​On June 28, 1949 the Vatican issued a decree that laid down an excommunication of anyone who professed atheist and materialist communism and condemned supporting the Communist Party. [1] Ten years later, on March 25, 1959 an extension was added to the decree which condemned anyone who votes for the Communist Party or for any party supporting it. [2] We at Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) believe that just as Catholics should not vote for the Communist Party, they, too, should not vote for any political candidate of the Democratic Party today. We believe this because, amongst the two viable political parties in the United States today, the Democratic Party is at least the greater evil.

The Democratic Party platform [3] supports and tolerates abortion, as opposed to the Republican Party which wants to restrict most, if not all, abortions. The Democratic Party's platform states that Democrats "believe unequivocally[...] that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion." It states that Democrats "will repeal the Title X domestic gag rule and restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood". [4] They also "oppose and will fight to overturn federal and state laws that create barriers to reproductive health and rights. We will repeal the Hyde Amendment and protect and codify the right to reproductive freedom." Repealing the Hyde Amendment could have a devastating effect on the lives of many other unborn children as the Hyde Amendment has been credited with saving the lives of more than two million unborn children. [5] The Democratic Party's platform also states that Democrats will "protect the rights of all people to make personal health care decisions and will reject the Trump Administration’s use of broad exemptions to allow medical providers, employers, and others to discriminate." In other words, doctors and pharmacists who want to follow their conscience and refuse to participate in, or provide medications for abortions, could "discriminate" and such "discrimination" can be prohibited according to what Democrats argue.

In contrast, the Republican Party platform [6] affirms "that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed." Thus, the Republican Party aligns itself with the Church on the issue of the right to life. The Republican Party platform also calls for a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn and "legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth." Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "[n]o State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since science, reason, and divine revelation clearly shows that unborn children are persons, then the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to provide equal protection and due process applies to the unborn, and prohibits the state from permitting their lives to be taken by abortion while the lives of those that are born are protected by the laws and institutions of states. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Republican Party goes further by calling for defunding Planned Parenthood.  In contrast with the Democratic Party's understanding of judges, the Republican Party platform calls for appointment of judges who "respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life." Such a statement is admirable, to say the least, since it distinguishes between “innocent human life” and “human life” and thereby permits the death penalty, which Church doctrine clearly permits as well. [8] Other parts of the Republican platform call for the banning of the sale of fetal body parts and tissue, opposing the funding of healthcare with abortion coverage, supporting adoption, funding for ultrasounds, supporting other regulations on abortion such as informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, clinic regulation, and other regulations. Finally, the Republican Party platform goes beyond abortion and states that they oppose euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning. All these things are opposed by the Church and are violations of the 5th Commandment which states "thou shalt not kill."

Therefore, the Democratic Party platform supports and tolerates abortion, while the Republican Party wants to restrict most, if not all, abortions; therefore, today, no Catholic should vote for a Democrat for any political office. Some may object to our judgment and say that the Republican Party is no good either, however, Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) has already stated its dissatisfaction with Republicans here and here. Nevertheless, on those issues where we have expressed dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, the Democratic Party is ether no different or, furthermore, even worse. The Democratic Party has no more interest in supporting the Social Reign of Christ the King than does the Republican Party. At least with the Republican Party we can get a government that respects the laws of God with regards to marriage being only between a man and a woman, protection for the lives of the unborn, and greater freedom for the Church. Therefore, in the name of our most High King Jesus Christ we urge Catholics not to vote for the Democratic Party! 

[1] R. Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century 255 (1996).

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Democratic Party platform can be found here. 

[4] The so-called "Title X domestic gag rule" is a term that pro-abortion organizations use to describe the federal regulation adopted by the Trump administration in 2019 regarding the federal program called Title X. The federal Title X program gives about $300 million annually in taxpayer funds for "family planning services". However, in 2019 the Trump administration released a rule that prohibited Title X funds from being provided to a program where abortion is a considered a method of family planning. Furthermore, the Trump administration rule removed a requirement that Title X recipients had to provide referrals for abortions and even went further by prohibiting such recipients from referring women for abortions!

[5] See here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-hyde-amendment-saved-two-million-babies-from-death.

[6] The Republican Party platform can be found here. Also, note that this is the platform the Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted in 2016. In 2020 the the RNC refused to adopt a new platform or amend the 2016 platform due to the circumstances surrounding COVID-19 pandemic. 

[7] See here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/for-first-time-republican-party-platform-proposes-defunding-planned-parenth.
 
[8] See here: http://cklc.weebly.com/blog/can-the-church-ban-capital-punishment.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, 2022. DISCLAIMER. Also, please note that this list may be updated as new information about other Mass times and locations becomes available.



Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including FSSP). 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including SSPX). 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).


Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Time: 8:00 a.m. & 7:00 P.m.

Saint Mary Magdalen (Diocese/FSSP)
2532 Ventura Boulevard
Camarillo, California 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Holy Innocents Catholic Church (Diocese) 
425 E. 20th Street
Long Beach, CA 90806
(562) 591-6924
Time: 7:00 p.m.

​Saint Vitus Catholic Church  (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Time: 6:00 p.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m.

​Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street 
Costa Mesa, CA 92626  
(714) 540-2214  
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians (SSPX)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 7:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Time: 9:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 7:15 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., & 7:00 p.m.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) rejoices in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade! This decision has been a stain on the moral integrity of this country for nearly fifty years. It was wrongly decided from its beginning. As Justice Alito stated in the opinion of the court: "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences." The joy we feel at the overturning of this one of the worst, if not the worst, decision in the history of the Court is difficult to describe and certainly a dream come true. And yet while we rejoice in that glorious day we recognize that challenges still exist in order to build a just legal order in this country that recognizes the sovereignty of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the supremacy of His law. 

