Editor's Note: Below is series of email debates a Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) attorney had with the President of a "Catholic" organization that had campaigned for the passage of Proposition 8, the California initiative in 2008 to amend the state constitution defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. Our attorney had previously volunteered with this "Catholic" organization in order to help pass proposition 8. After the election, the president of this "Catholic" organization stated in an email to the volunteers that he wanted the organization to broaden its mission and avoid appearing "reactionary". This prompted a debate with our CKLC attorney as you will see below. We will refer to the President of this "Catholic" organization as BM and our attorney as CKLC. 





BM: On the call Wednesday at 6:30 PM, I would like to continue with where we left off two weeks ago -- specifically with goals and targeting for the growth of this movement related to forming and training Catholics for action -- a Catholic action that is not reactionary but a witness of truth with faith, charity and reason. I have pasted a section of my email from last week below that discusses targets of our opponents and demographics of the state. Catholic leadership will play a critical role in rebuilding institutions that support marriage and opposing efforts to redefine it.

The call in number is 877 298 1612

Last Friday our board had a planning meeting, the results of which we will be sharing shortly. We are working to become more specific in our goal setting so that we can be most effective in supporting you and accomplishing the goals that we all agree on regarding marriage and family. One thing that came out of the meeting is a clearer statement of what we are doing related to marriage and family.
"promoting the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society"

this was inspired by some of Pope Benedict's own words in Caritas in Veritate. Each word is key and we can discuss further on tomorrow's call. -- For the Common Good,


CKLC: Hey BM, Wondering what you mean by not being "reactionary"?


BM: Raise the question tonight and I will answer it. Thanks


CKLC : Sorry. Couldn't make it tonight. Don't have time. I am studying for the bar. This is the only way to communicate.


BM: Good luck with your studying.

To answer your question, we are not approaching marriage advocacy as a matter of ideology, but a matter of truth which we witness by the way we live as well as what we say. If we were just doing political tactics based on an ideology, we would be no different from our opponents. We are on a journey of formation as well. It is very exciting and the people who have been through the training or retreat are equally excited.

Hope this helps.

We are putting this out on CDs.


CKLC: Done studying. I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with it. I would just express it differently. Rather than say that we don't want want to be "reactionary" I would just say we don't want to be ideological or partisan. The reason I say this is because as Catholics WE MUST BE REACTIONARY. It's not me saying this. The Church herself teaches this:

Catholics are obliged "to bring back all civil society to the pattern and form of Christianity which We have described." (Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Immortale Dei, ).

"[C]ivilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions. It has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. Omnia Instaurare in Christo ["To organize all things in Christ" or "To re-establish all things in Christ"]." (Pope St. Pius X's Encyclical On the "Sillon")

Our goal of protecting marriage is part of the larger struggle to set up and restore our Christian civilization which has always regarded marriage as only between a man and a woman.


BM: Have you taken the bar already? Hope all went well. What a relief to have that behind you.

Here is more recent stuff on the responsibility of the laity [deleted by CKLC] that says essentially the same thing in a slightly different way. Defining this responsibility for the modern world was one of the key outcomes of Vatican II which John Paul II and Benedict have continued to elaborate on. As you point out, it is critical for us to accept this responsibility in the mission of the Church -- but is a secular role.

From the dictionary definition, reactionary has the connotation of ideological and a response -- a reaction or radical opposition. 

We are called to restore civilization to its original value -- according to God's plan for creation. Because of the effect of original sin this will always be a work in progress -- not a reaction to a specific event or condition. It is a work that is not achievable in time and space but we are called by Christ to work toward this and we do so with Christian hope in fulfillment of our batismal promises. It is part of treating the other as another self and restoring that order is the work of justice. 

If we are reactionary, become like our opponents. Our reaction must not be to them, but to the injustice that they cause. We must not focus on them, but work in solidarity with the victims and the common good.

This may sound very confusing right now, but please hang in there with us. It took me a long time to get this. All of this is not to say that we will not wage a good fight, but it will be a Christian fight with love. Our weapon will be the truth which we must live as well as speak. We are going to build an army -- a truth squad that will fight on our terms rather than reacting to our opponents.


CKLC: Great meeting yesterday.

Anyway I've looked at the website link you gave below and neither Pope John Paul nor Benedict ever state that we should not be reactionary. With that said we can't ignore or dismiss what other Popes have said about the role of the Church and laity in the world especially when there is such a wealth of teaching about this topic from such great Popes as St. Pius X and Leo XIII.

