Tragedies Must Increase When Nations Refuse to Let the King of Kings Rule Over Them

Although I followed almost nothing concerning the trial of Lindsay Clancy over the premeditated killing of her three children that involved her making sure that her husband, Patrick Clancy, was away at the time of the killing, one simple fact is clear: Lindsay Clancy did indeed kill her three children before she tried killing herself. Such an act, no matter if it was caused by the postpartum depression for which she had been treated clinically after the birth of her first two children and suffered again about the third child, who was eight months old at the time she strangled them, is always inspired by the adversary, no matter the degree of temptation, obsession, or outright possession involved. 

Indeed, Mrs. Clancy claimed that a “male voice” consistently had repeatedly told her to kill her children, and it is the adversary himself that has been at work for the better part of five centuries now, starting with Martin Luther’s and Henry Tudor’s respective wars against marriage and the family that began with the endorsement of the fiction called “Christian divorce” in contradiction to the plain prohibition of such by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, who is responsible for the attacks upon the inviolability of innocent human life in the womb and at all times thereafter that have resulted in the shedding of so much blood of innocent children in the past century.

The Protestant revolutions began by the likes of Luther, Henry Tudor, and John Calvin made possible the French Revolution’s own direct war against the whole concept of marriage and family in the name of “equality” and against distinctions between men and women that exist because of the Order of Creation (Nature) willed by God Himself and were elevated to the heights of sanctity by His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. In turn, of course, the work of the French Revolution, inspired as it was by the adversary’s hatred of Holy Mother Church and of the exemplar par excellence of Christian femininity, the August Queen of Heaven herself, Our Lady, served as the model for American Judeo-Masonry’s heightened efforts in the late Nineteenth Century to promote divorce and thus destabilize the family that were condemned as follows by Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers. We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages which had been sanctioned by imperial law.

Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship, certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada, Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire. Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also, hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."

Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon -- the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened; deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families; the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men. Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

It is worth highlighting the text in bold above to illustrate just how prophetic Pope Leo XIII’s words were one hundred thirty-six years ago as there is no human means to retard the advance of outright bigamy, polygamy, pederasty and even bestiality.

How long will it be until someone claims to have the “right” to “marry” an animal or even a robot?

Not long.

Not long at all.

Thus, I ask of you to re-read the following passage and to consider that there is no legal, constitutional, political, cultural, educational, secular, humanistic, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist or interdenominational way to stop the spread of any evil, especially those evils associate with man’s lower passions that become so easily ingrained and so hard to break:

There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

In like manner, of course, divorce led to contraception, which led to a rise in adultery, divorce, civil remarriages, broken families, the feminization of poverty, the rise of the welfare state and its agenda of alienating children from their parents. Contraception also led to the surgical execution of children in the womb, which has made the killing of anyone after birth by means of “brain death” and “palliative care” legal, accessible and a daily occurrence in American life.

These inter-related Judeo-Masonic attacks on the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage, on God’s sovereignty over the sanctity  and fecundity of marriage, and then upon the inviolability of innocent human life itself prescind from one common source: an indifference to and/or unbelief in the fact of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Our  Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. Such a disbelief or indifference to the Incarnation must always be accompanied by indifference to and/or disbelief in Our Lord’s Redemptive Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father in Spirit and Truth during His Passion and Death on Good Friday.

Those who do not see the Divine impress in other human beings, including the innocent preborn child, will not treat others as fellow redeemed creatures and, consequently, will be more prone to diabolical suggestions to de-humanize someone they believe is the “source” of their problems and unhappiness. It is relatively easy for one who can de-humanize the preborn child and even to celebrate his execution to come to applaud those who kill children at any time thereafter, leaving the path wide open to wanton or selected acts of violence against innocent human beings of all ages.

In this regard, therefore, one must not neglect the influence of evolutionism on the rejection of Special Creation, the Fall from Grace, the Incarnation, and Redemption in shaping the anti-Incarnational world of Modernity in which we live, and it is evolutionism that shaped the warped mind of Karl Marx, whose ideology would wage its own war upon marriage and the family.

All these developments, along with the truly diabolical work to which the late Margaret Sanger devoted her ill-spent lifetime of personal licentiousness and socio-political revolutionary activity, helped to bring out the rise of the “new feminism” that was promoted by the late Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and others that was nothing other than a thinly disguised means of promoting the same anti-family, anti-life, anti-feminine precepts of the French Revolution and its logical successor, the Marxist Revolution.