First, while the Court ruled that there was no constitutional right to an abortion which the states cannot prohibit it nevertheless did not rule that unborn persons have a right to life that must be protected by law. As the Court's opinion states:

'In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe [v. Wade] and Casey recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an "unborn human being." Miss. Code Ann.§41-41-191(4)(b). Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.' 

And further on:

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe [v. Wade] and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

Thus according to the Court each state can decide for itself whether to permit or prohibit abortion. Nowhere in the Court's opinion did it determine whether the 5th and 14th Amendment's provisions which prohibits the federal and state governments from denying any person life without due process of law applies to the unborn. Nor was there any determination in the opinion as to whether these Amendment's provisions-which prohibit the government from denying any person the equal protection of the law-applies to the unborn. In fact the Court expressly refused to base its decision on such an issue: Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The unborn are undoubtedly persons as evidenced by science, reason, and divine revelation and therefore they are entitled to the constitutional protections offered by the 5th and 14th amendments. [1]

Second, the Court expressly stated that it only ruled on whether there was a right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution and ruled out the possibility that this decision applies or can be applied to overruling other egregious decisions of that Court against the natural law which claimed there was a constitutional right to contraception, sodomy, and "gay marriage". As the Court stated: 

'the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decision [i.e. Roe v. Wade and Casey] would "threaten the Court's precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights." Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U.S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U.S. 558; Griswold, 381 U.S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, "[a]bortion is a unique act" because it terminates "life or potential life." 505 U.S. at 852; see also Roe, 410 U.S., at 159 (abortion is "inherently different from martial intimacy," "marriage," or "procreation"). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right [such as the right to contraception, sodomy, and "gay marriage"]. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' 

The Court is correct to assert that abortion is "a unique act" but it is incorrect for it to assert that it is "inherently different from marital intimacy," "marriage," or "procreation" at least as a matter of law. This is because abortion was considered a "privacy right" by the Court prior to the Dobbs decision just like "marriage", "marital intimacy", and "procreation". So now that the Court has effectively and rightly removed abortion from consideration as a "privacy right" under constitutional law it would make sense to then leave open for consideration revisiting the Court's other "privacy right" decisions. 

Third, the Court did not mention God's law(s) as the reason or even a reason as to why Roe v. Wade should be overturned. The only set of laws that the Court indicated was determinative in whether abortion is a fundamental right in the United States is the United States constitution. However, this constitution, important and influential as it is, is still only a mere construct of men, unlike the ten commandments which were written by almighty God Himself or the Scriptures which were written under the inspiration of God and has Him as their author. [2] So the U.S. constitution, just like any other set of laws created by men, is subject to the laws of God. It is not exempt. 

All of man's laws are subject to God's laws. [3]

Therefore, the day that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade is undoubtedly a great day where the Court made a big step in the right direction in protecting countless unborn children but also in establishing a just legal order. However, we should not let our emotions blind us to the reality that while this decision is the best outcome we can get with the current makeup of the Supreme Court we nevertheless know that there are still difficulties present in building a legal system that should rightly recognize the social reign of Christ the King.

[1] And not to mention the 5th Commandment of God which prohibits the taking of innocent human life. 

[2] Dei Filius 7. 

[3] See Brian M. McCall, "The Architecture of the Law: Building Law on a Solid Foundation: The Eternal and Natural Law," Vera Lex 10 (2009): 47; Brian M. McCall, "Consulting the Architect when Problems Arise: The Divine Law," Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 9 (2011): 103.

By: Marcus Veritas

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of The Catholic Esquire. It has been rep-published with permission from the author who goes by the pen name Marcus Veritas. 

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson’s Women’s Health abortion case penned by Justice Samuel Alito has been leaked to the press. This is still not the official or final decision but has been confirmed to be authentic. The leak was completely unprecedented and places the safety, in my opinion, of several justices in grave danger.

What I want to do here is simply give you a summary of Justice Alito’s opinion. I have significant legal experience as a practicing attorney and as a constitutional law college level instructor studying abortion and other constitutional law issues. I come to this from a traditional Catholic point of view, but I want to provide an objective summary for the reader, although I will provide my own thoughts on the decision at the end. This is THE most important human and civil rights issue in this nation (if not the world) so it is important to have some background in order to speak intelligently.

This story is developing and the demonic spirit engulfing the nation right now is at an all-time high. Continue to pray for an end to abortion and safety of the justices on the Court who had the moral courage to do the right thing.

The Mississippi Law

The Mississippi law in question provided that “except in cases of medical emergency, or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality” a person shall not knowingly induce an abortion when the gestational age of the “unborn human being” is greater than fifteen (15) weeks. While the 15-week line is a few weeks short of the traditional “viability” line, which is important under the Roe and Casey precedent, it still provides for medical exceptions even if the problem is a severe fetal abnormality (and not necessarily a problem with the mother).

Roe and Casey Background

First, a quick history of the Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992) landmark abortion decisions. In Roe, the Court found a fundamental right to end a pregnancy (i.e. abort the baby) in the United States Constitution, particularly under the Fourteenth Amendment. Acknowledging individual states may have some interest in protecting viable unborn babies and the health of the mother, the Court essentially concocted a scheme by which future courts would evaluate abortion regulations based on the trimester the woman wanted to have an abortion.
​
The key legal line was the end of the second trimester because that is when the Court thought unborn babies achieved “viability.” The Roe court held that states could not impose any legal restrictions on abortions prior to a baby being “viable” unless the health of the mother was at risk (second trimester only). The practical effect of Roe was to strike down almost all laws in any state that imposed some level of restriction on abortion at the time.

