Pro-life hypocrisy? Voting for pro-abortion politicians...

There is an overwhelming push by the Republican Party to make abortion, at least under certain forms, to be acceptable. The abortion issue is gradually becoming a less decisive factor now for many Republican politicians when it comes to courting religious voters. This is simply just a fact of modern political life. This means that for a pro-lifers to continue to vote, there are fewer and fewer pro-life candidates to choose from. Democrats who are pro-life tend to exist at very local levels. Though they do exist, most Democrat candidates do support abortion under the banner of "women's reproductive rights". What exactly is someone who is pro-life to do?

This question came up for me last week and there was heated reproach and argument and slander directed regarding the topic. I live in Virginia as some of you know and there was the Virginia Governor's race. I have been deeply concerned about the presentation of autism by the current Trump Administration and I desired to have a counter-party representation at some level of government in Virginia. I ended up voting a split-ticket where I voted for candidates belonging to both parties. At the top of that ticket was my vote for Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger. I have strong approval for the outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin and I definitely did not see my vote being cast as a rejection of the Republican Party overall nor did I see my vote as a rejection of conservative ideology. Our now outgoing Delegate whom I voted to support the re-election of is strongly pro-life.

Nevertheless, my vote for Abigail Spanberger drew great ire from many people on social media who are very well of my pro-life stances and also are very well of my Catholicity. Some of them claimed that Spanberger's policy platform was abortion up to the point of birth. I honestly do not think that this is going to be pushed for in Virginia after what happened with Gov. Ralph Northam back in 2019, but I could be wrong as politicians are sinners. That said, Spanberger's public statements have indicated support for limitations on third trimester abortions and supports parental consent laws currently present in the state for minors seeking abortion. I certainly don't think her position is perfect, but I don't see anything in her platform that suggested anything of the sort of a pro-abortion up to the point of birth position.

One conservative man I follow even cracked a joke about Youngkin's current preparation for transition and stated that Spanberger hasn't even become governor yet and is already forcing people to transition. This is a reflection regarding her LGBTQ policies and how conservatives have presented Spanberger as being "ultra-left" on that position too. Where she stands on gender transitions for minors is no where indicated on her platform, though she has stated that she affirms handling issues on transgender involvement in sports and in bathrooms should be settled on individual bases. There is nothing in her platform that would universally put local communities at risk of harm from predators pretending to be women. To paint her as an extremist one way or the other is simply slander.

Is it possible she is disingenuous? Like all politicians, I think that many try and court two views, but Spanberger's platform is of a centrist-Democrat and not a hardliner on either point. But the more important question should be addressed as to whether it is pro-life hypocrisy to have voted for her to begin with. I have several points to address on this issue.

Catholics on social media often like to portray a vote for a candidate as being tantamount to supporting the whole of that candidate's positions and much in online Catholic sources support this as well. Shamefully, many Catholic priests seem hell-bent on holding people accountable not to vote for particular candidates one way or the other. I received spiritual guidance from three different priests on the issue and all spoke similar. The first priest told me that given two bad options, it is preferable to go with the lesser evil. Often times, the lesser evil is a subjective position. Winsome Earle-Sears, Spanberger's opponent, unfortunately pivoted on the issue of abortion making her, at best, a lesser evil...and in the greater context of Christian polity where multiple issues ought to be pursued, made voting for her against Spanberger to be less ideal. My godfather also pointed out that while for him, abortion is a decisive factor in who he votes for, there are circumstances where others may choose to take into account other issues. The Archimandrite also affirmed that there are a variety of other issues involved in Christian polity besides abortion and sometimes one just has to hold their nose and vote.

While it could be held that "not voting" is the "moral high ground", I've been spiritually advised in the past never to waste a vote by not voting. If it wasn't for that advice, from a man who grew up under the aftermath of Nazi Germany, I would hold that philosophy too. But I don't. And these are all sincere men who are strongly pro-life, actively engaged in the March for Life yearly, and one who refused to acknowledge Joe Biden's Catholicity over the abortion issue. These are not heterodox men but men who have a deeply orthodox track record whom I would put my trust in before a heartbeat.

Voting for a person, regardless of where they stand on issues, no matter how ungodly, is much different than voting for a policy since voting for a person requires that one put their trust in a human being who by nature is subjected to the effects of original sin. This is why voting for a person should not be seen as being tantamount to supporting the policies of that person. Voting for a person requires more investigation often and can end up leading to a much less informed electorate than voting for a policy. We elect representatives to govern us and under the principles of democracy, those elected officials are supposed to represent our best interests. While they can only represent the interests of a collective whole which is already varied to begin with, their duty is to represent the best interests of the public as possible.

I wanted a situation of balance where the dignity of autistic people are protected. This is also a very significant part of Christian polity. No human being is a demon, regardless of what sorts of evil they may find the winds taking them to favor. Human beings are all looking for God in the end and some do it while using very sinister means. That doesn't make them sinister in themselves. Politicians are exactly like this. There isn't a single politician who is unlike this. Democracy allows people to give input and feedback to their government via the voting process. It's not a perfect system nor is it a perfect or always accurate reflection of the values of the populace, but it is the system that we have been given to work under. Voting for one particular representative over another does not tie you to the wicked policies of that person unless your intent was to support whatever policies that would lead to these sinister positions. It does not make someone a hypocrite who supports these policies nor is it a mortal sin. Politicians are imperfect and both sides often support wicked things. As Christians, we have the duty to pray for all elected officials. So let us remember to pray for the Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger and for all our civil magistrates, let us pray to the Lord!

Breaking the Seal of Confession

In the state of Washington, and in many other places, legislatures have acted cruelly toward Christian Churches that have the sacrament of confession. Also called reconciliation, the sacredness of this sacrament has been guarded as a matter so holy that any priest daring to break is latae sententiae excommunicated under Church law. While these laws are set up with a noble goal of protecting children from molesters, these noble goals open up more problems with their solutions than they actually fix. But I think it's actually important that people understand what goes on in the sacrament of confession when a penitent approaches with fear and with faith.

In the sacrament of confession, we confess our sins committed after baptism. While most focus exclusively on mortal sins, any sin can be confessed, even temptations suffered. The priest is bound to the obligation of secrecy. This goes back to the event Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:21-27 where Ham, Shem, and Japeth saw their father naked. While Shem and Japeth covered him, Ham refused to do so. Allowing his father to be embarrassed in his nakedness, Ham received a curse of the highest censure from God. It wasn't a racial curse, it was a curse on all who refuse to cover their brother's nakedness. In the medieval decretals of Gratian, we read a severe reprimand of any priest who breaks what is called the seal of confession: "'Let the priest who dares to make known the sins of his penitent be deposed', and he goes on to say that the violator of this law should be made a life-long, ignominious wanderer.'" This is because our sins that we confess and are given mercy to, the only one who continues to care about them afterward, is Satan. The Accuser who wants to make us revel in our sins and be bound to our despair.

It is a form of the sin of detraction for a priest to break the seal of confession. The seal of confession is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and for a priest to break this seal, it is a grave sin. It is a grave sin for a layman to listen in on his brother's confession. These are sins of detraction. We live in a modern culture of democracy where politicians find themselves so ugly that the only way they ascend to the top is by presenting them as the least ugliest. So they present their opponents as uglier. They highlight their opponents' sins in the form of negative campaigning because they have no accomplishments of their own. Living in this culture of detraction, I fear many Christians have forgotten what the sin of detraction even is or are even aware that it is a sin. But highlighting other people's sins in public brings upon themselves the curse of Ham. We're used to public trials, lawsuits, smear campaigns, that many people don't even look at these as sins anymore. No wonder why we no longer live in the realm of charity! Our society punts charity to the side and endorses sins against charity. If you don't cooperate in these sins, you're viewed as almost alien.