The definition I use for reactionary comes from Merriam Webster's pocket dictionary which states that reactionary is "relating to or favoring return to an earlier political order or policy." This is precisely what the Church teaches us when it comes to restoring a Christian civilization:

"[H]uman society in its civil aspects was renewed fundamentally by Christian institutions; that, by virtue of this renewal, mankind was raised to a higher level, nay, was called back from death to life, and enriched with such a degree of perfection as has never existed before and was not destined to be greater in any succeeding age; and that, finally, the same Jesus Christ is the beginning and the end of these benefits; for as all things have proceeded from Him, so they must be referred back to Him. When, with the acceptance of the light of the Gospel, the world had learned the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Word and the redemption of man, the life Jesus Christ, God and man, spread through the nations and imbued them wholly with His doctrine, with His precepts and with His laws. Wherefore, if human society is to be healed, only a return to Christian life and institutions will heal it. In the case of decaying societies it is most correctly prescribed that, if they wish to be regenerated, they must be recalled to their origins. For the perfection of all societies is this, namely, to work for and to attain the purpose for which they were formed, so that all social actions should be inspired by the same principle which brought the society itself into being. Wherefore, turning away from the original purpose is corruption, while going back to this purpose is recovery." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Rerum Novarum.)

Thus as Christians and Catholics we are duty bound to return to the Christian principles upon which our society was founded. Gay marriage is a radical break from that past for in the beginning God created man and woman. Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei writes about a time when human society gave the One True Faith the treatment that it deserved:

"There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is--beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion."
Such words are those of a true reactionary. Thus to say that we shouldn't be reactionary is to condemn the sacred teachings of the Popes.

I am not saying that by being reactionary we have to be partisan. The Church is not attached or supports any one political party above another. CCG and the defenderes of Prop 8 can come from all political backgrounds whether it be democrats, republicans, green party, libertarion, etc. However when it comes to political philosophy we are essentially reactionary.

I think that you agree with me on these principles and thus it shouldn't be dificult for us to come to an agreement on bringing civilization back to the principles upon which God has desired. Being reactionary has nothing to do with being like our opponents. Our opponents are radicals and revolutionaries. They want to rip society from its roots and destroy it. They want to built a new civilization based on principles fundamentally opposed to the law of Christ and His Holy Church.

I do agree with you that we must not simply respond to what our opponents are doing and must help others realize the truth. If this is what you mean by reactionary, as a simple response to the tactics of our opponents, then I don't disagree with you. But if you're condemation of reactionaries refers to a condemnation of reactionary (i.e. Catholic) ideology and philosophy then I don't agree with you.

This might seem like an insignificant matter but being in a position of authority in a Catholic organization charged with teaching others about Catholic morals we must be careful not to be too ambiguous in teaching about the Faith. We must be clear that we are not against returning to a Christian civilization. Yet at the same time we must be clear that we are not just waiting for our opponents to do something before we take action. We can continue to teach and do good works. But our spirit must always be the same.

Being reactionary has nothing to do with not loving others. I think that Pope St. Pius X said it well: "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators, they are promoters of tradition." (Encyclical On the "Sillon".)


BM: See below modern definitions. We must not be reactionary. 

At times I don't think we differ much on intent, but at other times I am not sure. I am sure, with the help of our scholarly advisers, that we are in complete sync with the Church.

We are to restore creation to it original value. You need to be careful how you present that lest it sound like imposing Christian faith -- something counter to Church doctrine and to the dignity of the human person.

I think the period you are talking about below was a theocracy plague with terrible human rights abuses. We are not about returning to the past, but about the future. Christianity flourished because it was new. We are bringing reasoning purified by faith to the culture that is new.

[CKLC] -- at some point you need to let this one go. There are much more important things that need to be done. As time passes, if you continue to work with us, you will come to understand what we are saying.

From WikipediaReactionary (also reactionist) refers to any political or social movement or ideology that seeks a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) and opposes changes in society it deems harmful. The term originated in the French Revolution, to denote the counter-revolutionaries who wanted to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. In the nineteenth century, the term reactionism denoted those who wished to preserve feudalism and aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism, and socialism. Today the term is largely used pejoratively to refer to ideas that are considered backwards, outdated and opposed to progress.

From Merriam Webster online dictionary

• Main Entry: re·ac·tion·ary
• Pronunciation: \rē-ˈak-shə-ˌner-ē\
• Function: adjective
• Date: 1840

: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics


CKLC: Your definition is no different then the one I quoted. We must be reactionary.

I am simply trying to help our cause by showing that using terminology that runs counter to that used by the Church and being ambiguous in our teachings is not helpful.

The Church does not teach that we should impose our faith and I hold onto nothing other than what the Church teaches. However, we must be careful not to fall into the modern error of seeking a vague utopia that has never existed in human history and which was explicitly condemned by Pope St. Pius X as I have showed you below.

I also ask that you please not disparage a Papal Encyclical. The period that you describe as "plagued with terrible human rights abuses" was one that gave Our Holy Church its proper respect and honor according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. The words describing that period of civilization are not mine but were taken out of Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Immortale Dei.

Christianity only seemed new because the world had fallen so far from God that it was no longer the world that Christ wanted it to be.  Your last email is ambiguous in the sense that on one hand you state that we must restore creation to its original value (which is true) yet on the other hand you state we must not be reactionary and not return to the past (which is wrong).