Like the French Revolutionaries before him, Karl Marx, wanted women to be “liberated” from their femininity while believing that childbearing was a burden that kept them from taking their rightful place in the revolution and in factory mobs. The “revolution” would, he believed,
“liberate” women in the workplace as a “liberation” from hearth and home, which is identical what many of those supporting Lindsay Clancy believe:

The success of a revolution," V.I. Lenin declared at the first all-Russian conference of working women in 1918, "depends on how much women take part in it."

And based on his writings, there was little doubt he believed this. Problem was, most Russian women weren't interested.

Unlike what was going on elsewhere in Europe, where the suffrage movement was under way and the Industrial Revolution had drawn many women into the workforce, industry in Russia was in its infancy and the female population was mostly rural and illiterate.

The focus was on family, not what Marxism could do for the working class. But unlike economic classes such as Kulaks or aristocrats who had fallen into his disfavor, women couldn't be liquidated. Their favored institutions could, however, and that's why Lenin specifically targeted marriage and family in his effort to build a "New Soviet Man."

Five elements stand out in how Lenin and his Bolsheviks used propaganda to get women to support his revolution.

• Equating marriage with slavery. Lenin and his feminist lieutenants, particularly Alexandra Kollontai, the first female commissar in the Soviet government, considered much of what the suffragettes were fighting for, including voting rights and equal protection under the law, "bourgeois convention."

What they had in mind was something far more radical: An all-out war on "old and outdated" institutions like marriage and family so dominance of the state could be achieved. Instead of marriage, there would be more disposable "unions of affection and comradeship."

The first salvo in the "liberation" of the family was easy divorce, established almost immediately by the Bolsheviks. Abortion on demand — until then illegal in every country in the world — came in 1920.

"The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation," Kollontai wrote that year. But capitalists, she said, "are well aware that the old type of family, where a woman is a slave and where the husband is responsible for the well-being of his wife and children, is the best weapon in the struggle to stifle the desire of the working class for freedom and to weaken the revolutionary spirit of the working man and working woman.

The Bolsheviks also allowed women to own land and vote. But these rights were rendered moot when the one-party state took over. The right to equal wages was also instituted, but largely ignored. And as women were ghettoized into state-chosen professions, their wages went down.

The idea behind breaking down the family was that women without husbands could be socialized more easily. In practical terms, this meant men were free to leave their wives and abandon their responsibilities, making women wards of the state.

During the Russian civil war, 90% of the female-dominated population of Petrograd (St. Petersburg), the capital of the Russian empire, was dependent on state handouts.

• Vive la sameness. Lenin's Bolsheviks saw men and women as equal, but not in terms of opportunity. Instead, the imagery in their propaganda made modern Soviet women look like men — with thick necks, brawny shoulders, burly arms and army boots that blurred the lines between the sexes. The less distinguishable men and women were, the easier to manipulate them.

• It takes a village. The Bolsheviks believed communism would eliminate the need for families. The country, after all, would become "one whole family." Hearth and home were viewed as potentially subversive.

Those who just wanted to look out for their own children were "selfish," Kollontai wrote. Women should see all children as their own with duties shared. This made it easier to force wives and mothers into factories and gave rise to day-care centers, communal meals, even community laundries and clothing repair centers.

The idea was to sever natural ties between mother and child so the state could forge a New Soviet Man.

• It takes a community organizer. Lenin dispatched Kollontai to set up the Zhenotdel, a community organizing group financed by the Communist Party for agitation and propaganda of the new model.

Zhenotdel representatives not only had their own publication, "Kommunistka," they also were tasked with going out into the rural villages to set up community centers and force women's political participation. They also agitated for divorce, abortion and all the other agenda items that Bolsheviks touted as "liberating."

As large numbers of women lost their families, particularly in the Muslim south where they were attacked and murdered for divorce, they rapidly became outcasts. Many ended up in brothels.

• When socialism fails, blame funding. The social wreckage resulting from these policies was so extensive, and left so many women impoverished and marginalized, that Josef Stalin reversed some "reforms" and disbanded the Zhenotdel in 1930, declaring women "free, equal and emancipated."

Kollontai and her allies knew better, but didn't blame the ideas. That went to the state for not distributing enough money for the day-care centers and soup kitchens.