And that's why so much emphasis is placed on the seal of confession. The Church is not protecting child molesters or sex abusers by honoring the seal of confession. They are guarding the penitent who has sought out the grace and aid of Our Lord to flea from his sins. In the sacrament of confession, we are unbound from the chains of sin that the Devil has placed on us. And these laws targeting the seal of confession are an assault on the essence and nature of the sacrament. These laws would relegate the sacrament of confession to a matter of dubiousness. Am I really receiving grace or will the priest report me to my friends as he already takes this sacrament so lightly to begin with and cares nothing for the serious nature of it? Am I going to be bound continually to this sin I seek to free myself from? These laws do more harm to the seal of confession. In confession, the letter of the law is not what reigns.

Theologically, these laws are an odious assault on grace and true charity. While we should protect children and the abused from child molesters and murderers and assailants, the sacrament of confession is not the letter of the law of the State nor is the Church the handmaiden of the State to use her sacraments as a means for "catching bad guys". In many instances of confession, the priest sits on one side of a booth separated from the penitent who speaks through a grate. How would most priests, who hear thousands of confessions a year, hundreds a week, even know who is confessing to them? How would the State even know what a priest has heard in a confession unless a State agent sneaks in and listens in on a confession? Aside from having a twisted view on theology, the State would have to become thuggish in order to even properly enforce this law.

While many are praising this law as protecting children from abusers, the reality is that the nature of this law attempts to twist the Church into becoming a police agent for the purposes of the State, it assaults the nature of confession, it encourages the sin of detraction as a virtue, and it has no real way of being enforced as the nature of the sacrament is entirely secret, often times anonymous. Are those defending the seal though guilty of defending child molesters then? I want to be clear on this as I have been falsely accused of not caring about children myself. The answer is: NO! The answer is "no" because it's about defending what the nature of the Church is and what the nature of confession is. We live in a world where people want to storm the Church and violate the sanctuary. Whether it's the State breaking in and capturing immigrants or its the State breaking in and intruding upon confession, the State is in violation of the sacred. Far from defending child molesters, and there are many other ways to bring justice to those that the State could pursue, Christians defending the sacrament of confession are only doing that and nothing more. Confession is not the place to "catch bad guys". It's the place to offer spiritual instruction so that wolves may become sheep.

Should a monarch mandate vaccines?

*Note: I've read "the science" on both sides of the issue, I am only arguing on an ethical perspective. I have no interest in "science" on this one and any refutation of this argument should be based on the ethics. The fact of the matter is that "the science" is ridiculously based on junk propaganda hailing from both sides of the aisle on "vaccines are bad" to "vaccines end the spread of illnesses". When governmental "scientists" are literally talking about how vaccinated people and unvaccinated people with the same illness have "different levels of virus", we have literally creeped into cuckoo-ville. Either I just slept through all the "asymptomatic" spread alerts from 2020 or somehow the virus decided to "settle" down when an infected person who has been vaccinated ends up with COVID and has symptoms.

The question as to whether a monarch should mandate vaccines is a multi-faceted ethical argument that is based on the question of freedom and the role of the monarch in preserving freedom and order in society, the question of tyranny, and the question of holding medicine as a bargaining chip for earning freedom. Obviously, there are many things that we do in life that can justifiably end up with us being stripped of our freedoms and having to earn it back. Deliberately infecting someone with an illness is also provably monstrous. However, in the case of an epidemic or a pandemic in which a person can be exposed unknowingly to a disease at a given moment and then unknowingly spread it to another person is of an entirely different merit. No one has any control over nature. Vaccines are generally used to trigger the immune system to responding to a particular disease in order to prepare the immune system for defense against the particular disease they've received vaccination for. But also, likewise, is exposure to the actual illness for which the vaccine is for to have the same effect, obviously. This exposure to the illness builds up the immune response which in turn allows the body to be better equipped to fighting the disease. The theory is that the immune people will then prevent disease transmission. This is called herd immunity which the Encyclopedia Britannica describes as follows:

Herd immunity, also called community immunity, state in which a large proportion of a population is able to repel an infectious disease, thereby limiting the extent to which the disease can spread from person to person. Herd immunity can be conferred through natural immunity, previous exposure to the disease, or vaccination. An entire population does not need to be immune to attain herd immunity. Rather, herd immunity can occur when the population density of persons who are susceptible to infection is sufficiently low so as to minimize the likelihood of an infected individual coming in contact with a susceptible individual.

Note the part I bold. If one is going for herd immunity, natural immunity and previous exposure are both sufficient alternatives to vaccination. Ergo, the question as to whether someone who has been around a certain group of infected people should be mandated to take a vaccine is, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica a "no". This will be elaborated even further when one considers corporate investment in medicines. I believe there is a strong need to be concerned given the socialization of medicine in recent years that we could see corporatist based medical tyranny.

What is freedom? According to H.J.A. Sire,

Freedom consists in the fulfilment of one's nature by the complete exercise of the human powers. Since its purpose is fulfilment, its proper objects are the things that truly fulfil man. In that, freedom may be compared to the commonplace function of eating, as a good and as a right. The good of eating embraces eating the things that we need to live on; it does not extend to an indiscriminate voracity for things that we should not be eating at all. ... [P]atriots rightly rebel against foreign domination; subjects do not rightly rebel against their legitimate king. To be free is to reject what is alien and to live under one's proper law, whether it is a political constitution or the moral law that defines human nature. (Phoenix From the Ashes, 349-350)

Freedom is not a right to excess but a basic need. Human interaction is not a right to excess but also a need. In fact, Solzhenitsyn also indicates that after the isolation that was imposed upon the enemies of the state in the Soviet Gulags that one would more than likely be begging to be put to death instead of putting up with the isolation (The Gulag Archipelago, Part 1, ch. 11). When God created man, he expressed that it was not good for the man to be alone. When someone disallows you a basic necessity and holds up another thing as a bargaining chip for you to get it back, that is called abuse. They are demanding that you place immediate trust that they will fulfill their word despite the fact that what has been taken away is a basic necessity. When someone refuses to feed you unless they first gain something in return from you, they are withholding your need to eat in order to gain something from you. That is not the behavior of a loving father but the behavior of an abusive father.

Plato describes his ideal ruler in The Republic. It is one who has the spirit of philosophy, a true lover of wisdom, control over his passions, and is reluctant to govern.

Until philosophers are kings, and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils. (Republic, Bk. 5)

The ideal ruler does not rule in order to rule. "The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him" (Bk. 6) The true ruler is not concerned with maintaining power because he has no self-interests. He is a servant by example and a ruler because he leads. This is the best State. "Whereas the State in  which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst." (Bk. 7)

On contrast, the tyrant is rules in order to rule. He emerges from a democratic State which has indulged in the excesses of freedom. Freedom is a need but here, we see freedom being taken as a license to indulge in immorality. The tyrant emerges in order to solve a problem. Thus, the tyrant comes into play during a crisis scenario, claiming he is the one who can fix the problems. After he has fixed the problems though, he still has an appetite for power. He gins up wars against his enemies and instills fears into his citizens. He must convince the public that they always need a leader. But when he runs out of enemies, he must stir up other wars.

And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war. (Bk. 8)

In Book 9, Plato describes the tyrant as someone always indulged in passions. He wants to entertain these passions to an excess but cannot find the funds. So he goes after his own subjects.

One thing clear about this pandemic from the beginning is that our leaders have always seen this as a war. They have routinely seen this issue in terms of martial concepts. Like the tyrant, they look to gin up fear in the populace and create an enemy. There is a convenience especially in a pandemic to gin up fear among the populace. Fear of death, fear of being infected with a disease one could die from, fear of neighbor who could likely infect them. The leaders have said they are the only ones who can resolve the problem, we must look to them without question as a quasi-Messianic figure leading us through darkness. They don't indicate when it will end or even if it is clear that it will end. This progresses toward an infinite loop where they are always creating a crisis. One moment, we could have basic liberties that we take for granted, attending church regularly, seeing our friends' faces, hanging out at the mall, etc. The next minute, all social interaction is cut off, we are locked in our houses, wearing masks, convinced to join our leaders in this war that has no mark on when it will end. Our leaders will give us a goal at one point and then a new one the next. This is the kind of behavior that Plato would more than likely see if he were alive today as tyrannical. The tyrant, in order to increase his power, must always be getting up a war so that he is continuously looked on as a leader.

