Courtesy of Dr. Thomas Droleskey
Part I: The The Social Reign of Christ the King
1. What are the principles that must govern human life, both individually and collectively in civil society?
There are limits that exist in the nature of things beyond which men have no authority or right to transgress, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance.
2. Who has revealed these principles and do they bind all men in all circumstances, including those of civil governance?
There are limits that have been revealed positively by God Himself in his Divine Revelation, that bind all men in all circumstances at all times, binding even the institutions of civil governance.
3. What is the nature of the concept of hierarchy in family and social life?
A divinely-instituted hierarchy exists in man’s most basic natural unit of association: the family. The father is the head of the family and governs his wife and children in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. Children do not have the authority to disobey the legitimate commands of their parents. Parents do not have the authority to issue illegitimate and/or unjust commands.
4. How is this concept of authority demonstrated in the life of the Holy Family?
Our Lord Himself became Incarnate in Our Lady’s virginal and immaculate womb, subjecting Himself to the authority of His creatures, obeying his foster-father, Saint Joseph, as the head of the Holy Family, thus teaching us that all men everywhere must recognize an ultimate authority over them in their social relations, starting with the family.
5. What institution has been instituted by God Himself to transmit His teaching infallibly until the end of time.
Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church, founding it on the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to be the means by which His Deposit of Faith is safeguarded and transmitted until the end of time.
6. Must all men and all nations submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church?
Yes. The Catholic Church is the mater, mother, and magister, teacher, of all men in all nations at all times, whether or not men and nations recognize this to be the case.
7. Who has the authority to proclaim the truths of the Catholic Church?
The Pope and the bishops of the Church have the solemn obligation to proclaim nothing other than the fullness of the truths of the Faith for the good of the sanctification and salvation of men unto eternity and thus for whatever measure of common good in the temporal real, which the Church desires earnestly to promote, can be achieved in a world full of fallen men.
8. Is it possible for men to live virtuously as citizens of a country without striving for sanctity as citizens of Heaven?
No, it is not possible for men to live virtuously as citizens of any country unless they first strive for sanctity as citizens of Heaven. That is, it is not possible for there to be order in any nation if men do not have belief in access to and cooperation with sanctifying grace, which equips them to accept the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith and to obey God’s commands with diligence in every aspect of their lives without exception.
9. Was there ever a period in history when the rulers of nation understood this teaching and attempted to implement it?
Yes, the rulers of Christendom (that era also called the Middle Ages, roughly a period of a little over a thousand years from the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West to the rise of the Protestant Revolt), came to understand, although never perfectly and never without conflicts and inconsistencies, that the limits of the Divine positive law and the natural law obligated them to exercise the powers of civil governance with a view towards promoting man’s temporal good in this life so as to foster in him his return to God in the next life. In other words, rulers such as Saint Louis IX, King of France, knew that they would be judged by Our Lord at the moment of his Particular Judgment on the basis of how well they had fostered those conditions in their countries that made it more possible for their subjects to get to Heaven.
10) Who are some of the other rulers of the Middle Ages who ruled in light of man’s Last End?
Some of the other rulers of the Middle Ages who ruled their realms in light of man’s Last End were Saint Edward the Confessor of England, Saint Henry (King of Bavaria and then Holy Roman Emperor), Saint Stephen of Hungary, Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, King Alfred the Great of Wessex, Saint Casimir, Prince of Poland, and Saint Wenceslaus of Bohemia, among many others. Latter day exemplars of the Social Reign of Christ the King have been King John Sobieski of Poland (Seventeenth Century) and Gabriel Garcia Moreno, President of Ecuador in the Nineteenth Century.
11) How did these rulers subordinate themselves to the Catholic Church in the exercise of their civil rule?
The rulers of Christendom accepted the truth that the Church had the right, which she used judicially after exhausting her Indirect Power over civil rulers by proclaiming the truths of the Holy Faith, to interpose herself in the event that a civil ruler proposed to do something or had indeed done something that violated grievously the administration of justice and thus posed a grave threat to the good of souls.
12) How can one define the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ?