Nevertheless, the effects of their propaganda testified to its effectiveness then, and its legacy of the social wreckage continues to this day. Russia still ranks No. 1 in the world in both divorces (54 per 100) and abortions (50 per 100 live births). (Bolsheviks Targeted Women and Children with Anti-Family Propaganda.)

This is an excellent summary of Lenin’s hideous beliefs and diabolical practices against the family that have become the very belief system of those who believe in unrestricted baby-killing, some of whom, such as Zohran Mamdani and Mohammed el-Sayed actually agree with all the comments made below even though they were made by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin himself:

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.

Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.

The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.

The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.

Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!

Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!

Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!

A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!

That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.

And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.

It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us.

It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world. (Soviet Power and the Status of Women)

Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.

It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.

Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.

Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.

But that is not enough.

It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.

We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.

By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.

Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.

Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!

The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women.

N. Lenin

February 21, 1920  To the Working Women

The French Revolution proclaimed the "liberation" of women from the "shackles" of the past. The Bolshevik Revolution did the same, helping to pave the way for the "Roaring Twenties" in the West as Talmudic sympathizers of the Bolshevik Revolution produced motion pictures and magazines designed to undermine modesty and introduce Bolshevik standards as the basis of undermining the role of men in society and to take women out of the home so that their children will be trained from infancy through young adulthood by the agents of all forms of naturalism (Judeo-Masonic and Bolshevik in particular). Contemporary feminism is but an outgrowth of the devil's efforts to replace Our Lady as the model of femininity with that of the "Eve" of modernity, fully liberated from "man" and from God Himself.

Pope Pius XI explained this in Divini Redemptoris, his encyclical letter on atheistic communism issued on March 19, 1937, two days after he issued his encyclical letter, Mit Brennender Sorge, condemning Nazi nationalism and racialism:

Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.) 

Forcing women out of the family and into the sweatshops and the factories was a goal of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but also of the Industrial Revolution of Calvinist capitalism. Wives and mothers whose husbands worked long hours in factories for substandard wages were forced in many instances to go to work themselves in order to supplement their husbands' meager incomes. This is what prompted Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI to insist that the man, the principal breadwinner of the family, to be paid a "living wage," that is, to be paid enough to support their families without forcing their wives to abandon the home and to enter unnecessarily into the work force.

Well, the "world" may have changed. The truths of the Order of Creation (Nature) and the Order of Redemption (Grace) have not changed. Women are to dress as women at all times (exceptions such as those of Saint Joan of Arc having been noted earlier). Wives and mothers are supposed to stay at home with their children until they, the children, embark upon their own particular vocation, acknowledging full well the fact that there are women with young children who are forced to work because of their husbands' meager salaries or because they have been abandoned by their husbands or because of the death of their husbands. This is no diminution of women or a disparagement of their intellectual abilities. This is no "enslavement" of women to their husbands and their children. This is but a simple truth of the Order of Creation and the Order of Redemption that no one is free to ignore without peril to the right ordering of society itself.

Pope Pius XII issued a set of Papal Directives for Women of Today on September 11, 1947, in which he addressed this exact issue:

There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function -- the participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all.

Your own role is, in general, to work toward making woman always more conscious of her sacred rights, of her duties, and of her power to help mold public opinion, through her daily contacts, and to influence legislation and administration by the proper use of her prerogatives as citizen. Such is your common role. It does not mean that you are all to have political careers as members of public assemblies. Most of you must continue to give the greater part of your time and of your loving attention to the care of your homes and families. We must not forget that the making of a home in which all feel at ease and happy, and the bringing up of children are very special contributions to the common welfare. So we rejoice in the fact, which you yourselves rightly recorded, that among rural families, which are still such a large part of society, woman's work in the home still goes hand in hand with her contribution to the social and national economy.

Those among you who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, your delegated representatives. Give them your confidence, understand their difficulties, the hard work and sacrifices their devotion entails; give them your help and support. (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

Many women today believe that such beliefs are meant to “imprison” women and to deny them of their autonomy. However, Pope Pius XII was merely reiterating the basic precepts of the Order of Creation and the Order of Redemption concerning the roles befitting the dignity and true femininity of wives and mothers, which is why it is prudent to explain that Pope Pius XII preempted such a protest in the same set of directives quoted immediately above:

But under the pretense of saving the Church from the risk of being led astray in the "temporal" sphere, a slogan launched some ten years ago, continues to gain acceptance: return to the purely "spiritual." And by that is understood that the Church should confine her activities to a purely dogmatic teaching, to the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments, and that all incursion into, or even the right of examination in the domain of public life, all intervention in the civil or social order, should be denied her.! Such vivisection is nothing short of being anti-Catholic. (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

There is no separation of moral truth from the temporal realm.