St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite has the following to say about medical ethics:

[I]n such a time of famine, hunger, and sickness, or some other such calamity, you rich, you merchants, you buyers of wheat and other fruits, and likewise you physicians, for the love of God beware of selling your produce to the poor and needy at an exorbitant price; and you physicians, do not provide medical care for an excessive fee, and do not become bad doctors, as Job says—'But ye are all unjust physicians and healers of diseases'—finding time to be a helper in making a profit. (Christian Morality, Discourse VIII)

And what high price are the physicians of today's world placing us under? "No jab no job"? The day-to-day things you used to be able to do, you cannot do. Buy our medicine and inject it into yourself or you may not even be able to shop for food. But one might say that the government is paying for it. Well the government pays for it with our money which it taxes us for. The vaccine passport system that people are talking about is a license for governmental and major pharmaceutical company abuse. If it keeps going at this trend, we'll end up with a system of permanent corporatism, subject to the whims and research papers of medical companies that are more interested in making a profit for the medical care they offer. A vaccine passport currently expires after six months. Currently, only one booster shot is needful. But flu vaccines are distributed on a seasonal basis. Could we not assume that the COVID vaccine would also be the same? And then the big pharmaceutical companies price gouge and force us to buy their medicine whether directly or through taxation. They become the partners with the government. Is what we see here a wasteland or a monarchy?

But the true philosopher-king does not need to constantly stir up fear in order to keep his authority. He needs not beg his subjects to allow him to rule and continue to rule. He is not insensitive about his person. He governs himself. Unlike the tyrant. So the answer to the question as to whether a monarch should mandate vaccines, I would say, is no. The reason being that such mandates give leeway to tyrannical oppression and corrupt control over medicine, especially by the pharmaceutical companies that have manufactured the vaccine. Further, that control can easily be extended permanently, just by ginning up another crisis. As Plato states of the tyrant hoping to keep his power and prove that the people still need a leader to guide them, he is always looking to create a war. We are seeing an ongoing war against a virus which no one has control over. I emphasize this to stress that no one deliberately causes infection of another. The tyrant has insisted we are all too sick or might be too sick to even be with each other. At this point, one should ask with a clear and sober mind, do we fear a virus or do we fear each other?

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: An Homage to Our Lady

This chapter of the book really only makes sense in light of the Western liturgy. Some contend that the Church has lost its masculine touch. If anything, the Church has lost its feminine touch and has embraced this effeminate masculinity that is so degrading it might as well be barbaric and bland. This is the Protestant abuse of the Novus Ordo. But proper reflection on Our Lady is something that is brought to our attention by the Tridentine Mass. Peter Kwasniewski talks about his devotion to the rosary in this second to last chapter of the book. How does the Mass compare to the rosary in his perspective? Although I pray the rosary, it isn't generally considered an Eastern devotion so for someone reading this book as a Greek Catholic, this is the chapter that makes the least sense to me in favor of the Tridentine Mass but it certainly makes a strong case for it from a Western perspective.

The purpose of the rosary is repetitive meditation that intends to lead us inward toward the mystery of God. In the East, we have repetition too. We pray "Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner!" We pray that constantly. We make certain it is constantly on our lips and ingrained into our hearts. When it comes to critics of the Tridentine Mass, they hate the repetition of prayers that occur within it. Why do they hate it so much? Repetition is a key to remembering things, to grafting things into the mind. That is why repetition is so important. When it comes to a song, we hear the chorus over and over again so that by the end of the song, the chorus is ingrained into our heads. This is why music can be such a bad influence on us. If we are hearing toxic sludge, our mind is repetitively filled with toxic sludge. The Apostle Paul calls us to think on the things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, yielding kindness, these things think upon. Repetition is a mental meditative tactic to turn our minds toward what is important.

Thus, repetitive prayers in Mass are far from being tedious, they are what cements our minds to bask in the glory of God. They train our minds to be elevated toward holy things. This is why the prayers of the rosary are repeated. They also call us toward mystery. They call us toward participation in the Life of Jesus. When we go through the rosary, we start with the Annunciation. This is the beginning of the earthly Life of Jesus. This is the beginning of his humanity and our godliness. This is the point in which man and God become one inside the Virgin. As we go through the mysteries, we finally end up at the coronation. The Virgin Mary is both a type of the Church as a type of the Ark of the Covenant. She is both the Church and the Ark of the Covenant. We enter into the Virgin Mary's life because we are the Church as well. At the end of our life with God on Earth, we are called up into death with Him so that we are then raised from the dead and we become crowned with the glory of Heaven. This is how the rosary is much like the Mass.

Kwasniewski reflects on three things that if we are to forget about them, will result in the collapse of Catholic theology. Reverence for the Fathers and Doctors, reverence for the sacredness of the liturgy, and reverence for the Christian society these things seek to build. With the modern liturgical revolution, all three of these things are lost and stripped away. I don't imagine it possible to have the Tridentine Mass with the theology of Pope Francis. In fact, many of these recent Popes sound rather foreign when one becomes basked in an Eastern perspective, but Kwasniewski does speak from a Western perspective. But the Tradition, overall, encapsulates so much of the lives of the saints that it is impossible to revere them while not thinking that something is missing currently. We have seen how lack of reverence for the saints has been something that the Novus Ordo has produced. Thus, to embrace their theology, one cannot refuse to worship as they did.

Reverence for the sacredness of the liturgy has become optional these days. The more extraordinary ministers, the more the Eucharist seems to be degraded. I remember the treasurer at the Anglican Mission I went to telling me how some of these Traditionalist Catholics don't think that their own brethren even believe in the Eucharistic theology of the Church any more the way the body of Our Lord is handled. How can one be so casual about Our Lord's body and yet still profess the belief in transubstantiation? It doesn't make sense. If one believes what they are fed is truly divine, then one must treat it as God. If one treats God so poorly thinking that it's just a wafer or even just any other normal object, then reverence for the holiness of the Tradition is lost.

Reverence for the Christian society that our fathers sought to build has been lost. In today's Church, the theology has been so consumed with focusing on the dignity of man and the rights' of man, one wonders if man has become God too soon. It really does look that way given the attitude and current theological trends of the clergy. I have seen more clergy this past year standing up for democratic values and condemning even the classical values of the ancient traditions in favor of democratic values. Whether they are doing this for money or not is uncertain but it really seems to be the former. Since when does the Church stand for democratic values? Never. At least not until now. The overwhelming trend in the Church has not been toward the glorification and promotion of Christendom, far from it. The trend in the Church has been toward the glorification of man, man's rights, and man's free will. This is an idolatrous form of humanism.

All three of these have been lost. Is it any wonder why the liturgy has been crumbling apart, the Church is rife with scandals and schisms, or that ravenous wolves have taken the place of shepherds? May we all recollect on who we are. May we all wake up from this amnesia. May we look backwards so that we may look forwards. O Lady and Theotokos, Ever-Virgin Mary, pray for us!

Are unvaccinated Catholics obligated to follow the mask mandates?

