absurdity of “same sex marriage” as a constitutional right. Thus, the State of Florida is required to permit such “marriages.” Master Blunder and Vile Reprobate Biden lied about the state of such perversity in Florida. He remains now what is has ‘e’er been: a master demagogue.)

Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden believes in and mouths falsehoods that mock the binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Laws and that have plunged men and their nations in the abyss of a materialistic and hedonistic gratification that knows no limits whatsoever. Sin is celebrated and its commission is codified as a human “right.” Truth is castigated and condemned as an exercise in bigotry and hatred.

Such must ever be the case in a world rendered mad as a result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent, inevitable rise of a welter of Judeo-Masonic philosophies and ideologies that are meant replace Catholicism as the guiding force of both individual and social life.

There are two more parts of Biden’s press scrum that need to be reviewed:

Q    Mr. President, should the Senate do away with the filibuster to codify Roe?

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not — I’m not prepared to make those judgments now about — but, you know, I think the codification of Roe makes a lot of sense.

Look, think what Roe says.  Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question.  Is it at the moment of conception?  Is it six months?  Is it six weeks?  Is it — is it quickening, like Aquinas argued? 

I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard. (Remarks by President Biden Before Air Force One Departure.)

Interjection Number Four:

First, apart from the fact that no institution of human governance has any authority to codify that which is evil, an attempt to Federally codify Roe v. Wade’s would fail a constitutional test as an amendment to the Constitution (which would have to approved by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress, voting individually, and then ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions, whichever is specified in the provisions of the amendment) would  be necessary to do so. Similarly, efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade could never have been accomplished by Congressional action, only by means of a Constitutional amendment.

Second, Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate repeated the same sort of bilge that has been formed in his pea brain and has come out of his potty mouth for the past fifty years about when life begins, repeating the old shibboleth about Saint Thomas Aquinas and ensoulment even though the Angelic Doctor never endorsed abortion.

Life begins at conception. This is a matter of biology, of medical science, not theology, although the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation and the doctrine of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception settled the matter theologically.

Dr. Paul Byrne discussed this distinction in a scholarly article:

It appears as though Professor Dianne Irving did not read my entire article. Words, like conception, have definition and meaning. The roots of words never change, no matter how distorted.

A true physician always is defined in relationship to the patient. A veterinarian is defined by beast and brutes. The embryologist is defined by a time period from the zygote to the fetus (8 weeks). The patient is a person. The person is an individual substance of a nature rational. Human life on earth is the substantial fact of the unity of soul and body. The formation of the body at the instant of conception manifests the person created by God. “The body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine.”  Within the body of the mother, conception occurs and can be known to have occurred when the conceptus, (the baby at the one cell stage), is referred to as the zygote. When the conceptus is present within the body of his/her mother, we can know that the person is present. The hereditary characteristics of the mother and the father are contained in the sperm and egg and passed on to their children. In the zygote, the new person’s genetic material is now present. This new person is unique and unrepeatable. Through this knowledge we know that the true beginning of life on earth of this newly created human being has occurred at the instant conception takes place. The person is created from nothing in the Image and Likeness of God. The physician has the privilege of protecting and preserving the life of every person from its conception to its natural end. Much of the rest is in my renewamerica.com article. I hope those interested in this important dialogue read my entire article, not only Prof Irving’s response.

Certainly twins, triplets and quadruplets are persons (and Louise Brown also). Recently I had the privilege of participating in the delivery and treatment of quadruplets. We can know that each of them is and has been a person since their conception. To infer anything that their origin is different from the origin of every other person is ridiculous and a play on words that is unfair to every twin, triplet, quadruplet, etc. And to the rest of us!

Professor Irving referred to Wilhelm His (1880-1885). She states, "It has been known for a hundred years that the beginning of fertilization is the beginning of sexually reproduced human beings." This helps to explain why Professor Irving is not on the same page that I am. A human being is not reproduced, much less to identify the beginning of a person exactly at the point of the “beginning of fertilization” is simply making a statement, as specific as it is, that might or might not have anything to do with the presence of a person.