In Casey, the Court ultimately upheld Roe but called the underlying reasoning into question. Relying on the principle of stare decisis, the judicial doctrine that the Court should adhere to its prior precedent when rendering a decision, it upheld the core principle in Roe that women have a constitutional right to kill their unborn babies. However, it did away with the trimester framework and held that states were not allowed to impose an “undue burden” on that right to abortion. The Court never really gave specifics as to what constitutes an “undue burden.”

Alito’s Key Quotes in Dobbs

In the Dobbs case before the Court now, the issue is whether Mississippi’s law prohibiting abortions before the fifteenth week of gestation violates the Constitution. The fifteenth week being a point in time prior to “viability” according to current medical opinion.  The State of Mississippi asked the Court to overturn the rulings in Roe and Casey. And Justice Alito, writing for the Court’s majority opinion, did exactly that. 

The money in the bank paragraph is the following:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by a constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)…The right to abortion does not fall within this category.”

The second money quote provides:

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

The rest of the opinion dives into the reasoning behind these conclusions. I will just mention some of the highlights that were extremely relevant to the opinion.

Highlights of the Dobbs Majority (Draft) Opinion

• Justice Alito addressed the meaning of “liberty” as understood in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment. Until the late twentieth century, a “right” to abortion was entirely unknown in American law. No state law or constitutional provision ever contemplated such a thing. In fact, most states outlawed abortion completely. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, three-fourths all of the states made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. Justice Alito even traced English common law back to the 13th century to show abortion was always considered a crime. This is relevant because under current Court precedent, any implicit right in the Constitution not expressly stated must be grounded in some longstanding legal tradition.  

 

• Alito addressed the famous statement in Casey, well known to Christians because it rejected the idea of objective Truth and morality: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Alito says an individual may be free to think and speak according to their beliefs, but they are not free to necessarily act on those beliefs. He draws the distinction between license and liberty here but does not directly counter the fundamental flaw in the statement itself which is that YOU DO NOT have the right to define your own Truth, even in your own mind. Truth is truth and objective reality is not subject to personal whims.

 

• Alito addressed the case precedent relied upon in Casey, such as the cases that found a constitutional right to purchase contraception (Griswold and Eisenstadt). Rather than attack these cases for their fundamental legal and moral flaws, Alito says those cases are different and not relevant to abortion because those cases deal with “potential” life rather than “life of an unborn human being.” None of those cases, Alito says, deal with the critical question imposed by abortion.

 

• Alito acknowledged there may be sound public policy reasons for allowing or prohibiting abortions but concludes that is an issue for elected representatives to deal with and not the role of the Court to make public policy.

 

• Alito acknowledged the role of stare decisis, case precedent, when deciding cases but agreed with Justice Story from 1816 when he said that when it comes to the Constitution, the “great charter of our liberties,” it is more important to have an issue settled “right” than just being settled. Alito notes some of the most important Supreme Court cases have overruled prior precedent, such as Brown v. Board of Education (overruling separate but equal in the classroom), so stare decisis certainly is not a rule set in stone.

 

• Alito spends much time dissecting the underlying reasoning and flaws in the Roe decision, which is interesting but not necessary to recap every point here. The gist of it is that the Roe decision was poorly reasoned, relied on incorrect historical information, provided no workable legal framework, and did nothing but inflame the political debate, which should more appropriately be handled by elected officials and not the judicial system. All of these reasons justify deviating from the case precedent set in Roe and Casey.

 

• Alito attacked the “viability” argument presented in Roe. The Roe court never explained why viability should be the point of no return when it comes to abortion regulations. If the state has a compelling reason to protect life after viability, why doesn’t it have the same compelling interest to protect life before viability? The Court essentially created an arbitrary line that has little support among philosophers and ethicists. The other obvious problem is that this arbitrary line has nothing to do with characteristics of the unborn baby. Other factors play a role in viability, such as the quality of neo-natal care that have nothing to do with the age of a fetus.

 

• The problem with Casey, according to Alito, is that the Court never addressed these fundamental problems with Roe and only made the legal framework more confusing and difficult to apply. Casey just added to the confusion by imposing new ambiguous and vague lines by requiring courts to determine the effect of abortion regulations on women (i.e. whether there was an undue burden), which is always going to differ depending on the factual circumstances of the individual woman. In other words, Alito is saying that Casey made the law difficult, if not impossibly, unworkable on a practical level.

 

• Alito rejected the claims that overturning Roe and Casey would affect the holdings in other cases involving marriage, homosexuality, contraception, etc. Alito reiterated that abortion is entirely a different issue and restated that overturning Roe will not affect these other decisions.

 

• Going forward, state abortion regulations will be subject to rational basis review because there is no fundamental constitutional right to have an abortion. Individual states may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons. As such, any law regulating abortion is entitled to “a strong presumption of validity.”

 

• Mississippi’s law was rationally based and therefore fell within the purview of that state’s legitimate interest to regulate abortion procedures and was upheld.

Some Initial Observations

Alito provides a very well-reasoned, articulate opinion with ample legal and historical support to support his conclusions. I appreciate the boldness and clear dissection of both Roe and Casey—exposing the logical and legal weakness of each of these prior decisions that have been used to force states into allowing the killing of unborn babies. From a standard American law school academic point of view, this opinion contained everything necessary to destroy Roe and Casey and did so by hitting on all the key errors, leaving little wiggle room for the pro-abortion advocates when it comes to future constitutional arguments that may try to resurrect some form of Roe and Casey.