The short answer is "no". The long answer goes into the question of determining whether the current mandates are even properly laws at this point. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine makes the following point:

"Unjust laws are not properly called laws, as Augustine teaches. Moreover, four conditions are required for a law to be just. 1) On the side of the end, that it is ordained for the common good; for as a king differs from a tyrant, in that the former seeks the common advantage, while the latter seeks his own, so also a just law differs from a tyrannical one. 2) One the side of the agent, that it should be from having authority, for no one can impose a law except upon a subject. 3) On the side of the matter, that it should not forbid virtue, nor command a vice. 4) On the side of form, that a law should be clearly promulgated and constituted in a measure and order due to it, so that a law would preserve that proportion in the distribution of honors and imposition of burdens which subjects have in rank toward the common good." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, Ch. XV)

So we should investigate whether a particular law or mandate from an earthly prince follows this criteria before we subjugate ourselves to it. The recent church closures are obviously an infraction of a just law for they forbid the virtue of receiving the benefit of the sacraments. Catholics are not obligated to follow such laws. Therefore, Catholics everywhere ought to be seeking and pressuring their governments to open the churches or face worldwide counter-revolution. But the recent mask mandates that apply only to unvaccinated individuals have left some people wondering whether these are just laws or fraudulent laws. Are unvaccinated people walking around without masks "cheaters" who are using situational advantage to remove their masks. As stated, the short answer is a definitive "no". Under scrutiny, the current laws have actually created severe ethical and moral dilemmas to begin with which has benefited one side over the other. This of course would be sufficient to render the law inherently unjust. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none. But effectively, what these mandates have done is recreated the leper colonies of old where the unvaccinated are pushed aside and treated as lepers. This is doing nothing more but isolating the unvaccinated and the voiding them of their humanity. Unlike the leper colonies of old though, no one cares enough to visit the unvaccinated.

Underneath argument 1, the first question should be addressed whether this is for the common good. It's very difficult to argue in favor of this because no one can actually see a virus. In fact, Fauci's leaked e-mails show that he holds a very low confidence in masks. He even stated how masks would only serve a symbolic gesture. The "common good" that it's supposed to be used for is to "prevent the spread of COVID-19". That sounds good and all but we see the full revolutionary ideology at play here. It is the idea that "I am God and I control the situation!" The fact of the matter, is that it cannot be for the common good because we are not in control of viruses. Further, masks have been shown to have very unhealthy risks for children. What this entails is that masks are not at all beneficial for the common good. If they prevent the spread of COVID-19 at all, they do more harm than good. Since health is holistic, being concerned for only the spread of one disease is not a justifiable excuse for establishing the common good. The common good is something that all objectively understand to be good and it cannot be established that preventing the spread of a viral infection is a greater good than the other health risks that must be taken in concordance with the ascetical lack of not being able to see another person's face in order to establish a healthy relationship with the other. Thus, masks are not inherently critical to the common good. They fail to meet criteria 1. Even further, masks can only ever serve the benefit of those who are fearful of the spread of COVID-19. The tyrant seeks his own good and the tyrant makes tyrannical laws. If the law only seeks the good of those who are fearful of COVID-19 and ignores the good of others, then the law is inherently tyrannical and thus, unjust.

Argument 2 makes the point that the law must be in a relational context of authority to subject. The problem is that in a democracy, there are always ideological dissidents of the authority who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the one claiming authority. The one claiming authority must rely on the legitimacy he derives from the people. The Biden administration, particularly, insists that its authority is derived from the people. But which people? I didn't vote for the Biden administration. If you voted for Jo Jorgensen, did you vote for Biden? So how could Biden derive his authority from you? If democracy is about the consent of the governed, how does a mere majority make consent? Thus, the context of the authority and subject relationship is broken. There is no objective way to establish legitimacy and if the authority of the government ultimately derives from the people, then by pointing out that you are among the people and did not give consent, you cannot be placed as a subject. Of course, what other things mark legitimate authority? Authority requires legitimacy. For instance, does a governor who insists that infants be left to die have the capability to be entrusted with his state's health policies? Or does such a person lose authority due to a damaged capacity to reason? This may be seen as "begging the question" but the reality is that authority-subject relationship in a democracy itself begs the question!

On matter 3, we have a very serious issue on our hands. The mRNA vaccines out there for one, alter the genetic code. Of course, this is a very serious violation of moral theology as it alters the created order of God by altering the human body itself. A just law must order virtue but this law orders the alteration of the human genome itself. Because of this, the mRNA vaccine can never be said to be ethical. Ethics is not something the modern Leviathan cares for though. By commanding a vaccine that alters the genetic code be taken before you are allowed to remove the mask is to enforce one to violate his moral conscientiousness before being able to be treated like a valued human being. But a just law would order that one be treated like a valued human being regardless. One does not need a genetically altering vaccine in order to be treated as a valued human being. Regardless of what the Leviathan says, we can all be treated like valued human beings without having to subvert our moral conscientiousness. Thus, because the law places ethical violations before valued treatment, Catholics cannot be compelled to be subject to this law. The law is unjust and immoral. Further, many of these vaccines are made using the tissue of cloned aborted fetus cells. The Holy Emperor Constantine was told by a Pagan priest to bathe himself in the blood of children in order to be cured of his leprosy once. When the Emperor went to a Catholic priest, the priest forbade him to do this, baptized him, and this cleansed him from his leprosy. If the Holy Emperor Constantine is an example, we ought to avoid injecting ourselves with vaccines that use fetal cell tissue. But this does not mean we need to sit around and wait before we are able to be treated like valued human beings again. We can therefore remove our masks.

Under argument 4, we can clearly see the law weighs undue burdens upon the unvaccinated forcing them to subvert their moral conscience and, further, has great negative health risks for younger people. Because it imposes undue burdens and creates class groups, the law cannot be reasonably considered a law. It is inherently immoral. One can flippantly state, "must be nice to be in an age group where you won't be strongly harmed by COVID-19" all they want. The fact of the matter is that such a person is actually using "law" in order to benefit themselves. The issues are in fact difficult to navigate but none of the fear of COVID-19 can or should have been ever used to justify lockdowns or universal mask mandates. Further, to place the burden to make decisions regarding morality and health risks on an entire population before they can obtain basic freedoms that a particular class of people behold and to forever shame them is not only egregiously immoral but also unduly tyrannical. When a portion of the population seeks to control another portion of the population, that is an "us vs. them" mentality that is bred into the individual. That is a collectivist mentality that is bred into the individual. You might say that "the government has ordered it! How could this be wrong?" But think of what else governments have ordered. From the Communist State of Stalinist Russia to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews to Roosevelt's imprisonment of Asians to the segregation of colored people from whites. All of these things have been ordered by governments. And the government has been wrong to order these things. In fact, the State, as of this last century, has created a track record of itself being routinely wrong. You may think of these people as "cheaters". Don't do so. They are protesting an inherently unjust law. If you can argue against this, please do so.

Biden is excommunicated

I haven't discussed politricks on this blog in a while but the deliberations by the U.S.C.C.B. over whether to commune Biden, the Vatican's response to bishops who have lashed out against the traitorous heretic, and the media's phoniness about this intra-Catholic skirmish has my skin boiling. First off, if you're an orthodox Catholic, don't think for a moment that any member of the U.S.C.C.B. is "on your side". They aren't. José Gómez assaults the truths of the Catholic faith just as much as Biden does. Gómez's vision is clearly to turn the Church into a functional political party. While the Church is a political party as it is the Kingdom of God, what I mean is that these bishops want to turn the Church into an earthly political party. They don't intend to elevate the Church at all. In fact, they are politicizing the Eucharist. These people want to make a show of Biden to bolster their own political power so it looks like they're on the "right side" of orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. The fact of the matter, an "excommunication" decision on their part is nothing more than a justification for their complicity with the lockdown orders, their siding with the rejection of the Church's traditional upholding of the death penalty, their support of the destruction of the Catholic liturgy, and their support of the democratic ideology. These bishops favor moving the Church to an earthly political power. They couldn't care any less about the Heavenly Kingdom of the Church.