No argument on this subject would be valid unless we begin with the wonder of creation by God.  "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” Jeremiah 1:5. "Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb” Psalms 139:13.

When I testified against the legalization of abortion in Missouri in 1967, I presented arguments about identification of the person beginning with color of skin and eyes, fingerprints, chromosomes, DNA, etc. It was effective until Roe v Wade in 1973. It was correct to argue that way. The argument is still correct when going in a retrospective manner from the living person we know as ourselves and our friends. However, when going forward, we must begin with creation by God who creates from nothing. The body is formed. Please read my entire renewamerica.com article again.

After the term "pre-embryo" was coined and after the misleading of trying to make implantation the beginning of human life, violating the sacred meaning of conception (what was invisible is now visible) is very worrisome. Many began using fertilization, (including myself), to identify the true beginning of human life. Even though well-meaning pro-life physicians and scientists succumbed to the influences of higher authorities within the scientific world, ‘what is true is always true even if nobody is accepting it, and what is false is always false even if the whole scientific community promotes it as accurate. Therefore, I wish to encourage Prof. Irving to go back to using the correct word, conception. When the conceptus (zygote, embryologic term) is present, then we can know that the person is present. After that Prof Irving and whoever else can do everything to protect and defend the life of the person. And when they say it is a person, I will be right there defending and protecting the life of that person--with them.

I readily admit that I am greatly influenced by the Incarnation of Christ, His living within the body of His mother, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I know the teachings of the Church. I can use my personal knowledge for images of early life of Jesus.

The 24th edition of Steadman’s Medical Dictionary states under the word Conception:  The act of conceiving or becoming pregnant; the fertilization of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatozoon.

“Contraceptive Technology’s” 18th edition, funded originally by the Rockefeller Foundation, John’s Hopkins and other of the same……admit under the heading” FERTILIZATION AND IMPLANTATION”,  “A woman is most likely to conceive  if fresh sperm are present in the upper reproductive tract when ovulation occurs.

However, if I were to quote The Royal Spanish Academy dictionary, (the most respected dictionary of the Spanish speaking world, 1984 twentieth edition), their definition of the word conception is extremely clear: “Action and effect of conceiving.  2. Par excellence, that of the Virgin Mother of God.  3. Feast that annually the Catholic Church celebrates the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, December 8.”  This definition would shock the leadership of the medical profession, but as faithful Catholics, we find it perfectly accurate.

To infer and support a recently changed definition, primarily because the leadership of the scientific community has conveniently deemed it important to do so in order to circumvent laws that would have prohibited-research by special interest groups, from the true moment of conception to implantation, that is her prerogative, but at the same time, a major scientific blunder. If she wishes to discard the sacred word conception and change it to fertilization to fit and be accepted into the modern/liberal wishes of the secular scientific community, it is up to her and her conscience.  It is critical to remember that in the U.S. the Helms (1973) and Hyde (1981) Amendments prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to be used for abortions. However, the recipients of massive federal funding and special interest groups circumvented the mandate by redefining the beginning of life from conception to implantation. This allows the continuation of massive national and international funding of abortifacient birth control methods, morning after pills, post conception experimentation and population control under the guise of “Reproductive Health Programs”.

But as Catholics, not pseudoscientists, we must restrain from being absorbed and/or manipulated by special interests of immoral modern research scientists

There is a reason why Our Lady said to Bernadette: “I am the Immaculate Conception”, not the Immaculate Fertilization.

There is a reason why we say in the Apostles Creed:  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not fertilized by the Holy Spirit.

There is a reason why it is called “in vitro fertilization, “not “in vitro conception”.  Is it because one is Sacred and the other is human manipulation? (Dr. Paul Byrne, “More on Conception,” June 21, 2008.)