Bottom line in this decision is that there is no fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to kill your unborn child. Period. End of story. Any state law dealing with abortion is going to be subject to the same constitutional rules as any other law would be that does not deal with fundamental rights.
I did not detect any hidden gems or novel ideas in this opinion. This decision is exactly how I think most legal scholars would expect a decision overturning Roe to look like.

For my part, I was hoping for a bit more, which I know was highly unlikely. As a practicing Catholic, I believe that every human being from the moment of conception has a right for an opportunity to live and consequently every society owes a duty of protection to those babies, even from their own mothers if necessary. I was hoping the opinion would give us a little bit more than just “Okay states, do whatever you want—not our issue anymore.”

Specifically, I would have liked the Court to address the fundamental rights of the unborn babies.  As noted in a prior post, Colorado recently passed a law specifically denying the rights of unborn babies to live—so we already know the pro-aborts have no problem whatsoever with explicitly denying any rights to unborn babies. Even under this decision as written, those types of laws could be upheld.

My other problem with the decision is that Alito seemed to shut the door on any opportunity for attack on other erroneous “privacy” based decisions such as Obergefell (right to homosexual marriages) and Griswold (right to contraception). Alito went out of his way to make sure nothing in this opinion should be construed as chipping away at these other constitutional fundamental “rights,” which also have no basis whatsoever in the Fourteenth Amendment.  

I understand marriage and contraception were not before the Court here and there is no need for Alito to go off on tangents that would distract from the outcome of this case. But he didn’t need to be so bold in his assessment that the reasoning in those cases have nothing to do with Roe. Because, in fact, they do.

The original marriage and contraception cases prior to Roe supplied the legal reasoning the Court used in Roe. Alito’s insistence that those cases are not relevant to abortion simply makes future efforts to overturn those egregious cases more difficult.
​
Overall, I do believe that this decision will ultimately result in protecting millions of babies from slaughter. Not all of them for sure. Nor will the abortion debate, in any way shape or form, end. In fact, the debate is only likely to heat up and become more intense, so steel your armor for the demons to come out. But it is a solid move in the right direction.

​Marcus Veritas is the pen name of a licensed attorney with a Juris Doctor and BA in economics. He teaches constitutional law, criminal justice, and business law for community colleges. He is a member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, and enjoys studying Church history, Christian apologetics, theology and philosophy.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for Holy Week 2022. DISCLAIMER. Also, please note that this list may be updated as new information about other Mass times and locations become available.

















Key: 


Diocese: TLMs administered by priests of the local diocese. 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).


Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

St. Therese Church (Diocese)
1100 East Alhambra Road
Alhambra, CA 91801
(626) 282-2744
Easter Sunday: 1:00 p.m. (Sung High Mass)

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 2:30 p.m. (Liturgy of the Passion)
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m. (Easter Vigil)
Easter Sunday: 12:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m. & 9:00 a.m.

St. Mary Magdalen Chapel (Diocese)
2532 Ventura Boulevard 
Camarillo, California 93010 
(805) 484-0532
Easter Sunday: 1:00 p.m.

St. Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
720 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Easter Sunday: 1:30 p.m.

Holy Innocents Catholic Church (Diocese) 
425 E. 20th Street
Long Beach, CA 90806
(562) 591-6924
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday liturgy: 3:30 p.m.
Holy Saturday: 9:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 9:00 a.m.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Diocese)
4018 E. Hammel Street
Los Angeles, CA 90063
(323) 261-8051
Easter Sunday: 10:30 a.m. 

St. Vitus Catholic Church (FSSP)
​607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday liturgy: 3:00 p.m.
Holy Saturday Easter vigil: 8:00 p.m.-Preference will be given for converts and their families.
Easter Sunday: 7:0 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 11:00 a.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
(on Leavenworth Drive inside Angels Gate Park
& Ft. MacArthur)
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Holy Thursday: 6:30 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 11:00 a.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Easter Sunday: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744
(310) 834-5215
Easter Sunday: 9:30 a.m. 
​
Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Holy Thursday: 1:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 12:30 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians [1] (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 1:00 p.m. (Passion/Veneration of the Cross/Mass of the Presanctified)
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m. (Easter Vigil)
Easter Sunday: 12:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. & 12:30 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
321 10th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-6913
Easter Sunday: 12:00 p.m.

John Paul II Polish Center (Diocese)
3999 Rose Drive
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
(714) 996-8161
Easter Sunday: 12:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 12:00 p.m. (Stations of the Cross followed by Good Friday Liturgy)
Holy Saturday: 10:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 12:00 a.m. & 9:00 a.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Holy Thursday: 4:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 7:00 p.m. (Veneration of the Cross)
Holy Saturday: 4:00 p.m.
Easter Sunday: 10:30 a.m. 
  
Sacred Heart Church (Diocese)
43775 Deep Canyon Road
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-6502
Easter Sunday: 2:30 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

San Juan Diego Center (Diocese)
3015 Pala Mission Road
Pala, CA 92059
Easter Sunday: 8:30 a.m.

Saint John Bosco Mission (SSPX)
Four Points Sheraton Hotel
8110 Aero Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
Easter Sunday: 12:30 p.m.

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Holy Thursday: 7:00 p.m.
Good Friday: 3:00 p.m. (Solemn Liturgy), 
Holy Saturday: 8:00 p.m. 
Easter Sunday: 6:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. (High Mass), 12:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m.

[1] At Our Lady Help of Christians church the pre-1955 Missal will be used for the holy week celebrations. 