Secondly, the media has portrayed this as an intra-Catholic struggle between "right-wing" Catholics and "liberal" Catholics. There are no such monickers to describe Catholics. This is entirely a struggle over the essence of the Catholic faith here. The Catholic moral doctrine is at stake. Do we put a hammer down against sin or not? Do we condemn sin in the flesh or not? Are we about building up and converting sinners into saints or not? Are we about transforming people from ravenous wolves into the most peaceful and humble of sheep or not? This is what is at stake. There shouldn't be any politics involved in the life of the Catholic any more than what is required to catch fish for the Lord and reap in the harvest. The media wants to pretend that this is a political struggle for the Church which is why they've applied political terms and placed it in the Church. This is not a political struggle for power in the Church. It shouldn't be. This is a struggle for the essence of Truth. It is a spiritual struggle. Do the orthodox prevail within the Church or are we to be cast out with our Holy Father John Chrysostom along with St. Olympias and suffer martyrdom with Tigrius and Eutropius? This is a spiritual struggle over sin for the faithful. We may be bludgeoned by heretical bishops but the struggle will not last forever. St. John Chrysostom reminds us that the battle is over sin (Letters to Olympias), not over clerical power. Will we be given over to Satan by our ecclesiastical hierarchy or will we be preserved as the Kingdom of Heaven by our hierarchy?

Third, it does not matter what the vote result is for Truth is not a democracy but a person. Our clergy are corrupt parasites much the same way that heretical politicians like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, Andrew Cuomo, Paul Ryan, Gina Raimondo, and Joe Biden are. Parasites consume a host in order to live. These politicians, like our bishops, have no power if they are given no host. The reality is, their host has become the Catholic Church and the holy sacraments. These politicians have no allegiance to the Catholic faith as is displayed by their sin and their hatred to their brethren. He who loves not his brother loves not God, as the Apostle John the Evangelist has spoken. How can you love your brother if you willfully engage in the persecution of your brother? You cannot. Biden has willfully engaged in the persecution of a group of Catholic nuns when he served as Vice President with Obama. He loves not his brother as was shown with his engagement in the persecution with those who served the Church faithfully. If Biden claims he is a Catholic, then those nuns were his brethren and he engaged in persecution against them. He hates his fellow Catholic. He hates his fellow brethren. He loves not his brother. He loves not God. This is not an open question. Biden is a persecutor from within. Any love of God he claims to have is a sham. He hates his brothers so he also hates God.

Fourth, this is not a dispute. Catholic ecclesiology is clear on the subject. Manifest heretics, according to St. Cyprian, are not members of the Church. An excommunication is merely only a pastoral declaration that someone is not a member of the Church in the hopes that it serves to call them back to repentance. Pastoral care, unlike what the phony Cardinal Wilton Gregory, who himself does not hold any formal authority as a Cardinal, is about bringing people to repentance. The Catholic faithful do not commune with heretics nor are subjected to heretics. A manifest heretic is an open heretic who has been denounced previously for his apostasy and his open contradictions to the tradition of the faith. No one in Washington, D.C. has any subjection to the authority of Wilton Gregory just as Nestorius lost his episcopal authority from the moment he began preaching his heresies about the Holy Theotokos. Biden has been denounced publicly as a heretic multiple times. He has no real or authentic communion with Holy Mother Church. He is excommunicated. No declaration is needed. The fact that we have bishops who think that we can still commune a heretic shows that the Church is in as bad, if not worse, a situation since the Arian crisis. The bishops need to get their act together and recall what the Church teaches about manifest heretics like Biden and Gregory. We have communion with neither of them. As St. Jerome once asked the Pope, "must we be separated from the Arians by mere walls?"

Fifth, Biden is not just a heretic for his stance on abortion. The bishops want to make this solely about abortion because they would like not to admit their dreadful stances on other social issues and the entirety of the social doctrine of the faith for it would expose them. The bishops are only intent on being secular humanists and supporters of the establishment political position as much as they can. This is why they are only concerned with abortion. But Biden is in open denial of Catholic teaching on numerous issues. He upholds democratic ideology which the Church condemns. Until he acknowledges that his authority comes from God, it is inevitable that Biden's reign will be taken away and he will be made to dine on grass like a cow, just as Nebuchadnezzar was made to dine on grass like a beast of the earth. Biden's authority will be degraded if he continues to claim falsely that his authority comes from the people. That is the democratic ideology that he adheres to. That is condemned by the Church. It made Pontius Pilate a pawn of the Synagogue of Satan as he put Our Lord to death. Biden has acted as an official at a gay "marriage", defiling the sanctity of marriage. That act alone excommunicates him automatically. Any one suggesting he is still a "Catholic" either has not read canon law or is not aware of this for anyone who even attends a gay "marriage" is automatically excommunicated and Biden officiated one. Biden also has enacted openly racist policies favoring "coloured" people over others. It does not matter what the skin color is, racism is racism. Biden has assisted at a Novus Ordo "Mass" which indicates he may not be genuinely fulfilling his Sunday obligations. Need I mention Quod Primum which automatically excommunicates those who attend or create "new Masses" other than the ones instituted by Holy Mother Church which are 200 years old or older at the time of the writing? And the document was written in the 16th century? Biden has persecuted his brethren for standing against contraceptives. Thus, Biden has defiled the Church's teaching on abortificients and contraceptives and has shown that he does not love his brother, therefore, he does not love God. The bishops want to make this about abortion so they can claim this is about preserving human dignity. They are only concerned with a materialistic humanist agenda. If they excommunicated Biden for all the reasons he is already excommunicated for, they would have to excommunicate themselves as well. The bishops' real goal here is humanism.

Sixth, the Eucharist has routinely been "politicized". If anyone in the hierarchy is sensitive about denying a politician the Eucharist over the concern that the Eucharist is "politicized", they really ought to show their flocks the money flowing into their pockets first and then read their history books second. The Church has been no stranger to calling Catholic politicians and statesmen back to the herd. We excommunicated Frederick II. We excommunicated the Simoniac Henry IV. We excommunicated the murderer Henry II. We threatened the excommunication of Henry III of England. We excommunicated the adulterer Henry VIII. We interdicted the Netherlands, Germany, and England. Oh yes, we've "politicized" the Eucharist. The Catholic Church has always used these as a means of calling people back to the herd so that they may receive the Eucharist again, not to their deaths but to eternal life. This is what the Eucharist is about. In reality, the bishops refusing to declare a heretic to be excommunicated have politicized the Eucharist for they see in the Eucharist political gain for themselves. They see in the Eucharist a source of political power much like the Arians who booted St. Athanasius out of their Church have done. They see denying people the Eucharist as a threat, not to pastoral care of the flock, but to their image and social standing among the humanist liberals. And the U.S.C.C.B. isn't really better as they are only concerned with one heresy held by Biden. These are not your friends, nor are they God's friends, even if they do rightfully conclude that Biden is to be denied Holy Communion. But that's beside the point. There is no declaration needed for a manifest heretic. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is already excommunicated and any bishop who says otherwise is a wolf in sheep clothing at this point.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness - The Usus Antiquior Enables Active Participation

When we talk about the active participation of the laity in Mass, are we talking about the institution of extraordinary ministers of the sacraments or are we talking about the way we pray during Mass? Are we praying as a collective group of Catholics, in a mass act of public worship, or are we talking about having equal rights to serve the sacraments? It seems with the Novus Ordo, we have become all about "equal rights". But when has the Church ever supported "equal rights"? I have seen the Church become progressively more and more democratic and progressively more and more about equality to the extent that it has become less of a Church and more of a political party that bears the name "Catholic Church". I have seen deacons, priests, and bishops become sell-outs to the spirit of liberal democracy and abandon any other political system that has been favorable to the Church throughout the centuries. What I see when I look at the politicization of our Church is not a "de-politicized" Eucharist but a rather heavily politicized Eucharist that equates democratic values in human society with official Church doctrine. This is the "active participation" that has become of the Novus Ordo. It is lousy and inept and spiritually damaging to the Church. It's not that the Church needs reform. I did not enter the Church to reform it, after all. I entered into the Church to be a churchmen. What I will say is that this spirit of democratic ideology has no place in the Church, it is not the Church. To state, as I did in my last entry, that our clergy need to seek to abolish the Novus Ordo, is not my pinning up of the 95 Theses as the heretic Martin Luther did. It is my observation that the Novus Ordo has become an obstacle in the prayer life of the Church. Frankly, if we're going to make all of Pope Francis the Heretic's encyclicals dogmatic, even as they change Church teaching, we need to embrace the fact that Quod Primum is also explicit dogma and remember that any one among us who even sets foot in a Novus Ordo parish is frankly not even a Catholic, they've been automatically excommunicated.