As I have stated below this issue is important. We don't want to confuse people and help lead them astray from the right path.

With that said I'd like to say that I still desire to work for the protection of Prop 8. However this is conditioned on my not being required to renounce my conscience. I am and will continue to be a proud reactionary.

I encourage you to read some of these documents from the Popes which illustrate much of what I am saying:

Syllabus of Errors - Pope Pius IX,  March 18, 1861, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Quanta Cura - Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1861,  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm  Did you know that the Catholic Church has condemned the very principles on which modern pluralistic societies are founded?  

Diuturnum Pope Leo XIII, June 29, 1881,  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum_en.html 
Where does political authority come from? This encyclical shows that if political authority came from the people, there actually would be no authority at all, and that the only real basis for political authority is God. Without God as the basis for political authority, we end with the tyranny of the majority, unbound by any moral law, and the loss of true liberty. That is why we must fight against abortion and other social evils by appealing to the law of God, not the will of the majority.  

Immortale Dei - Pope Leo XIII,  November 1, 1885, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html  Why simple logic demands that every state be Catholic  

Libertas - Pope Leo XIII,  June 20, 1888,  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html 
Why the modern notion of liberty is social suicide, and is actually a form of slavery.  

Vehementer Nos - Pope Pius X,  February 11, 1906, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos_en.html 
On the divinely ordained role of the state in helping souls get to heaven. 

Notre Charge Apostolique - Pope Pius X,  August 15, 1910, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10notre.htm 
Why a "brotherhood" of different religions in a pluralistic society will never work.  

Quas Primas - Pope Pius XI, December 11, 1925, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html  Why a state that rejects the authority of the Catholic Church can only end in self-destruction.

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.


It is supremely ironic that the American Revolution hailed by many of today's libertarians and so-called conservatives as the great breakthrough for Liberty is the every event that destroyed the largely privatized social order of colonial America, in which private bodies performed many of the functions now performed by the State governments. The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, describes the rise of big government in the new States after the Revolution and because of it:

• "Almost at a stroke the Revolution destroyed all the earlier talk of paternal or maternal government, filial allegiance and mutual contractual obligations between rulers and ruled..... As sovereign expressions of the popular will, these new republican governments acquired an autonomous public power their monarchical predecessors never possessed or even claimed.... The republican state governments sought to assert their newly enhanced public power in direct and unprecedented ways-doing for themselves what they had earlier commissioned private persons to do. They carved out exclusively public spheres of action and responsibility where none had existed before. They now drew up plans for improving everything from trade and commerce to roads and waterworks and helped to create a science of political economy for Americans. And they formed their own public organizations with paid professional staffs supported by tax money, not private labor.... The power of the state to take private property was now viewed as virtually unlimited--as long as the property was taken for exclusively public purposes." [1]

If the teaching of the Church were heeded, something like the "corporatist" society of Christendom, the remnants of which were evident in Protestant colonial America, would reemerge. One historian admitted that in Catholic social order the king "possessed certain customary rights, but could not define his own powers at will, or overturn the customary rights of the people or of the various subsidiary bodies of society." [2] 

The return of subsidiary social bodies to provide what are now governmental services would be the natural consequence of respecting subsidiarity. And, accordingly, state taxation, like federal taxation, would be dramatically reduced, with any revenues devoted predominantly to the maintenance of essential public services, police and fire departments, roads, bridges, and parks.

The greatest tax reduction would result from returning education to where it belongs: under the control of the family. The enemies of Christ and His Church have always sought to impose public education on the masses, especially in Catholic France, where Masonic politicians battled for nearly a century to establish a public educational system. Thomas Jefferson dreamt of a public school system in America and saw a secular public education like that at his University of Virginia, the first university in Western history with no integrated theology curriculum, to be essential for the formation of citizens who would "think republican thoughts" and "support the cause of liberty as he understood it." [3]

Knowing precisely what the proponents of public education have always intended, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX condemns as one of the signal errors of our time the proposition that "The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people... should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age." [4]

Accordingly, in the Catholic state we are sketching, state and local taxes would not finance a public education system. It would simply disappear. 

[1] Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 188.

[2] Thomas Woods, The Church and the Market, 200.

​[3] Leonard Levy, Jefferson and Civil Liberties: the Darker Side (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Company, 1963), 28., 143.

[4] Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (1864), Condemned Proposition n. 47.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, 2018. 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. & 7:30 p.m.

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

Saint Anthony Roman Catholic Church (Diocese)
​710 East Grand Avenue
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322-4392
Time: 1:30 p.m.

San Felipe Chapel (Diocese)
738 N. Geraghty Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Time: 7:00 a.m.

Saint Vitus Catholic Church  (FSSP)
607 4th Street
San Fernando, CA 91340
(323) 454-1002
Time: 12:00 p.m. & 6:45 p.m.

Maria Stella Maris Mission (SSPX)
3600 S. Gaffey Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
(310) 548-4706
Time: 7:00 p.m.