Below is a list of Traditional 
Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern
California for Christmas on 
December 25, 2021. 
DISCLAIMER. 






​

Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including FSSP).
​
FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).
​
Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop (not including SSPX). 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).


Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

St. Therese Church (Diocese)
1100 East Alhambra Road
Alhambra, CA 91801
(626) 282-2744
Time: 1:00 p.m. (Sung High Mass)

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Time: 12:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m., & 9:00 a.m.

Saint Mary Magdalen Chapel (Diocese)
2532 Ventura Boulevard
Camarillo, California 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 10:00 a.m.

Holy Innocents Catholic Church (Diocese) 
425 E. 20th Street
Long Beach, CA 90806
(562) 591-6924
Time: 9:00 a.m.

St. Vitus Catholic Church (FSSP)
607 4th Street 
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m. & 11:00 a.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Time: 12:00 a.m.

​St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Time: 12:30 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 12:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m. & 10:00 a.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
321 10th Street  
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-6913
Time: 12:00 p.m.

John Paul II Polish Center (Diocese)
3999 Rose Drive
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
(714) 996-8161
Time: 7:15 a.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Time: 12:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m. & 10:00 a.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 10:30 a.m. & 2:30 p.m.

Sacred Heart Church (Diocese)
43775 Deep Canyon Road
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-6502
Time: 2:30 p.m.

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 12:00 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 12:30 p.m. & 6:00 p.m.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 2021. DISCLAIMER.


​













​
Key

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

FSSP: TLMs administered by priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP).

Independent: TLMs administered by priests that do not operate under the control or approval of the local diocese or bishop. 

SSPX: TLMs administered by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).



Archdiocese of Los Angeles  

Our Lady of the Angels Church (SSPX)
1100 West Duarte Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
(626) 447-1752
Time: 8:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary Magdalen Chapel (Diocese)
2532 Ventura Blvd.
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 484-0532 
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Vitus Catholic Church (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 6:15 a.m., 12:00 p.m., & 7:00 p.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Time: 7:30 a.m.

St. Thomas Aquinas College Chapel (Diocese)
10000 N. Ojai Road
Santa Paula, CA 93060
(805) 525-4417
Time: 7:15 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of Orange

Saint John the Baptist Catholic Church (Diocese)
1015 Baker Street  
Costa Mesa, CA 92626   
(714) 540-2214   
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Our Lady Help of Christians (Independent)
9621 Bixby Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92841
(714) 635-0510
Time: 8:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

Saint Mary's by the Sea (Diocese)
321 10th Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-6913
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Diocese of San Bernardino 

St. Joseph's & Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (SSPX)
1090 West Laurel Street
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-0323
Time: 9:00 a.m. & 7:00 p.m.

San Secondo d'Asti (Diocese)
250 North Turner Avenue
Guasti/Ontario, CA 91761
(909) 390-0011
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Saint Joan of Arc Mission (Independent)
County of Riverside, CA (Information regarding the exact address is unavailable to the public. In order to attend and obtain the address an individual must contact the priest here.)
Time: Contact the priest here. 

Diocese of San Diego

Saint Anne Catholic Church (FSSP)
2337 Irving Avenue
San Diego, CA. 92113
(619) 239-8253
Time: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m.

 By: Father David Nix and Marc Zarlengo, Esq.

Editor’s Note: The following podcast was posted on the website of Padre Peregrino. It has been rep-published with permission from the owner of the website-Father David Nix. ​ 

Fr. David Nix was born on the 16th of August 1978 in Denver, CO, USA.  He was raised in the city of Denver and graduated from Regis Jesuit High School in 1996.  He graduated Boston College in 2000. While premed in Boston, he also worked as an EMT.  After graduation, he became a paramedic for the city and county of Denver in 2002.  Later, he did mission work and entered seminary in 2004.  In 2010, he was ordained Catholic priest by Archbishop Chaput. After ordination, he offered the sacraments in North America, South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. His passions include languages and the end of abortion and child-trafficking.

​Marc Zarlengo is a licensed attorney with a Juris Doctor and BA in economics. He teaches constitutional law, criminal justice, and business law for community colleges. He is a member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, and enjoys studying Church history, Christian apologetics, theology and philosophy.

Editor’s Note: The following is a conversation Christ the King Law Center's (CKLC) president had with a young man (hereinafter referred to as "YM") who was an administrator of CKLC's facebook page. We thought we would share it to clarify any questions or concerns others had regarding our organization and any ties it might have with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) especially considering the recent news about the SSPX. Furthermore, we also believe this conversation might also address any questions or concerns about our position on Vatican II and religious liberty. In order to respect this young man's identity we are not giving out his name.


YM: Hey I was wondering if you could please remove me from the "Christ the King" Facebook admin. I don't feel called to do it right now. Thanks and God Bless. I am just really busy with school right now. I was also going to mention that I am trying to develop my understanding of Vatican II and the Catholic State in an interpretation of continuity with that which came before. I know the site does not necessarily agree with this view so I just wanted to mention where I stand in this issue. God Bless!