What we need is consistency and the Neo-Catholics have become inconsistent vermin that occupy the Church like rats do a hotel. What we do to rats is exterminate them. Like rats, there is no other group that needs more systematic extermination from the Church than Neo-Catholics. They are probably worse than the more obvious heretics like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden. These are the kind of heretics that still insist they possess a formal communion with the more obvious heretics by the mere fact that "authority" hasn't properly pronounced them excommunicated nor declared them excommunicated so we must "obediently submit" to authority even though authority is scandalizing us by allowing us to believe we are in a "true communion" with false Catholics. Neo-Catholics, as I have said before, seem more intent on conserving the problems that the liberals have created in the name of authority which they see as rooted in piety but is rooted in a fervent rejection of tradition and a fervent repudiation of Catholic theology throughout the centuries. Neo-Catholics have gone along with this democratic spirit and have greatly done aid in conserving the democratic spirit that has crept into the Novus Ordo liturgy.

Kwasniewski addresses the issue of active participation. What is meant by the issue of active participation as he understands it, is not the implementation of more lay ministers of the sacraments but the participation of prayer. We see in the traditional rites, there is a greater call for the spirit to engage in prayer as the body is taken through the motions of prayer. In the East, we practice bows, we cross ourselves, we stand, we raise our arms. Any one who has been to a more ancient traditional liturgy also knows that in the West, they kneel, they stand, they cross themselves, they go through these motions because the body is inherently connected to the spirit. Unlike the Platonic philosophy where the soul is a slave to the body in a dualistic combat between soul and body, the body is an earthen vessel for the soul and its service is to assist the soul in attaining to heavenly things. Hence, the body is put through these ascetical disciplines.

Further, the laity become engaged in a communal form of worship that exceeds the spirit of individualism in the Novus Ordo. In the Novus Ordo, the laity have the option of receiving Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand. In the traditional rites, that is not an option. The Novus Ordo stresses option and choice as has been talked about. This entails not active participation but individual participation. The traditional rites stress the communal form of worship that when we see one brother kneeling, that is because either he is not as familiar with the rite, or we're all supposed to kneel in reverence at that moment with him. In the Byzantine rite, we all fall face to the ground during our Presanctified Liturgy. This is how we participate in the Liturgy. Active participation is not about having more laity serve the sacraments nor about having more laity go their own way in the liturgy. The Divine Liturgy is not a democracy. The Catholic Church has no place in either its liturgy or in its theology for the democratic ideology that the Novus Ordo heretics are attempting to fuse into its worship and tradition. That we even consider this a discussion when Church teaching has been unambiguous and instead defend a Pope who has been anything but unambiguous at best is an appalling circumstance that the Church has been placed in.

I suppose critics of Kwasniewski could state here that "active participation" does not entail the communal worship and I would contend with them stating that the worship in the liturgy is public, therefore the active participation must be a public service to the Church, ergo, not about individuality. The public worship of the Church calls us to abandon our individuality and enter into communion with God. That is active participation. We cannot come into communion with God if we are looking at our own selves and only concerned with our own wishes in the participation. Participation in holy worship is about deification. We are not divine in our own right but made divine by God. If we are going to allow him to accomplish this act of deification, we need to abandon ourselves and embrace a more active participation in public worship. The Novus Ordo centers the worship on man and away from God.

Historicism Debunked, Pt. 5 - Origins of Futurism

It is fictitiously claimed by historicist conspiracy theorists that the origins of the doctrine of futurism were concocted by the Jesuit ministers of the Roman Catholic Church as a clever way to distract people from knowing "who the real Antichrist is". One such character who does this is a character we've seen in this series before. His site can be found here. It is quite clear from reading his sources on both preterism and futurism, the former we will tackle in the next article of this series, that he straw-mans both positions! Futurism does not insist on the "resurrection" of a Roman Empire. Futurism rather holds the postulation, historically Rome has not been divided up into ten kings and the Roman Empire may not have actually fallen to begin with as even Spain can claim legitimacy to the Roman Imperial Throne due to its connections with the Habsburgs. We established this position in the previous entry.

He contends that the Futurist school was created out of "panic" as the Pope was being exposed as the Antichrist as Martin Luther and the Reformers began "exposing" the Pope as the true Antichrist that Scriptures identified. Let alone, they can't even tell you which Pope was the Antichrist! But that's beside the point, the historicist school says the Papacy as an office is the Antichrist conflating its ecclesiastical role with the role of the Church played by those operating mostly independent of the Papacy and confusing its role as a secular role as opposed to a religious role. Thus, the historicist argument continues to be void of actual historical substance to back it up. I always found it rather odd that the Papacy even lacks a military. One could say the Swiss Guard is their military but that's more of a body-guard unit of Swiss soldiers. In fact, among the requirements to being in the Swiss guard is that you have to be Swiss. That's not a Papal militia but a secular militia supplied by an independent sovereign. Historicism can never make up its mind as to whether the Papacy is the Beast or the Whore of Babylon. Some say the entire Catholic Church led by the Papacy is the Whore of Babylon. Maybe the reason why historicism is such a bungled mess of interpretation has less to do with the book of Revelation being difficult but rather because the historicist school belongs in the trash-bin of history.

So the Pope, now freaking out (allegedly) because he was identified as the Biblical Antichrist got this guy named Francisco Ribera. The rest of the article's polemics is actually a bit humorous so let me quote it:

"Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the Beast, the little horn and that man of sin. But because the Pope was his boss, he came to conclusions vastly different from that of the Protestants. “Why, these prophecies don’t apply to the Catholic Church at all!” Ribera said. Then to whom do they apply? Ribera proclaimed, “To only one sinister man who will rise up at the end of time!” “Fantastic!” was the reply from Rome, and this viewpoint was quickly adopted as the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist."

Thus, Ribera is now the "father of Futurism". Only this is wrong. Very wrong. Futurism actually had a very strong history in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the Protestant Reformation. It goes back to St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Ignatius who was a disciple of St. John, the one who wrote the Apocalypse. This is why the futurist school has maintained weight even with a position that the Olivet Discourse was entirely fulfilled (though most Furturists contend the Olivet Discourse was not entirely fulfilled). We'll go back to different preterist schools in another post though. For now, we will look at the classical futurist position developed by St. Irenaeus.

In Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus interprets the four beasts in Daniel 7 as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, and Rome (Bk. V, ch. 26). St. Irenaeus describes the fall of the Roman Empire particularly as "The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree" (ibid). On the number 666, St. Irenaeus has this to say:

"the name Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ) contains the required number, but I make no allegation regarding it. Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Teitan too, (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ, the first syllable being written with the two Greek vowels ε and ι, among all the names which are found among us, is rather worthy of credit. For it has in itself the predicted number, and is composed of six letters, each syllable containing three letters; and [the word itself] is ancient, and removed from ordinary use; for among our kings we find none bearing this name Titan, nor have any of the idols which are worshipped in public among the Greeks and barbarians this appellation. Among many persons, too, this name is accounted divine, so that even the sun is termed Titan by those who do now possess [the rule]."

Clearly, St. Irenaeus holds the interpretation of Daniel 7 as being a literal division of ten kings and one man coming to uproot three of the kingdoms possessed by those ten kings. But he holds Antichrist as a literal man, not an "office" of the Papacy. The Papacy was of course alive and active in the days of St. Irenaeus and St. Irenaeus even has a list of the prominent Popes in order to prove Apostolic Succession! (Bk. 3, ch. III) So the Papacy did not arise from obscurity as this little horn did.