The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ may be defined as the right of the Catholic Church to see to it that the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law are the basis of the actions of civil governance and that those who exercise civil power keep in mind man’s last end, confessionally recognizing the Catholic Church as the true Church founded by God Himself and having the right to reprimand and place interdicts upon those who issue edicts and ordinances contrary to God’s laws.
13) Are you saying that each civil state in the world has the obligation to recognize the Catholicism as the true religion?
It is not “my” teaching that I proclaim on this site but the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church that teaches that each civil state has the obligation to recognize her with the favor and the protection of the laws. Pope Leo XIII, writing to the American bishops in Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895, explained that the “separation of Church and State” that existed in the United States is not the model for the rest of the world:
Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.
13) What passage from a papal encyclical letter best summarizes this teaching and that of the Social Reign of Christ the King:
The passage from a papal encyclical letter that best summarizes the Catholic Church’s immutable teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King is found in Pope Saint Pius X’s Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
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. — “Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere…. Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.
14) What other encyclical letters can you cite here can I find these points explained as part of the patrimony of the Catholic Church?
Pope Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832; Pope Pius IX’s Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863, and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864; Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus, August 20, 1884, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Libertas, June 20, 1888, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891; Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902; Pope Saint Pius X’s Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906 and Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910; Pope Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929; Casti Connubii, December 31, 1931, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, and Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937. A ready summary of key passages from some of these encyclical letters may be found at Sources for A Day with Christ the King and His Popes.
15) Can a Catholic dissent from the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the necessity of praying and working for the confessionally Catholic civil state and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King?
No. One must adhere to everything contained in these encyclical letters. Pope Pius XI made this clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:
Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.
There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.
It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Ephesians iv, 14)
Pope Pius XII emphasized in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, that one is bound to accept the teaching contained in papal encyclical letters as such teaching is but a reiteration of the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Pope Pius XII reiterated the immutable nature of Catholic Social Teaching in 1958, just three months before his death:
Assuming false and unjust premises, they are not afraid to take a position which would confine within a narrow scope the supreme teaching authority of the Church, claiming that there are certain questions — such as those which concern social and economic matters — in which Catholics may ignore the teachings and the directives of this Apostolic See.
This opinion — it seems entirely unnecessary to demonstrate its existence — is utterly false and full of error because, as We declared a few years ago to a special meeting of Our Venerable Brethren in the episcopacy:
“The power of the Church is in no sense limited to so-called ‘strictly religious matters’; but the whole matter of the natural law, its institution, interpretation and application, in so far as the moral aspect is concerned, are within its power.
“By God’s appointment the observance of the natural law concerns the way by which man must strive toward his supernatural end. The Church shows the way and is the guide and guardian of men with respect to their supernatural end.”
This truth had already been wisely explained by Our Predecessor St. Pius X in his Encyclical Letter Singulari quadam of September 24, 1912, in which he made this statement: “All actions of a Christian man so far as they are morally either good or bad — that is, so far as they agree with or are contrary to the natural and divine law — fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church.”
Moreover, even when those who arbitrarily set and defend these narrow limits profess a desire to obey the Roman Pontiff with regard to truths to be believed, and to observe what they call ecclesiastical directives, they proceed with such boldness that they refuse to obey the precise and definite prescriptions of the Holy See. They protest that these refer to political affairs because of a hidden meaning by the author, as if these prescriptions took their origin from some secret conspiracy against their own nation. (Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958.)
16. May a Catholic claim that he is privately opposed to certain evils, such as abortion, while supporting them under the cover of civil law and in the various aspects of popular culture?
No, he may not. Pope Leo XIII made this clear in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:
Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.
17. Does the Catholic Church teach that men must follow a particular form of government?
No. The Church, as a loving and wise mother, recognizes that individual men have great latitude to form specific institutional arrangements of civil governance that are suitable to the peculiar characteristics of their own nations and national experiences. She only insists that each civil government recognize her as the true religion and that its policies seek to foster those conditions that promote the sanctification and salvation of the souls of its citizens.
Pope Leo XIII noted this precise point in Immortale Dei:
So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.. . .