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

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:30 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: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 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 

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 Mary Church (Diocese)
1160 South Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 745-1611
Time: 12:00 p.m.

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: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​Portions of this abstract were also taken from traditional Catholic attorney and author Christopher Ferrara's book The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State.






​Under Catholic teaching on "subsidiarity," a central governments excessive regulatory intrusions into local governments and the lives of individuals would be ended. To recall the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo, "it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." [1]

Under the principle of subsidiarity, a true federalism could develop along Catholic lines, and when this principle is applied to the United States the several States could achieve true autonomy and even the ability to incorporate Gospel principles into civil law. The result would be similar to what existed in the Old Swiss Confederacy with its thirteen cantons, which were allegedly supposed to have been a model for the American Republic that succeeded the thirteen colonies.

Further, in keeping with the Church's teaching on just taxation, the federal income and inheritance taxes would be drastically reduced if not abolished entirely. As Pius XI taught, quoting his predecessor Leo XIII: "Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. 'For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal.'" [2]
 
Federal corporate taxation, if it still existed, would provide generous incentives to treat employees as more than production factors, including such measures as a direct dollar-for-dollar tax credit for corporate profits invested in profit-sharing plans, medical savings plans, and so forth. Federal revenues would be devoted to legitimate federal purposes: the national defense and the maintenance of national public works, to the extent these are not returned to the jurisdiction of the States in keeping with subsidiary function. 


[1] Quadragesimo Anno, n. 79.

[2] Ibid., n. 49.

Below is a list of Traditional Latin Masses (TLMs) in southern California for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15, 2018. DISCLAIMER.










Key: 

Diocese: TLMs administered by priests that operate under the control and 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 (FSSP)
2532 Ventura Blvd.
Camarillo, CA 93010
(805) 484-0532
Time: 7:00 p.m.

San Felipe Chapel (Diocese)
738 N. Geraghty Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90063
Time: 6:30 p.m.

Tradition in Action (Independent)
Address: Call for information.
(323) 725-0219
Time: 8:00 a.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: 7:00 p.m.

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

Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church (Diocese)
515 West Opp Street
Wilmington, CA 90744 
(310) 834-5215
Time: 7:30 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: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 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: 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: 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m., & 7:00 p.m. 

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​











​​Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei wrote that one of the "chief duties" or rulers was to "favour religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule." [1] 

Ideally the State and the Church must be united. Blessed Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors condemns the proposition that the "Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." [2] Pope Saint Pius X taught:

• "That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul. - Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur."He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error." [3]

Msgr. John A. Ryan wrote:

• The State should officially recognize the Catholic religion as the religion of the commonwealth: accordingly it should invite the blessing and the ceremonial participation of the Church for certain important functions, such as the opening of legislative sessions, the erection of public buildings, etc., and delegate its officials to attend certain of the more important festival celebrations of the Church; it should recognize and sanction the laws of the Church; and it should protect the rights of the Church, and the religious as well as the other rights of the Church's members. [4] 

           
The above rule is not absolute. It applies to a state where the overwhelming majority of the population is Catholic. [5] Where Catholics are in the minority the state does not have to give official recognition to the Catholic faith and in any event any attempt to do so may be met with civil unrest. [6] Certainly such a condition exists in the present day United States. However, if conditions change then the "people would do wrong by voting against governmental recognition of the true religion..." [7]

An example of a legitimate law which favors the true religion might look is the Spanish Charter of 13 July 1945 (Fuero de los Espanoles). Article 6 of the Charter stated:

• 1. The profession and practice of the Catholic Religion, which is that      of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.                           
• 2. No-one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic religion. [8]

Unfortunately Spain later changed its law to separate the Church from the state. After the death of the Spanish leader General Francisco Franco the new government adopted a constitution which decreed that there will be no State religion. [9]

However some countries today still give the Church official recognition as the religion of the state. One such country is the Dominican Republic located in the Carribean. On 16 June 1954 representatives from the Dominican Republic and the Holy See signed an agreement called a concordat. Article I of the concordat stated the following:
  

• "The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Religion is the Religion of the Dominican Republic, and shall enjoy the rights and prerogatives due to it under Divine and Canon Law. [10]

           
This concordat was challenged in 2006 by a protestant group as being a violation of the Dominican constitution's guarantee of "freedom of conscience and religion." But in 2008 the Dominican Supreme Court rejected this challenge and upheld the concordat by a 15-2 decision. [11]

The Dominican republic later continued to uphold the laws of God in its constitution when it amended its constitution on 21 April 2009 to protect the innocent and the sanctity of the family. Article 30 of the new constitution guaranteed the right to life from the moment of conception until death. [12] Article 44 of the new constitution defined the family as the fundamental unit of society and paragraph 1 of that same article defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. [13] This constitution was instrumental in stopping an attempt to amend the Dominican Republic's criminal code to permit abortions if a "pregnant woman's life". In that case a Dominican Court blocked the law after they backed a complaint by a pro-life group that argued the attempt to permit abortions in such circumstances violated the consitution's right to life provision. [14]


[1] Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei (1885) p 6.