St. Hippolytus follows St. Irenaeus and writes this of the ten horns:

"As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms, let us look at the subject a little more closely, and consider these matters as in the clear light of a personal survey." (On Christ and Antichrist)

And of course, this is futurist thinking. The Barbarian kingdoms, though uncivilized, were monarchies, not democracies. Thus, the division into ten horns could not be the division of the Western Half in 476! Further, Sts. Hippolytus and Irenaeus are indeed thinking holistically of the Roman Empire. It is difficult to tell whether they would have thought the Holy Roman Empire the legitimate succession but they would have definitely acknowledged the legitimacy of Constantine's successors! Of course, if historicism is merely the position that Biblical prophecy unfolds throughout history, then technically all of the early church's positions on the subject are historicist. Because they felt the collapse of Rome was to come and that it would be divided into ten kingdoms. This was a prophecy in the making.

The Ven. Bede also maintains a futurist approach in his Explanation of the Apocalypse and we can see a clear depiction of the reign of Antichrist as futuristic in St. Hildegard of Bingen's Scivias (Bk. 3, Vision 11). All of these came long before St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and Francisco Ribera so to say that the origins of futurism lie with the Jesuits is an intellectually dishonest and deceitful abuse and misunderstanding of historical theology on this subject.

The Pious Queen Etheldreda

St. Etheldreda is a model for royalty. It is typical among the holy monarchs, not to seek the earthly glory and power they are given but to conscientiously ascend forward as they become ever mindful of their trust and dependence on God. In a democracy, the political elite are duped into believing their power comes from the people and they seek nothing or little to do with God. Whereas the holy monarchs set us an example for how rulers are to govern according to humility. For this pious queen, lording over people was never something she sought. Rather, she desired to give up her possessions and pursue a much a higher status than the queenly status she held in the secular world. She was born to King Anna and Queen Hereswide of England.

She desired to remain a virgin but her parents married her for political reasons to the Prince Tonchbert, "the ruler of a territory bordering her father's" (Joan Carroll Cruz, The Incorruptibles, 8). But he respected her vow to remain a virgin. After three years, she was widowed. She was then married yet again at age 30 to King Egfrid, who was estimated to be around 16 (9). Despite the advice of her confessor and the desires of her husband, she persisted in remaining a virgin.

"She had long requested the king, that he would permit her to lay aside worldly cares, and to serve only the true King, Christ, in a monastery; and having at length with difficulty prevailed, she went as a nun into the monastery of the Abbess Ebba, who was aunt to King Egfrid, at the place called the city Coludi, having taken the veil from the hands of the aforesaid Bishop Wilfrid; but a year after she was herself made abbess in the country called Ely, where, having built a monastery, she began, by works and examples of a heavenly life, to be the virgin mother of very many virgins dedicated to God." (Ven. Bede, History of the English People, ch. XIX)

It is to be further mentioned that upon prophesying her repose from the plague and having been buried for 16 years, her sister, Sexburga, according to the chronicle of the Ven. Bede, states that her body was found "free from corruption as if she had died and been buried on that very day". This virgin who remarkably was married twice, retained her virginity in accordance to her wishes, and was found remaining incorrupt even after death!

It is in this act that we finally see the Holy Virgin reach the heights of her earthly glory which would eventually lead to her Heavenly glory. The power of the secular state today says that the only thing that matters is the material world. The sacral monarchy shows the monarch as never fully complete in the lofty life of the secular governance until they excel to the pious and religious life. How many other monarchs have we seen do this? Certainly St. Elizabeth of Hungary and the Empress Eudocia of Russia, wife of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, who wrapped her body in chains after his death. Certainly, one could make the statement that these were just queens who saw their kings repose, but they did not cling to their king's stately honor, for they knew the monarchy was to be respected by its obedience to the Church. It is in their actions of humility, pursuing not earthly power but heavenly glory, that the argument for divine right monarchy is sustained. A divine right monarchy upholds humility while a democratic mob breeds arrogance and buffonery.

American Harlot

"Behold, I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast" (Rev. 17:4). She had the name, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" (17:5). There are metaphorical symbols that we may not fully understand but we are given to know that the Antichrist will find himself opposed to the Whore of Babylon just before her judgment. He will be God's instrument of vengeance against the Great Harlot. The Harlot has carried out great influence and has even gone to cause these kings who will work together with the Antichrist to overthrow the Harlot. We don't know who the Harlot is. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman has the following to say about what tradition has stated about her:

"Secondly, let it be considered, that as Babylon is a type of Rome, and of the world of sin and vanity, so Rome in turn may be a type also, whether of some other city, or of a proud and deceiving world. The woman is said to be Babylon as well as Rome, and as she is something more than Babylon, namely, Rome, so again she may be something more than Rome, which is yet to come. Various great cities in Scripture are made, in their ungodliness and ruin, types of the world itself." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 4)

In reading Richard Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation, he writes the following about this Mother of Harlots:

"From John's perspective Rome's evil lay primarily in absolutizing her power and prosperity. Consequently she pursued and maintained them at the expense of her victims. According to 18:24, it is not just for the martyrdom of Christians, but for the slaughter of all her innocent victims that Rome will be judged: 'in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who have been slain on earth'. There is therefore a sense in which Revelation takes a view from the 'underside of history', from the perspective of the victims of Rome's power and glory. It takes this perspective not because John and his Christian readers necessarily belonged to the classes which suffered rather than shared Rome's power and prosperity. It takes this perspective because, if they are faithful in their witness to the true God, their opposition to Rome's oppression and their dissociation of themselves from Rome's evil will make them victims of Rome in solidarity with the other victims of Rome. The special significance of Christian martyrdom is that it makes the issue clear. Those who bear witness to the one true God, the only true absolute, to whom all political power is subject, expose Rome's idolatrous self-deification for what it is." (38-39)

It is interesting that everything that Bauckham writes here can very elaborately be applied to the United States of America today. In the Harlot is found the blood of all the innocent, oppressed, prophets, and saints. It is her judgment that reveals to the world the evils of Babylon the Great and yet, the world, participating in her sins, has also become and taken part in the sins of Babylon the Great to such an extent that they mourn her death. Christians are told to join the courts of Heaven in celebrating the triumph of Heaven over the Whore of Babylon as she is ultimately devoured by even the very barbarous enemies of the Antichrist. Her sins have worn down the saints of the Most High to such an extent that those who provide faithful witness will already be in a state of desiring the ultimate triumph over the Great Harlot. They will not mourn for the rest of the world who partakes in her sins for next, the Antichrist who leveled her will also be slain.

But does this apply so strongly to Rome? Maybe the ancient readers viewed it as such but Babylon is called "Mystery" here. A "mystery", as the ancient Christians understood the term, was something that one was to be initiated into. As Newman gives us Babylon as a type, and Rome as a type, so maybe also the great misunderstanding of this Evil Harlot that extended her sins to the Heavens. On many issues, St. Augustine not only exonerated, but also proved why God allowed Rome to blossom and grow. It was not because of her wickedness, certainly not. But because she was morally superior to the other nations. Yet Rome became infatuated with its false deities and so it refused to acknowledge that it was the true God who delivered the Carthaginians and the Druids into her hands.

According to the Romans, the Carthaginians were slain for their infatuation with the evils and horrors of infanticide. There is some speculation that the Carthaginians might have even come from the same bloodlines as the Philistines and worshiped the same demons as the Philistines. This horrified the far more civilized Romans and they declared war on Carthage and subdued it. Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars, recounts the horrifying details of the Druid practice of human sacrifice. Horrified by this, Caesar, in his highest and most civil sensibilities, declared all-out war on the Druids until they put an immediate end to the practice. But Rome refused to admit that God had delivered these into her hands.

Rome's chief sin was not its immorality but its haughtiness and its self-deification.