These are very important points to consider as so many “pro-life” Catholics use language loosely and/or believe that “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment can be supported as a matter of moral principle.

Third, Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden, as is ever the case whether it be naturally or supernaturally, turned truth on its head when he said, in essence, that the Supreme Court of the United States of America had no “right” to stop women from killing babies when the truth is that it had no authority from the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, to say that it is a “right” to kill babies surgically in the first place?

What is so difficult about “Thou shalt not kill.”

To the final part of Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Biden’s remarks on May 3, 2022:

Q    What does this mean for the midterms?  What does this mean for the Democrats’ argument in the midterms?

THE PRESIDENT:  I haven’t thought that through yet.

Q    Do changes need to be made to the Court in light of this, if this decision holds?

THE PRESIDENT:  I beg your pardon?

Q    Do changes need to be made to the Court in light of this, if this decision holds?

THE PRESIDENT:  We have to choose — I mean, look, one of the reasons why I voted against a number of the members of the Court: They refuse to acknowledge that there’s a 9th Amendment.  They refuse to acknowledge there’s a right to privacy.

I mean, there are so many fundamental rights that are affected by that.  And I’m not allo- — I’m not prepared to leave that to the whims and the — and the — of the public at the moment in local areas.

Thank you so much. (Remarks by President Biden Before Air Force One Departure.)

Interjection Number Six:

Master Blunderer and Vile Reprobate Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., does not believe that the “people” can “decide” to permit or prohibit the surgical execution of the innocent preborn, but he does believe that some “people” who sat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America on January 22, 1973, had the “right” to do so.

It is time once again to dust off the fate awaiting this ignoramus of a demagogue when he dies:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., sold his soul to the adversary when he changed his position from being “pro-life” during the 1972 Senatorial election against two-term incumbent J. Caleb Boggs in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, and his adamancy on behalf of legal protection for the assassination of innocent children has grown in intensity in the five decades thereafter.

The social good can never be advanced by the permitting the shedding of innocent blood under the cover of the civil law. Indeed, the social good is not only retarded but impeded by codifying grave moral evils under the cover of the civil law and by celebrating them openly in all quarters of what passes for “popular culture” these days. A just social order cannot be established as men sin wantonly. The entirety of social order depends on the right ordering of men’s souls in cooperation with the graces won for them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and soul through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Silvio Cardinal Antoniano put the matter this over five hundred thirty years ago:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., does not understand this as he has lived his entire life in the dense fog of his own limited and quite sophistic intellect, and he has lived all but twenty years of his life in the even denser fog of conciliarism and its official “reconciliation” with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity of which Americanism was an important building block and remains a supporting, if crumbling, pillar.

May we for the conversion of this decrepit old man, who has chosen to serve the forces of darkness while being indemnified by his acolytes within the conciliar hierarchy.

Remember, the leaker, the pro-aborts on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the quisling named John Glover Roberts, Jr., who is an institutionalist concerned about the “prestige” of the Court and not about moral truth, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, and all other pro-aborts, pro-perverts public life have immortal souls that have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. Our Lord died for them so that they could save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church, to which neither Kamala Harris nor Merrick Garland belong and from which the others have long since defected by means of their persistence in suborning sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

It is also vital for us to remember that our own immortal souls have been redeemed at such a great price, the price of the Most Precious Blood of Christ the King, and that we need to make penance for our own sins, which have harmed both the state of the world of the state of the Church Militant far more than we might think, as the consecrated slaves of Our King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the fairest flower of our race, and by clinging fast to her Most Holy Rosary.

As will be noted in part two of this commentary, the chemical and surgical abortion of innocent preborn children will only end entirely when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest, and it is for this Triumph that we must pray every day.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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.

Saint Gregory Nazianzen, pray for us.