CKLC: Hello [name deleted]. Alright. I will remove you. Being a site administrator certainly does not oblige you to spend a certain amount of time doing anything especially when you are busy but you can do what you wish. You also mention that you are trying to develop your understanding of Vatican II and the Catholic State in an interpretation of continuity with that which came before. I do not see how being a site administrator keeps you from doing that. I have certainly tried to learn about how Vatican II can be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with previous teaching but we have to be honest that this is, at least, very difficult. My organization has not as of now taken any public position regarding the continuity of the Vatican II documents with regards to tradition. Our beliefs are stated in the "About US" section on our website whereby we affirm our belief in the Tridentine Creed and in Pope St. Pius X's Oath against Modernism. These are things that every Catholic must subscribe to regardless of Vatican II. Vatican II is not a council that defined new dogmas and whatever real or imagined new teachings that contradict prior infallible teachings by the Church and in Sacred Tradition must be rejected. I assume you would believe in that.
​
Also if I may add: I do not know if you have ever read Michael Davies' book "The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty" but if you did not I think you should. It is a clear and balanced analysis on the teaching of the Church regarding religious liberty and its comparison with the liberal errors as well as the difficulties of trying to interpret Vatican II to be in conformity with the traditional Church teaching on religious liberty.

YM: Thank you for your response. I agree that there are indeed a number of passages and documents within the Second Vatican Council that do contain a good amount of ambiguity and are indeed unclear. I definitely do not think this is a good thing. I also believe that there are room for criticism of a number of things about the Council. It is also very true that the Second Vatican Council also did not define any doctrine and so it did was by no means an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. But it was infallible in so far as it was an act of the Ordinary Magisterium. And while the Council did not define anything knew (which would require an ascent of faith) it does use the language of development which must be given (a religious ascent of mind and will). Furthermore the Council does touch upon previous Church teaching regarding dogma and previously defined teaching (which I don't believe the Council can contradict in any meaningful way). I would say such development and interpretation of the Council must be done in a matter of continuity rather than rupture. In the case of the Catholic State for example, my understanding is that the Council merely developed the teaching of a Catholic State rather than did away with it. This is true of a development of the relationship between Church and State, which simply gave a more fuller understanding as to what the State could allow and suppress. My understanding is that the Council simply stated that the State was limited to regulating errors dealing with Morality and the Natural Law, while religious errors were developed as being primarily the Church's duty to correct. An idea that was already talked about by Pope Pius XII. Also while religious liberty is indeed a real thing, the Council, namely Dignitatis Humane clearly states that it is limited and regulated by the Common Good. Nor does it prevent the creation or continuation of a Catholic Confessional State. I will look into Michael Davies' book. Also if have not read them already, here are two articles that I read upon Vatican II and the Catholic State which I thought were good reads. I also wanted to simply mention in regards to being a site admin that I also did not want to give the impression that I support or endorse groups such as the Society of Saint Pius and more particularly independence chapels that are not in full Communion with Rome. In regards to the Society of Saint Pius I do believe it is very probable that they will become regularized but for the time being I don't feel comfortable promoting a group that is for one reason or another not in a fully regular canonical position with the Magisterium simply because I do think that full unity is an important issue. God Bless!

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8778
Library : Dignitatis humanae and Traditional Teaching on Church and State
<em> Dignitatis humanae </em> and Traditional Teaching on Church and State William Marshner, as a theological editor of Faith & Reason not directly involved in the religious liberty controversy triggered by Prof. Wolfe's article, participated closely in the gathering and evaluation of the various co...
catholicculture.org

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5443/The_End_of_the_Catholic_State.aspx

CKLC: Wow [name deleted]. You have covered a lot here and I respect that. As I said it is your choice if you want to be a site administrator or not. That being said I believe you may be a little bit overly scrupulous in this matter. Nobody sees whether you are a site administrator if you post as an administrator on the facebook page and I do not tell anyone else about you being an administrator nor are you listed as an administrator to the public. Furthermore my organization Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) is not a part of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). We take no official position regarding the SSPX and/or so-called independent chapels other than what we state on our web and facebook page. We certainly do not permit rash judgment of the SSPX such as statements accusing them of schism or heresy especially in light of statements from the Holy See saying that the SSPX is neither. We give the SSPX neither uncritical support nor universal condemnation. Furthermore I have received approval from Father James Fryar of the Fraternity of Saint Peter to list him as a spiritual advisor of CKLC. Go on the webpage and see. Also I have had Father Robert Bishop who does the Latin Mass at St. Therese Church in Alhambra review my website and tell me he saw no problem with it. My theological advisor Mr. David Rodriguez confirmed with his spiritual director that it was alright to be a theological advisor to my group. He is listed on my web page in the "About" section. You may want to consult with your spiritual director/advisor as well. You are welcome to contact all these individuals to confirm although I am not sure how much Father Bishop remembers our conversation since it was over the telephone.

And as I said before CKLC has not taken a position regarding whether Vatican II is in continuity with tradition. If you believe it is in continuity I am not going to consider that as disqualifying you from being a site administrator. However, we do assent and agree and we expect all those who volunteer with us to assent and agree with the traditional infallible teaching of the Church regarding religious liberty especially as expressed in the Encyclical Quanta Cura by Blessed Pope Pius IX. (See here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm). We condemn and reject and we expect all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject any and all of the errors condemned and rejected by the Church in this Encyclical. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia Quanta Cura is described as one of the "final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church..."

We also condemn and reject and we expect all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject any and all of the errors condemned and rejected by the Church in Blessed Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. (See here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia "The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical "Quanta Cura"... [N]evertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly." (See here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm)

The Encyclical Quanta Cura condemns the following statement: "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." (paragraph 3)

These other statements are condemned as well: "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." (Ibid).

The Encyclical goes on to describe this statement as an "erroneous opinion" that is "most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls" and an "insanity": "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." (Ibid). And persons who preach this statement are preaching "liberty of perdition". (Ibid).

Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) condemns and rejects the above statements and expects all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject these statements.

The Syllabus of Errors condemns the following propositions:

"15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization."

Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) condemns and rejects these propositions and expects all those who volunteer with us to condemn and reject these statements.