Children are not objects to planned but gifts to be loved, not resented.

Thus, whether legally sane or not at the time she killed her three children, Mrs. Lindsay Clancy is no heroine as it is relatively easy to kill one’s children after birth if one has become accustomed to doing so while they are in the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs, and the organized sympathy for Lindsay Clancy’s “innocence” demonstrates yet again the extent to which so many people in the world consider children to be “unnatural,” “an inconvenience,” or a “burden.”

Moreover, perhaps inspired by the support that has been shown to Lindsay Clancy, yet another mother to murder her own two year-old son:

A 2-year-old boy allegedly murdered by his Lindsay Clancy-obsessed mother was found hanging by his neck from the rafters by a horrified neighbor — who then discovered the mom-of-four upstairs in a bathtub trying to kill herself, officials said.

Corie Walsh, 40, is charged with murdering little Bennet Walsh — whom she described to police as the “anti-Christ” and the “devil” — just hours after discussing the trial for Lindsay Clancy.

The Clancy case has captivated the nation over her claim that she was legally insane due to postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children to death with exercise bands. Her murder trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial on Friday.

Similarly, Walsh’s lawyer is claiming she suffered a psychotic episode before she killed her young son.

Walsh’s unnamed female neighbor found the toddler’s lifeless body hanging by a rope around his neck and his feet off the ground in the basement of the family’s home in Frankfort, Ill., a suburb southwest of  Chicago, around 4 p.m. Tuesday, according to court documents obtained by CNN.

She removed the ligature, lowered him to the ground and began performing CPR while calling 911. First responders rushed Bennet to the hospital where he died.

The same neighbor also discovered Walsh upstairs in a bloody bathtub “actively harming herself” with a knife with slashes to her wrists and thighs, according to court documents.

The neighbor took the knife out of Walsh’s hands and threw it into the sink. She then pressed a towel over Walsh’s thigh wound.

Walsh asked the neighbor why she took the knife away as she was trying to kill herself, according to court documents.

“Bear” — Walsh’s nickname for her slain son — was in the basement, Walsh told the neighbor.

Walsh spoke with police officers while she was being treated in the hospital and described how she killed Barrett, which prosecutors say was “consistent with the evidence in this case,” according to court documents.

Walsh’s lawyer told ABC 7 Chicago that the mother of four “was experiencing a psychotic episode.”

“This is a tragedy, for the Walsh family all of whom are mourning the loss of this child,” attorney Andrea Lyon said.

“It is our hope that through a thorough presentation and investigation of the facts, that all of us will come to see this heartbreak for what it is.”

Clancy’s trial, which has gripped the nation for more than six weeks, ended in a mistrial on Friday after a jury could not reach a verdict to convict her of murdering her three children with plastic bands or whether she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Clancy’s defense team claimed she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and overprescribed powerful psychiatric medications. (Lindsay Clancy-obsessed mom Corie Walsh left son, 2, hanging from rafters for neighbor to find: cops.)

Such is the logic of error that what is simple, “Thou shalt not kill,” is made “complicated” by fallen men who want to live as beasts and then wind up complaining that we are taking “rights” away from them that do not exist in the nature of things and that we are denying women are enslaved by the devil to lust “economic opportunities” when it is they who are denying themselves the very role as the most powerful natural forces on the face of this earth, motherhood, and to shape young souls in the pattern of the Holy Cross. Absent this understanding, however, and men will never realize that we are called to make sacrifices of ourselves on behalf of others to advance their temporal well-being but, far more importantly, their eternal salvation.

Christ the King alone is Sovereign, and the very law that innocent human life is inviolable is inscribed on the very flesh of our hearts by God, Who has engraved it on the stone tablets that he gave Moses atop Mount Sinai:

And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal.

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin. (Exodus 20: 6-20.)

Fallen men will always sin, and they will always make excuses to commit sin and to remain in states of sin.

Granted.

However, we can avoid sin by cooperating with the graces that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has won for us by shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Trusting firmly in the power of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary to protect the lives of innocent beings from conception to death, we beg her to help us to make reparation for our own sins as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and to plant a few seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order within nations nor an enduring peace among them.