Certainly Christians underwent many persecutions under Rome but these were at different intervals of time, with some persecutions being worse, some Emperors being more tolerable toward the Christian religion, and then settling down the next minute. These were persecution cycles they went through. Candida Moss declares it The Myth of Persecution but that is an instance of extreme nonsense from the anti-Christian world. There was persecution, but it exited at differing intervals until the Holy Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal. Even during and after Constantine, orthodox Christians still experienced different intervals of persecution which depended on the governing authorities of the Roman Empire. The sack in 476 A.D. spared the West and enabled Christianity to rule the Empire as Charlemagne was soon crowned as Emperor Augustus by the Pope of Rome. To the great fury of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. But the result is clear. The subjection of the Roman Emperor, whether in the West or in the East, to the Church, proved decisive in Rome's survival. This is the argument that St. Augustine makes in The City of God. Though pride is the deadliest of all sins, it is hard to see that as extending to the offense of Heaven as greatly as the Harlot's sins. No, the sin here must be seen as unforgivable. Pride is a deadly sin but it is forgivable through the greatest acts of humility.

There are some who revel in the sins they commit and they look for ways to commit even greater sins. This is the manifestation of the sin of the Whore of Babylon. We have seen with our governors here in America how they revel and glorify in the sin of murder. One governor says, "I can kill them when they're 24 weeks in the womb!" And the next governor says, "I can kill them when they're outside the womb!" It's no longer that they are horrified by the sinfulness of their perversities but instead they go out of their way to increase the number of their sins! They bask in these sins. They raise their hearts to the skies and say, "Nothing shall happen to us! Those who criticize us are morons! Nothing to see here!" Everything of the Whore of Babylon, from persecution of the saints through murderous campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan's assaults and killings of Catholics, to the chaining of slaves, to the leveling of innocent civilians overseas, to even the slaying of infants! Everything of the Whore of Babylon is a sin of which the stench reaches to the heights of the Most High.

The religion of Antichrist is rather interesting. He will honor a god of forces and yet exalt himself above all that which is called God. Much the same, the Whore of Babylon seems to mimic or even foreshadow the religion of Antichrist in a sense. St. Hippolytus tells us that when Rome is subdued by the ten kings, these kings will hold sovereignty over democracies that resemble kingdoms. "As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms" (On Christ and Antichrist, 27). And St. John Henry Cardinal Newman remarks on the lust of the United States of America for its state religion:

"On the other hand, after having broken away from all restraint as regards God and man, they gave a name to that reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of god. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity. It would almost be incredible, that men who had flung off all religion should be at the pains to assume a new and senseless worship of their own devising, whether in superstition or in mockery, were not events so recent and so notorious. After abjuring our Lord and Saviour, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities: and they appointed festivals besides in honour of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshipped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of their churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude bowed down in worship before one of them—before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of Christ." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 2)

He further states of the American religion, "And further, let it be remarked, that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet's vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honour."

Babylon is a type, Rome is a type, and currently, America is a type. If course for our history is not reversed drastically, the current state of both political affairs and religious affairs could usher in the Reign of Antichrist sooner than we imagine. Of the day and hour no one knows. And the Great Harlot shall not be revealed to us until her destruction. But we can clearly see how the United States of America fulfills so many characteristics. The question is whether it will continue to harden and claim that she is Queen, not a widow. Will she begin an even greater persecution of Christians than did even the Soviet Union? I resist speculating more for while the United States clearly fits the description of this effeminate Harlot, I do not believe any one will know until the coming of Antichrist who she actually is.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Monarchy is the Best Form of Government

Much time is typically spent by monarchists refuting and countering the arguments of democracy. With good reason. Democracy is a sham system of government that has proven to divide people. But perhaps it is also best to provide a strong argument for the case of monarchy. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, in his massive work, On the Roman Pontiff, covers the topic of monarchy first. He spends a devoted amount of time addressing John Calvin's arguments against monarchy because the Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of papal primacy. The Pope reigns and governs supreme over the entire Catholic Church as God's visible head. He argues that this must be so because God wanted His Church to be modeled after the best form of civil government: monarchy.

"Among the Greek [Fathers], blessed Justin teaches that the rule of many is harmful, and on the contrary, the rule of one is more useful and beneficial: 'The rule of one is freed from wars and dissensions and is usually free.' Also St. Athanasius, 'Truly we have said that a multitude of gods is a nullity of gods: so also, necessarily a multitude of princes makes it that there should appear to be no prince: however where there is no prince, there confusion is born.

"Among the Latin [Fathers], St. Cyprian teaches the same thing, and he proves it best and most eminently from the very fact that monarchy should be the best and most natural government, because God is one. 'For the divine authority, let us borrow from an earthly example: In what way has an alliance of power ever begun with trust, or ended without blood?' St. Jerome says: 'One emperor, one judge of the province. When Rome was built, she could not have two brothers as kings at the same time.' Lastly, one can consult St. Thomas." (Bk. I, ch. II)

He continues his argument citing the classics. According to Plato, "One dominion has been arranged for good laws, the law of these is best; that governance in which not many command, we ought to esteem as the middle: the administration of many others is weak, and also frail." Aristotle, who was Plato's student, repeats, "[a] kingdom is the best of these, a republic the worst." Seneca, commenting on the assassination of Caesar, "[T]he best state of citizenry is to be under just one king." Bellarmine is able to recruit the moral philosopher Plutarch, "[i]f the choice of electing were conceded, one should not choose anything else than the power of one." Finally, Homer's statement that "[i]t is not good that there be many; in war there must be one chief and one king." These philosophers build the rational argument to the case for monarchy that Bellarmine makes but Bellarmine is a theologian first and foremost. He doesn't stop with the human but ascends to the divine.

In accordance with the Divine law "God made from one every kind of man, as the Apostle says." He draws from this the same conclusion made by St. John Chrysostom "that this is so that there should not be democracy among men, but a kingdom." Not only that but in nature, we see that monarchy is the most natural form of government. For St. Cyprian tells us that "[t]here is one king for bees, one leader among flocks, and one rule among rams" and St. Jerome adds that "cranes follow one by the order of the litter."

We observe in Scripture how easily a monarchy formed.

"He did not (as Calvin says but cannot prove), make the government of the Hebrews an aristocracy, or a government of many, but was plainly a monarchy. The princes among the Hebrews were first of all patriarchs, as Abraham, Jacob, Jude and the rest; thereupon generals, as Moses and Joshua; then judges, as Samuel, Sampson, and others; afterwards kings, as Saul, David, and Solomon; thereafter again generals, as Zerubbabel and the Maccabees."

And Bellarmine is not without evidence or examples of this. The confusion is of course is a titular confusion. People think monarchy means having a king but a monarch need not be a king but any sort of ruler. Bellarmine points to the examples set by Abraham, Judah, Moses, and the Judges of Israel. Abraham waged war against four kings with no consultation from any senate, Judah judged his daughter-in-law accused of adultery, with fire, and consulted no senate. Moses commanded thousands of the Jews to be killed for idolatry with no consultation from any senate. The judges only answered to God.

Monarchies have provided untold stability in leadership in countries throughout history. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine states, "[t]here cannot be any doubt, whether that form of ruling the multitude would be better that more fittingly and easily acquires its proposed end. The end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same." Of the four greatest Empires of the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans, only the Romans did not emerge to power under a monarchy. But there was much civil war going on inside the Roman Empire until the Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, and Mark Antony. After Caesar’s assassination, the Empire was left entirely to his son Augustus. Under Augustus began the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) as the civil wars and strife were ended. The monarchy of the Assyrians lasted 1240 years, the Scythians were the oldest monarchy in Bellarmine’s day, and the Roman monarchy lasted for 1495 years until the Turks toppled Constantinople. We might also add the longevity that was experienced by the Persians and the Ethiopians. Republics evaporate and if they survive, are typically held hostage to civil wars and strife as we observed in the Roman Empire.

There cannot be a doubt, Bellarmine, in one fell swoop, provides the most extensive and comprehensive argument in favor of a simple monarchy.