[2] Syllabus, number 55.

[3] Pius X, Encyclical Vehementor Nos (1906) p 3.

[4] M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty 30 (1992).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Mackseiy, C. "State and Church." The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent, 1912. Web. 10 May 2018.

[7] Connel, F. "Reply to Father Murray." The American ecclesiastical review 126 (1952): 57.

[8] M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty 275 (1992).

[9] Ibid 276.

[10] "Trujillo's Concordat (1954)." Concordat Watch-Dominican Republic. Concordat Watch. Web. 10 May 2018. [CKLC comment: This article and website are hostile to the Church and concordats with the Church in general.]

[11] Friedman, Howard. "Dominican Republic High Court Upholds Country's Concordat With Vatican." Religion Clause. Howard Friedman. 24 October 2008. Web. 14 May 2018. 

[12] Hoffman, Matthew Cullinan. "Dominican Republic Enshrines Right to Life in its Constitution." Life Site News. LifeSiteNews.com. 22 April 2009. Web. 16 May 2018.

[13] "Dominican Constitution Amended in Line with Church doctrines." Concordat Watch-Dominican Republic. Concordat Watch. Web. 16 May 2018. [CKLC comment: This article and website are hostile to the Church and concordats with the Church in general.]

[14] The Associated Press. "Dominican Republic: Court Blocks an Abortion Law." World Briefing. New York Times. 3 December 2015. Web. 16 May 2018.By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​












​While a monarchy may be, at least in theory, the best form of government a monarch could become a tyrant and his government could turn into a tyranny which is the worst of all governments. Thomas Aquinas wisely wrote that "[j]ust as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst." [1] Thus the Angelic doctor indicated that it may be prudent to temper a monarchy with elements of the other forms of government in order to safeguard against a potential tyranny and fulfill man's needs. [2]

Some contemporary thinkers have latched onto this idea of a mixed or tempered form of government as justification for the American constitutional system and they may have a point. The federal government is structured with three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. The executive branch may be considered the monarchical branch as it is ruled by one man-the President. The legislature may be considered the branch ruled by many individuals as there are a total of 535 congressman in the legislature (100 senators and 435 representatives) and they are elected by the people of their states and congressional districts. And the judicial may be considered the branch ruled by the few thus hopefully becoming an aristocracy.

Unfortunately-and apparently more often than not-the American government functions unjustly. Presidents  have forced the Church and her institutions to have health insurance plans that fund contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs and refused to sign laws limiting abortions. Congress has passed a massive universal healthcare system run by the federal government which permits funding of abortions and the Supreme Court has struck down laws against abortion, contraception, and same sex "marriages".

Furthermore professor Brian McCall of the University of Oklahoma College of Law has dissented from the idea that the United States system of government is a real mixed form of government. He writes:

• "[T]he idea of a monarchy in a government is much more than a central executive figure such as a president. One of the benefits of a monarch is that his governing power is more obviously seen as proceeding from God. He is not beholden to an electoral cycle or constant change of office. One of the main roles a monarch can play in a mixed form of government is to be a conscience standing outside the realm of electoral politics who can act as a guardian of the divine and natural law when the few or the many may attempt to pervert the common good. The presidency of the United States is not and has never been a monarchy thus understood. America may at some point in its history been close to an aristocracy or a polity (although personally I think it has mostly been an oligarchy or a democracy), but it has never been a monarchy in any way." [3]

​With this in mind a monarchy in an ideal Catholic mixed government should be more than a mere executive governor like a President, Chancellor, or Prime Minister who can be removed by an election but someone who can maintain his or her office for life. 

[1] Aquinas, St. Thomas. On Kingship To the King of Cyprus, trans. Gerald B. Phelan. East Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Mediaeval Studies; 1949.  Google book service. Web. 13 Apr. 2018. 

[2] Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Governance of Rulers, Gerald Phelan, trans. (Toronto: St. Michael's College Philosophy Texts, 1935), pp. 37-39.

[3] B. McCall, To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age 239-240 (2014).

By: Christ the King Law Center (CKLC)

Editor's Note: The following is a modified abstract of a paper presented at a conference held by Christ the King Law Center (CKLC) on October 8, 2016 titled Make America Catholic Again! ​













​However, while government may take the form of either a polity, aristocracy, or monarchy they are not all equally good. Monarchy is the best. This was stated by Pope Pius VI after the King of France-Louis XVI-was executed by the French Revolutionaries in 1793:
          