Appendix

Dom Prosper Gueranger On the Feast of Saint Gregory Nazianzen

Side by side with Athanasius, a second Doctor of the Church comes forward at this glad Season, offering to the Risen Jesus the tribute of his learning and eloquence. It is Gregory of Nazianzum—the friend of Basil; the great Orator; the admirable Poet, whose style combines energy of thought with a remarkable richness and ease of expression; the one among all the Gregories who has merited and received the glorious name of Theologian, on account of the soundness of his teachings, the sublimity of his ideas, and the magnificence of his diction. Holy Church exults at being able to offer us so grand a Saint during Easter Time, for no one has spoken more eloquently than he on the Mystery of the Pasch. Let us listen to the commencement of his second Sermon for Easter; and then judge for ourselves.

“I will stand upon my watch, says the admirable Prophet Habacuc. I, also, on this day, will imitate him; I will stand on the power and knowledge granted me by the favor of the Holy Ghost, that I may consider and know what is to be seen, and what will be told unto me. And I stood and I watched; and lo! a man ascending to the clouds; and he was of exceeding high stature, and his face was the face of an Angel, and his garment was dazzling as a flash of lightning. And he lifted up his hand towards the East, and cried out with a loud voice. His voice was as the voice of a trumpet, and around him stood, as it were, a multitude of the heavenly host, and he said: ‘Today is salvation given to both the visible and the invisible world. Christ hath risen from the dead: do ye also rise. Christ hath returned to himself: do ye also return. Christ hath freed himself from the Tomb: be ye set free from the bonds of sin. The gates of hell are opened, and death is crushed; and old Adam is laid aside, and the new one is created. Oh! if there be a new creature formed in Christ, be ye made new!’

“Thus did he speak. Then did the other Angels repeat the Hymn they first sang when Christ was born on this earth, and appeared to us men: Glory be to God in the highest, and peace on earth, in men of good will! I join my voice with them, and speak these things to you—oh! that I could have an Angel’s voice, to make myself heard throughout the whole earth!

“It is the Pasch of the Lord! the Pasch!—in honor of the Trinity, I say it a third time: the Pasch! This is our Feast of Feasts, our Solemnity of Solemnities. It is as far above all the rest—not only of those which are human and earthly, but of those even which belong to Christ and are celebrated on his account—yes, it as far surpasses them all, as the sun surpasses the stars. Commencing with yesterday, how grand was the Day, with its torches and lights! … But how grander and brighter is all on this morning! Yesterday’s light was but the harbinger of the great Light that was to rise; it was but as foretaste of the joy that was to be given to us. But today, we are celebrating the Resurrection itself, not merely in hope, but as actually risen, and drawing the whole earth to itself.”

This is a sample of the fervid eloquence, wherewith our Saint preached the Mysteries of Faith. He was a man of retirement and contemplation. The troubles of the world, in which he had been compelled to live, damped his spirits; the duplicity and wickedness of men fretted his noble heart; and leaving to another the perilous honor of the See of Constantinople, which he had reluctantly accepted a very short time previously—he flew back to his dear solitude, there to enjoy his God and the study of holy things. And yet, during the short period of his Episcopal government, notwithstanding all the obstacles that stood in his way, he confirmed the Faith that had been shaken, and left behind him a track of light which continued even to the time when St. John Chrysostom was chosen to fill the troubled Chair of Byzantium.

The holy Liturgy thus speaks to us of the virtues and actions of this great Saint:

Gregory, to whom, is commonly given, on account of his extraordinary depth of sacred learning, the title of "the Divine", was a noble Cappadocian, born at Nazianzus in that country, and educated at Athens along with St. Basil, with whom likewise, when they had acquired knowledge in diverse branches of earthly learning, he gave himself up to learn the things of God. This they did for some years in a Monastery, framing their opinions, not out of their own heads, but according to the interpretation arrived at by the wisdom and decision of the ancients. They were both distinguished by power of doctrine and holiness of life, they were both called to the duty of preaching the Gospel of truth and, through the Gospel. they both begat many sons unto Christ.