By: Marc Zarlengo, Esq.

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of The Catholic Esquire. It has been rep-published with permission from the author Marc Zarlengo, Esq. 



Regardless of whether or not you believe the Coronavirus/COVID panic currently sweeping across the fruited plain of the United States is an overblown media-hyped creation or is a real, deadly concern we must respond to on a world-wide scale, the impact of the stay-at-home orders issued by state and local authorities in response has sparked some very serious and grave constitutional questions—especially concerning the First Amendment’s supposed guarantee of the free exercise of religion.
​
More specifically, the question often raised by many Americans staring at an unprecedented level of restrictions on a vast array of liberties in the name of “flattening the curve” is how can the government prohibit religious gatherings of people, such as attending Mass on Sundays, when the Constitution prohibits infringement on the free exercise of religion? Isn’t a prohibition on attending church an obvious infringement on the exercise of religion?

The simple answer is of course it is an infringement on the exercise of religion, that’s not even disputable. The real question that Catholics and others of faith must ask from a constitutional perspective is why isn’t the government required to make an exception in these state and locally ordered stay-at-home orders for attending religious worship services on Sundays?

The answer to this question is because the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) said the government is not required to make exceptions (although they can) in laws to accommodate religious practices so long as the governmental restrictions are generally applicable to everyone, and does not single out religion itself.

For practicing Catholics, this issue not only impacts our ability to participate in in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass and to receive sacraments, but very much could impact the final destination of eternal souls! So, we need to understand how we got to this point by looking at the key 1990 SCOTUS case of Employment Division v. Smith. By understanding this case, we can understand why “freedom of religion,” as supposedly enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is nothing more than an open invitation for governmental control of religion and the Catholic faith to such an extent that it constitutes a rejection of the social kingship of Christ. And then we can ask, what should our response be?

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

The Smith case involved two Oregon men, Alfred Smith and Galen Black, who were fired from their jobs at a drug rehab center because they were caught ingesting peyote (a spineless cactus plant with psychoactive properties) for religious purposes at a ceremony sponsored by their Native American church. Use of peyote was considered a criminal act under Oregon law. Smith and Black applied for unemployment benefits with the state and were denied because the Employment Division found they were fired for work-related “misconduct”, which disqualified them under Oregon law for unemployment benefits.

Smith and Black appealed the denial of benefits on the grounds that the State of Oregon infringed on their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion because peyote was an important ritual and authentic religious practice.  The case ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court. Its opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia (surprisingly to some), concluded that Oregon’s prohibition on the use of peyote did not infringe on Smith and Black’s rights under the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment.  

What’s important to understand about the Smith decision is not only that the State of Oregon was found to have the constitutional authority to restrict the religious practices of members of a Native American church, but the reasoning behind the decision. Now that Catholics (and other Christians) are facing extensive restrictions on religious gatherings under stay-in-home orders, the analysis contained in the Smith opinion exposes the reality that the free exercise of religion results in nothing more than a grant of power to the secular government over religion!

Interestingly, none of the Court members rejected the idea that government could restrict certain religious practices. The legal question was whether the government had to first show a “compelling interest” before doing so, or whether the government simply had blanket authority to do so. The Court ultimately agreed with the latter position and determined that

• “the right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

In other words, so long as a law applies to everyone generally and does not single out religion for a restriction, then the fact it may affect the ability of a citizen to practice his religion does not relieve him from complying with the law.

What the Smith decision on a practical level means for Christians of all stripes is that when your religious practice conflicts with a generally applicable civil law, then the civil law trumps your religious belief and you have to obey the government command. The government doesn’t even need to provide a compelling civic or public safety reason to infringe on your religious belief—it just can. For Smith and Black, Oregon didn’t have to show peyote ingestion was a dangerous practice, all it had to show was that it criminalized peyote use for everyone.

How did Justice Scalia and the rest of the Court’s majority reach this conclusion? The reasoning was quite simple and logical given the principles upon which the United States was founded. If it was any other way, according to Scalia, the government and its courts would have to engage in the next to impossible and inappropriate task of reviewing and analyzing the nature and importance of a claimed religious practice in relation to whatever religion was at issue. Scalia went on to state,

• “Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society’s diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because ‘we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference,’ [citations omitted] and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order.”

There is the reasoning—because we in the United States believe in a diversity of religions and are opposed to the idea of government interference or review of individual religious practices, of which there could be an infinite variety, we cannot expect the courts to assume otherwise valid civil laws to be invalid because anyone can make up any religion and claim it as “their” religious practice. That indeed would seem to make governing for the civil authorities impractical if not impossible.  

At the risk of putting words into Justice Scalia’s mouth, he also seems to be saying that getting into the business of determining legitimate versus non-legitimate religious practices violates a fundamental principle of freedom of religion or interference from government in a nation that prides itself on diversity. The consequence of not having an established religion, such as Roman Catholicism, is that ALL religions have to be presumed valid, regardless of how evil or destructive they are. That is why as a practical matter, all claimed religions are bound to follow the civil, secular laws if law and order is going to be maintained. The trade-off is that while all religions are allowed to exist and operate to some extent, including Catholicism, they must subordinate themselves to the civil authorities on some areas of conflict in order for everyone to live in peace and harmony. That’s the theory anyway, and it was an idea most of the Founding Fathers agreed with.

A Catholic Response to the Smith Case

The problem from a traditional (and authentic) Catholic point of view with all of this, is that the underlying premises accepted by the Court are fundamentally flawed and necessarily result in the rejection of both the divine and natural law as expressed in Christ’s social kingship.