• The most Christian King, Louis XVI, was condemned to death by an impoius conspiracy and this judgment was carried out. We shall recall to you in a few words the ordering and motives of this sentence. The National Convention had no right or authority to pronounce   it. In fact, after having abolished the monarchy, the best of all governments, it had transferred all the public power to the people-the people which, guided neither by reason nor by counsels, forms just ideas on no point whatsoever, assesses few things in accordance with the truth and evaluates a great many according to mere opinion, which is ever fickle, and ever easy to deceive and to lead into every excess, ungrateful, arrogant, and cruel.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that monarchy is the best form of government because it ensures peace: "The best government of a multitude is rule by one, and this is clear from the purpose of government, which is peace; for the peace and unity of his subjects are the purpose of the one who rules, and one is a better constituted cause of unity than many." [2]

Another doctor of the Church-Saint Robert Bellarmine-also taught that monarchy is the best form of government in his book On the Roman Pontiff, in the chapter titled "The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Monarchy of the Roman Pontiff." [3] In it he analyzes the forms of government as such, weighing their advantages and disadvantages, and concludes that the best one in thesis is monarchy. He then goes on to ask what form of government-aristocratic, democratic, or monarchic-would be most fitting for the Church. After a careful analysis he concludes that it is monarchy:

• "If monarchy is the best and most excellent government, as above we have shown, and it is certain that the Church of God, instituted by the most sapient prince of Christ, ought to [be] best governed, who can deny that the government of it ought to be a monarchy?" [4]

[1] Acta Apostolicae Sadis, cap. 2.

[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, (Garden City, N.Y.: Image Books, 1960), Book IV, p. 291. 

[3] St. Robert Bellarmine, in Bellarmine Extracts on Politics and Government from the Supreme Pontiff from Third General Controversy, George Albert Moore, Trans., Ed. (Chevy Chase, Md: The Country Dollar Press, undated).

[4] Ibid., p. 37.

By: Carolyn Fusina

Editor’s Note: The following article was published on the website of The Weaker Vessel. It has been reprinted here with the permission of the author Carolyn Fusina.



​Muslim immigration into Europe and to a lesser degree North America is the focus of the new populist, nationalist political movement which has gained momentum in the last several years. An appeal to the defense of Europe’s “Christian heritage” is part of the movement’s platform.

Nigel Farage wrote in an introduction to UKIP’s 2015 “Christian Manifesto”: “We need a much more muscular defense of our Christian heritage and our Christian Constitution. Ours is fundamentally a Christian nation…” [i]

Leaders in the movement in what were once Catholic countries have made similar comments. Sebastian Kurz said in a television interview, “What has shaped Europe, what has shaped Austria? We have a culture shaped by our Judeo-Christian heritage and the Enlightenment – and this culture needs protecting…” [ii]  Marine Le Pen said at a rally back in 2012, “The principles we fight for are engraved in our national motto: liberty, equality, fraternity…That stems from the principles of secularization resulting from a Christian heritage.” [iii]

Le Pen and Kurz speak in contradictions rather than about the truth of European history. Such statements about acknowledging and protecting Europe’s “Christian heritage” are political slogans based on vague sentiments, and when you scratch the surface, they fall apart. Underneath the sloganeering these politicians may have a nagging intuition about the truth, but instead of exploring this intuition, they stick to the safety of their political platform.

For example, when figures in the movement refer to Europe’s “Christian roots” are they referring to Protestantism or Catholicism? For these are two very different things. As any Catholic worth his salt knows, Protestantism is a heresy. Protestants left the Church. Protestantism is essentially a revolt against Catholicism.

In addition to Protestantism there is another revolt against the Catholic Church, enabled by Freemasonry—Enlightenment rationalism. The liberal values bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment—liberty, equality, fraternity—are most certainly not part of Europe’s true Christian heritage. They are anti-Catholic, and therefore anti-Christian.

Europe before the Protestant Revolt was Catholic. It was not a perfect society, but it can be said of it, as Pope Leo XIII did in 1891 in Rerum Novarum when referring to the 12th and 13th centuries, the “Golden Age of Christianity”:

• …civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions… in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay… it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. [iv]

A spirit of Revolution [v] was born following the Middle Ages, beginning with the Protestant Revolt and followed by the Enlightenment, and was specifically carried out in the French Revolution. How does this relate to our situation today with a new batch of Muslim hordes invading Europe?

The Revolutionary spirit seeks to do away with the old Catholic order, and the crisis of man and of civilization that we face today in the West is merely a continuation of this rejection of God and His Church. The current Muslim invasion is occurring because we rejected the authority of Christ over our lives and nations and embraced the man-centred, morally decadent values of liberalism. In short, our current troubles can be traced back to the French Revolution and the Freemasonic enterprise that enabled it.

Meanwhile, European politicians on the Right speak of Europe’s “Christian heritage.” Such confused ideas about history and religion are problematic because they will keep us from solving the essential crisis of our time. The real threat to Europe is not globalization and islamization, these are recent developments that have emerged late in our journey to self-destruction (although of course Muslims have invaded Europe in the past). The real threat is our moral decadence defined by our rejection of Christ and the authority of His Church.