Gregory after a while returned home. He was first made Bishop of Sasima, and afterwards administered the Church at Nazianzus. Then he was called to rule the Church of Constantinople. That city, which he found reeking with heresy, he purged, and brought again to the Catholic faith. But this, which deserved for him the warmest love of all men, raised up many enemies. Among the Bishops themselves there was a great party against him, and to still their contentions, he, of his own free will, gave up his see, saying with the Prophet Jonah: "Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea so shall the sea be calm unto you for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you," i. 12. So he went his way back again to Nazianzus, and when he had seen that Eulalius was set over that Church, he gave himself up altogether to think and write concerning the things of God.

He wrote much, both in prose and verse, with wonderful godliness and eloquence. According to the judgment of learned and holy men, there is nothing in his writings which anywhere strays from the line of true godliness and Catholic truth, and not a single word which any one can justly call in doubt. He was one of the latest champions of the doctrine that the Son is of one substance with the Father. No one has ever won greater praise for goodness of life, neither was any man more earnest in prayer. During the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, he dwelt in the country after the manner of a monk, and unceasingly taken up with writing and reading, until, in a good old age, he laid down his earthly, to enter on an heavenly life. (Divine Office, Matins, Feast of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, May 9.)

We salute thee, O glorious Doctor of the Church, on whom both East and West have conferred the title of Theologian! Illumined by the rays of the glorious Trinity, thou gavest us to share in the light thus imparted to thee—and a brighter was never granted to mortal eye. In thee was verified that saying of our Savior: Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. The purity of thy soul prepared thee to receive the divine light, and thy inspired pen has transmitted to thy fellow men something of thine own soul’s enraptured knowledge. Obtain for us the gift of Faith, which puts the creature in communication with its God; obtain for us the gift of Understanding, which makes the creature relish what it believes. The object of all thy labors was to guard the Faithful against the seductive wiles of heresy, by putting before them the magnificence of the divine dogmas. Oh! pray for us, that we may avoid the snares of false doctrines, and have our eye ever fixed on the ineffable light of the Mysteries of Faith; for  as St. Peter tells us, it is as a lamp in a dark place, that shineth until the day dawn, and until the Day-Star arise in our hearts.

There now seems to be a gleam of hope for the East, that has been, for so many long ages, a prey to error and slavery. Great changes are preparing for the unfortunate Byzantium, and politicians are studying how to profit by the crisis, and make her the prey of their respective Governments. Canst thou forget the City of which thou wast once the Pastor, and where thy name is still held in veneration? Oh! help her to throw off the shackles of schism and heresy. Her being a slave to the infidel is the punishment of her having revolted against the Vicar of Christ; this yoke seems about to be broken; pray, O Gregory, that the more dangerous and humiliating one of error and schism may also be broken. A movement of return to the truth has already begun to show itself. Whole provinces are awakening to a knowledge of their misery, and are casting a look of hope towards the common Mother of all Churches, who opens her arms to receive them. Aid this long-desired conversion by thy prayers. Both East and West honor thee as one of the sublimest preachers of divine Truth; obtain, by thy powerful intercession, that East and West may be once more united in the one Fold, and under the one Shepherd, before our Risen Jesus returns to our earth to separate the cockle from the good seed, and lead back to heaven the Church, his Spouse and our Mother, out of whose pale there is no salvation.

Help us, during this Season, to contemplate the glories of our dearest Resuscitated. Oh! for something of the holy enthusiasm for this Pasch, which inebriated thee with its joys, and inspired thee with such glowing eloquence! Jesus, the Conqueror of Death, was the object of thy fervent affections even from thy childhood; and when old age came, thy heart beat with love for him. Pray for us, that we too may persevere in his service; that his divine Mysteries may ever be our grandest joy; that this year’s Pasch may ever abide in our souls; that the renovation it has brought us may be visible in the rest of our lives; and that it may, in each successive year of its return, find us attentive and eager to receive its graces, until the eternal Easter comes with its endless joy! (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, May 9.)