First of all, as Catholics we believe there is only one, catholic and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, that can be historically traced back to Christ, and that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Therefore, we cannot support a system that seems to promote or support the idea that God wills the diversity of religions, nor that a valid civil authority can be structured on any teachings contrary to the will of God.

Of course, other religions may say the same thing. But from a Catholic perspective, it doesn’t matter what the other religions believe in this regard. WE have a duty to Christ and to follow His commands and teachings while attempting to convert those who do not believe.

Given what Americans have been taught about fundamental “American principles” that value a diversity of religions, pluralism, and separation of church and state, the Smith decision would seem inevitable and reasonable. However, we know from both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that God does not favor a diversity of religions or the separation of His Church from the civil state in the way protestant and enlightenment political theorists conceived of it.

Secondly, Catholics cannot in good conscience agree to put the law of the state above the God’s laws when they are in direct conflict.

While I am not going to attempt a full and complete treatment of the social teaching of the Church with respect to Church-state relations, it is sufficient to state here that there has always been a recognized division of authority between the civil (temporal) state and the Church, and yet both the state and Church are subordinate to Christ as King.

We see this clearly in Christ’s response to the pharisees when He tells them to “repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22: 17-22). Clearly, there is a sphere of power belonging to the Church and another one belonging to the state. Saint Paul explains that civil authority, i.e. the power of the state, indeed does and should command obedience from its citizens. He explains this is because the power or authority the civil ruler holds is given to him by God: “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1).

This is important to remember when we consider Christ’s social kingship: ALL authority, including both civil and ecclesial, ULTIMATELY comes from God. Christ reminds His followers that “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18). Christ is the “the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.” (Apocalypse 19:16).

Because all authority ultimately comes from Jesus Christ, He is the ultimate “Law Giver, whom obedience is due” says Pope Pius XI. And while His kingdom is a spiritual one, Pius reminds us that

• “It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power.” (Quas Primas, 17).

We learn from St. Thomas Aquinas that Christ’s authority takes the form of Divine Law, natural law, and ecclesial law. The civil (or positive law) is man created law but because all authority comes from God, justice will not allow for any conflict between the civil law and God’s laws. At the end of the day, should there appear to be a conflict between civil commands and God’s laws, the citizen is justified in defending “their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this [civil] authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.”( CCC para. 2241, citing to GS 74, § 5.)

Contrast these principles to those set forth in the Smith case described above. They are inherently incompatible. The Smith opinion, without making any distinction or exception for the teaching of Christ or the Church, held that a civil (man-made law) of general applicability must be obeyed even if such law restricts the ability of the citizen, i.e. Catholic Christian, to engage in religious worship.  According the Supreme Court, the civil law trumps religious law—for the Church, God’s laws trump civil laws when in conflict.

Application to Stay-At-Home Orders

Putting all this together, and circling back to the original question of the validity of stay-at-home orders, we can conclude that although it is the opinion of the Supreme Court and many “constitutionalists”, including politically conservative ones, that there is no legal problem with ordering Catholics to stay away from Mass and receiving sacraments, faithful Catholics should not comply with the civil authorities in the event the civil authority issues an order that contradicts God’s laws.

While the Church itself certainly has some authority over how the sacraments are administered, many believe the ability to access the sacraments and attending Mass, the highest form of worship, is in fact a matter of divine and natural law which cannot be abrogated by any civil authority. Some canon lawyers have opined that even Bishops cannot prohibit attending Mass or reception of sacraments on an open-ended, general basis.

If someone challenged the stay-at-home orders in court based on a violation of the Free Exercise clause, he would likely lose because the government will claim the order are not intended to single out religious worship but apply to the public generally. This would follow from the Smith decision.

But even if the stay-at-home orders are laws of general applicability, which I would argue they are not because of the numerous exceptions contained in them including for abortion clinics and liquor stores, as faithful Catholics we are bound to give due honor and worship to God as a matter of justice. That is, we owe God proper worship in the matter He provided to us through centuries of tradition handed down. We also must take care that our souls and those of our family members receive the graces they need for eternal salvation. These are matters of divine and natural law. The secular government does not get to decide who and when we receive graces or worship the Lord, regardless of whether they think Mass attendance will pose a public danger. That is a matter reserved to Christ and His Church authorities to decide after careful consideration and prudential judgments.

Sadly, this situation will arise more and more as American jurisdictions and their leaders become more secular, atheist and divorced from Christian influence. Many of the secular authorities desire as much as any religious sect to impose their will and beliefs on others through government because their secularism is their religion. We are facing this in a way never seen before now as stay-at-home orders are preventing Catholics from attending Mass and receiving sacramental graces.

 [Yes, legalists, I know God is not bound by the sacraments, but WE are bound by the sacraments, and we should never presume upon God or take it upon ourselves to dispense with the need for sacraments because some atheist governor tells us to.]

As Catholics, and especially the shepherds of the Church, we should know our duty is first and foremost to Christ, regardless of the opinion of the Supreme Court, mayors, governors or health boards. In light of Supreme Court precedent and these civil orders resulting in the systematic destruction of all types of civil liberties, including religious ones, this world-wide crisis seems to provide an opportunity for all of the faithful to learn about Christ’s Kingship and reconsider with a skeptical eye some of our “founding” American civic principles that have set the stage for the current crisis.

Marc Zarlengo is a licensed attorney with a Juris Doctor and BA in economics. He teaches constitutional law, criminal justice, and business law for community colleges. He is a member of the New Saint Thomas Institute, and enjoys studying Church history, Christian apologetics, theology and philosophy.