The great crisis of our time, building up over centuries (not since George Soros began manipulating everything), is a spiritual crisis which politics—no matter how hard it courts the Christian vote or pays homage to the “Christian heritage” of Europe—can solve. Our crisis is spiritual.
In what was a ridiculous statement for a Catholic to make, that of wanting to protect both his country’s Christian and Enlightenment culture, Kurz revealed the contradiction of the movement, and the reason it will fail. Liberty, equality and fraternity are not part of the Christian heritage of France. They are opposed to it. The Enlightenment is opposed to Catholicism—it wants to destroy it.

Le Pen similarly spoke of a mix of the Enlightenment and Christianity as France’s Christian heritage. This simply does not wash. Le Pen only wants her followers to have a “sense” of Europe’s Christian identity or the Catholic roots of France because she thinks it will help stem the tide of globalization and islamization. She is a liberal, however, and doesn’t really want religion to play a serious role in the life of France. Christianity, however, is not a cultural identity, but a religion with certain Truths that will not go away no matter how intently we have piled on the layers of liberal ideology.

The foundation of liberalism is a false idea of man’s freedom. The liberty of the Revolution is not the freedom of Christianity which is only found in man directing his will to obey God, but is license to do what one wants. Implicit in liberalism’s notion of freedom is man’s independence from God and His Church, the Catholic Church.

This is the source of our moral decadence—our independence from God. We are morally decadent because individuals and nations do not submit His Sovereign rule.

The most important development in the degradation of the West is not the 1960s sexual revolution, contrary to what the “Religious Right” in America thinks, nor the globalizing and islamizing effects of the European Union or George Soros’ evil empire. It is the idea of religious liberty bequeathed to us by the French Revolution and the American Revolution. It was brought on by a hatred of the Catholic Church and is essentially a denial that She is the one, true Church that has apostolic authority to teach and govern man. The Revolutionary spirit desires to see the Church gutted by spreading the heresy that all religions are equal and the Catholic Faith is not the one, true Faith. Subsequently, the peoples of democratic, western countries must have the right to “religious freedom”—the freedom to practice the religion of their choice.

The imposition of religious liberty onto the social order was the first step in our moral decline, because it emasculated the Catholic Church’s role as moral guide. It left man’s moral life to his own conscience, informed not by a Catholic social order that he could not escape or ignore, but by his personal choice to attend church on Sunday and to attend the church of his choice. Later, he would choose to not attend church at all.

The “moral decadence” referred to here, however, does not mean a decrease in professing Christians, or a morally lax society accepting of pornography, abortion, divorce, contraception, etc. These are signs of it, or symptoms. What is meant by “moral decadence” here is our disordered way of life that begins with not acknowledging the Kingship of Christ and his rule over individuals and nations.

The West looked on in dismay as the May 2017 terrorist attack at Manchester arena unfolded. The media made a point of mentioning one of the victims of the attack was an 8-year-old girl. Several other victims were under 16 years of age. These children were twice victims, however: they were the victims of the terrorist attack, but they were also victims of a degenerate culture, one in which children attend Ariana Grande concerts, with the approval of parents that consist of pornography in the guise of music. Grande’s performances and “music” are more than a little sexually suggestive. Why was an 8-year-old, or any sane person for that matter, attending this sleaze-fest? Why did her mother take her to the concert? Why is such an act as Ariana Grande allowed to perform in the first place?

Is this degenerate, hyper-sexualized culture what Farage and Le Pen want to defend? Because Ariana Grande is, for the most part, typical of today’s culture in the West. It is one big sleaze-fest.

It’s no secret that Islam views the West as morally decadent and therefore weakened and therefore penetrable. Yet, we continue to shore up the decadent moral values of Godless liberalism that brought on the decadence and weakness in the first place.

Anti-immigration parties and policies, if they succeed in Europe, might stem the tide of Muslim immigration, but would not stop the Tsunami of moral decadence that is at the heart of the decay of Western civilization. If the Right got what it wants and George Soros was stymied in his evil, globalist agenda, and immigration policies in Europe and North America became anti-Muslim, all this would not undo the course of decay and self-destruction that predates the globalist agenda and the influx of Muslims into Western democracies.

We’re going down. If it is by the sword of the infidel, this simply is the last nail in the coffin we climbed into ourselves because we are morally sick to death.

The cure for our spiritual sickness cannot be found in the current populist, nationalist movement. A spiritual sickness calls for a spiritual cure. And by “spiritual sickness” I do not mean that individual men are sick in their souls, although that too is the case—I mean nations are sick because of their rejection of Christ as King.

Nations are governed by Christ whether they acknowledge it or not. Christ is King from whom all authority to rule is granted. Only acknowledging this ultimate reality will keep us from the death that is so close.

Both men and nations have made themselves independent of God; this is what liberalism is in all its manifestations—political, economic and social. Man has become his own authority, his own god. The insanity and chaos of our time is the result of claiming for so long, without repentance, that God does not exist as He does.