Therefore, when it is said that the Church is hostile to modern political regimes and that she repudiates the discoveries of modern research, the charge is a ridiculous and groundless calumny. Wild opinions she does repudiate, wicked and seditious projects she does condemn, together with that attitude of mind which points to the beginning of a willful departure from God. But, as all truth must necessarily proceed from God, the Church recognizes in all truth that is reached by research a trace of the divine intelligence. And as all truth in the natural order is powerless to destroy belief in the teachings of revelation, but can do much to confirm it, and as every newly discovered truth may serve to further the knowledge or the praise of God, it follows that whatsoever spreads the range of knowledge will always be willingly and even joyfully welcomed by the Church. She will always encourage and promote, as she does in other branches of knowledge, all study occupied with the investigation of nature. In these pursuits, should the human intellect discover anything not known before, the Church makes no opposition. She never objects to search being made for things that minister to the refinements and comforts of life. So far, indeed, from opposing these she is now, as she ever has been, hostile alone to indolence and sloth, and earnestly wishes that the talents of men may bear more and more abundant fruit by cultivation and exercise. Moreover, she gives encouragement to every kind of art and handicraft, and through her influence, directing all strivings after progress toward virtue and salvation, she labors to prevent man’s intellect and industry from turning him away from God and from heavenly things.
All this, though so reasonable and full of counsel, finds little favor nowadays when States not only refuse to conform to the rules of Christian wisdom, but seem even anxious to recede from them further and further on each successive day. Nevertheless, since truth when brought to light is wont, of its own nature, to spread itself far and wide, and gradually take possession of the minds of men, We, moved by the great and holy duty of Our apostolic mission to all nations, speak, as We are bound to do, with freedom. Our eyes are not closed to the spirit of the times. We repudiate not the assured and useful improvements of our age, but devoutly wish affairs of State to take a safer course than they are now taking, and to rest on a more firm foundation without injury to the true freedom of the people; for the best parent and guardian of liberty amongst men is truth. “The truth shall make you free.
18. What does the Catholic Church teach about liberty?
The Catholic Church teaches us that authentic liberty is that natural condition of human being wherein he is able to choose after what is good and true in accordance with the precepts of Divine Revelation and the dictates of right reason. Liberty is not “license,” that is unrestrained physical freedom. No one is morally “free” to do everything he desires to do. One is only morally “free” to do what is right. Error has no rights. God grants no civil “right,” whether in the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law, to adherents of false religions to propagate their beliefs openly. God does not want the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to be confused by the open dissemination of error:
But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart – a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two – from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that “liberty of religion and of conscience” (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of “religion”. There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all “religions” is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), “asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me.” (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.)
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest “that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful.” This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine.”We must fight valiantly,” Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, “as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames.” Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world — not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.“
And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)
In other words, no one has any right to jeopardize the salvation of his own soul or those of others by publishing or speaking things contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church and thus offensive to God and injurious to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.
19. What if one lives in a “pluralist” nation such as the United States of America where the Catholic Church does not exercise the Social Reign of Christ the King?
Holy Mother Church does not expect the impossible from her children. She recognizes that we live in concrete circumstances that have fallen far from the ideal of her immutable teaching. She does expect her children to know her teaching and to pray and to work for its realization in their own lives, recognizing that the conversion of nations starts with the conversion of families.
Pope Leo XIII made a similar point in Libertas, June 20, 1888:
Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, “neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good.” This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.
But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true — that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.
20. Why have I never heard this before?
There are many reasons, the chief of which being that most, although certainly not all, American bishops and priests have sought to subordinate the Catholic Faith to the naturalist precepts of the American founding rather than to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King.
21. Does Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ expect to be recognized as the King of men and their nations?
Yes. Consider this very succinct summary provided by by the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, a French bishop of Poitiers in the Nineteenth Century:
“If Jesus Christ,” proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, “if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God”. . . .
“To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine.”
In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:
“Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies.”