A true spiritual cure can only come from the true Church, the Catholic Church. This cure involves realizing religious liberty is a heresy. The State has the duty to profess the Catholic Faith, since it is the one, true Faith. Religious toleration, therefore, is shown toward non-Catholics, but it is only toleration. Non-Catholics can practice their religion in private, but Catholicism is the religion of the State and the head of the State is subject to the authority of the Church.

Under this system, there would be no political sloganeering as the Muslims stream in. In a Catholic social order there would be no Ariana Grande concerts.

But we in the West so worship the idea of religious liberty in our utopian visions of a pluralistic, democratic state, that such a Catholic system is anathema to “rational” man. But how “rational” is it to avoid an oncoming fireball by pouring kerosene on oneself? Liberalism made us weak so let’s stand up for those liberal values?

The Muslims have told us they enter in upon our moral decadence—why do we not repent of that decadence to the one true Judge of this world? No, “rational” man simply steeps himself in more liberty, more “rights,” more material riches and fleeting pleasures, all the while relegating the Faith to the private sphere where it can hold no sway.

The West was dying long before the globalist agenda arrived on the scene, before the sexual revolution of the 1960s, before the infidel influx on our shores. These are not the problem. We are the problem. We raised up liberal values to be worshipped in our parliaments. We did it—conservatives and liberals alike.

It wouldn’t matter if there was 1 Muslim or 1 million among us. Ours is a spiritual sickness that no Muslim has inflicted upon us. We did it to ourselves.

There is only one thing that can save us—and it is far from the minds of any politician in the West. It is the acknowledgment of a little-known, all-important truth: Christ has sovereignty over all people and nations. He is King. All authority to govern descends from Him (not, “the people”). His Church, the Catholic Church, is the one true Church, and therefore there can be no religious liberty because it is a denial of this fact.

This is not a question of a vague “reclaiming our European religious heritage” or saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” or defending bakers from having to bake cakes for “gay weddings.” These things are all done while affirming that religion is a private matter.

Only when the Social Kingship of Christ is proclaimed by a country will that country be armed to defeat its enemy. Only when religious liberty is shown to be the heretical proposition it is, will we find ourselves on the right course.

For now, misguided right-wing politicians and pundits continue to promote the contradictory ideas of the false resistance.

******************************

Conservative commentators speak of the end of liberalism or the failure of liberalism. [vi] What we are witnessing at this time in the rage and degradation around us is the dissatisfaction with and despair over what liberalism has wrought for us. Liberalism is an ideology built on pride and rejection of God that came out of certain “enlightened” men’s minds in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is an ideology built on the intellect turning away from God to the self. It lies now like a great, global garbage heap with the corpses of innocent unborn children strewn all about it.

The political Right has some intuition about this, but can’t let go of its political machinations and aspirations to fully grasp we are experiencing a spiritual crisis, not a political one.

In a recent article by Theodore Dalrymple, after briefly discussing Britain’s “enormous cultural problems,” Dalrymple writes:

• These problems do not originate from Britain’s membership of the European Union, nor will they be solved by exit from the Union. They can be solved only by something more resembling a religious revival than by any likely government action. [vii]

A “religious revival?” Well, if Britain was to truly revive religion and go back to its Christian roots, it would become Catholic, for England was a Catholic country before Henry VIII infamously broke away from the Church, paving the way for Protestantism.

Europe’s “Christian heritage?” Europe’s Christian roots are the Catholic Church and medieval Christendom, which began with the conversion of King Clovis to Catholicism in 496.

Our crisis was begun and is perpetuated by man refusing to submit to God and His Church. The garbage can only be cleared away by submitting once again. We need fearless garbage men now, to burn away the garbage with the fire of their zeal for subjection—and above all, men willing to do penance for the slaughter of the innocents by placing themselves and their nations completely under the sovereign Kingship of Christ our Lord.
——————————————————————--

[i] Referenced in UKIP website article: http://www.ukipdaily.com/case-another-ukip-christian-manifesto/

[ii] Quoted here: http://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/november-10th-2017/sebastian-kurz-europes-christian-chancellor/

[iii]Quoted here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/christian-identity-france/525558/

[iv] See: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

[v] “Revolution” here does not refer to a specific revolutionary event but to the slow and violent sweeping away of the Christian social order, starting in the late Middle Ages. The Protestant Revolt, the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Russian Revolution are all specific revolutionary events that are part of the overall “Revolution.” The Revolutionary spirit is characterized by anti-Catholicism and the worship of “liberty” (a.k.a. license). Under the Revolutionary order the rights of man usurp the rights of God. See Revolution and Counter-Revolution by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira for more on this topic.

[vi] See, for example, Patrick Buchanan’s column of October 20, 2017, titled, Is Liberalism a Dying Faith?, in which Buchanan can’t seem to shake the mindset that everything was okay before the 1960s.

[vii] See: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/12/14/i-have-seen-londons-future-and-it-is-caracas/

Carolyn Fusina is a housewife and writer. She writes essays about feminism and other topics at theweakervessel.com.