Part II: Attacks Upon the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ: Naturalism and Judeo-Masonry
Starting with the period known as the Renaissance, which began in the late-Fourteenth Century and gave “rebirth” to the beliefs of some of the pagans of Greek antiquity, the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ has been under attack. One of the cornerstones of this attack is something called Naturalism, as will be explained presently.
1) What is Naturalism?
Naturalism is that approach to human life wherein all human activity is reduced to the merely natural level as attempts are made to “resolve” human problems without referencing the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and without relying upon the Sanctifying Grace He won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls by the working of the Holy Ghost in the sacraments through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces.
2) Why is Naturalism wrong?
Naturalism is wrong because it reduces the truths of the Catholic Faith to a matter of complete indifference in the lives of individual men and in the lives of nations, convincing men that they can pursue “happiness” in their own lives and “order” in the lives of their nations without referencing the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate womb by the power of the Holy Ghost and without subordinating their thoughts, words and actions at all times to the Deposit of Faith (that is, to the totality of Sacred Revelation by means of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic or Sacred Tradition) He has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
3) You mean to say that there is no merely natural way to look at or to seek to “resolve” the problems of the world?
Precisely. As Pope Saint Pius X noted in Singulari Quadam, September 24, 1912:
Accordingly, We first of all declare that all Catholics have a sacred and inviolable duty, both in private and public life, to obey and firmly adhere to and fearlessly profess the principles of Christian truth enunciated by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. In particular We mean those principles which Our Predecessor has most wisely laid down in the encyclical letter “Rerum Novarum.” We know that the Bishops of Prussia followed these most faithfully in their deliberations at the Fulda Congress of 1900. You yourselves have summarized the fundamental ideas of these principles in your communications regarding this question.
These are fundamental principles: No matter what the Christian does, even in the realm of temporal goods, he cannot ignore the supernatural good. Rather, according to the dictates of Christian philosophy, he must order all things to the ultimate end, namely, the Highest Good. All his actions, insofar as they are morally either good or bad (that is to say, whether they agree or disagree with the natural and divine law), are subject to the judgment and judicial office of the Church. All who glory in the name of Christian, either individually or collectively, if they wish to remain true to their vocation, may not foster enmities and dissensions between the classes of civil society. On the contrary, they must promote mutual concord and charity. The social question and its associated controversies, such as the nature and duration of labor, the wages to be paid, and workingmen’s strikes, are not simply economic in character. Therefore they cannot be numbered among those which can be settled apart from ecclesiastical authority. “The precise opposite is the truth. It is first of all moral and religious, and for that reason its solution is to be expected mainly from the moral law and the pronouncements of religion.”
4) What, then, causes the problems of the world and how can they be resolved?
Each of the problems we find in the world are caused by Original Sin and by the Actual Sins of men. There is no way to “resolve” problems that are caused by fallen human nature. Human beings can, however, ameliorate, that is, lessen, the extent of the problems of the world by their daily cooperation with Sanctifying Grace to climb the heights of sanctity, avoiding the near occasions of sin and seeking to keep uppermost in their minds at all times the simple fact that they could face the moment of their Particular Judgments when they least expect it. Human beings must also cooperate with Actual Grace to respond to the promptings of the Holy Ghost to be diligent in their daily prayers and to perform their daily duties for the greater honor and glory of God as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
5) You mean to say that there is no “political” or “philosophical” way to address social problems absent the conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Faith?
Yes. We must seek to restore all things in Christ, the phrase from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians that Pope Saint Pius X took as his motto and which he summarized very well in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker – the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization 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.
6) What are some of the consequences of naturalism?
The principal consequences of naturalism involve the gradual descent of a nation into barbarism as more and more people lose sight of the true purpose of human existence, that is, to know, love and to serve God as He has revealed Himself exclusively through the Catholic Church and thus to spend all eternity with Him in Heaven after having died in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church.
Pope Leo XIII discussed this in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
From this it may clearly be seen what consequences are to be expected from that false pride which, rejecting our Saviour’s Kingship, places man at the summit of all things and declares that human nature must rule supreme. And yet, this supreme rule can neither be attained nor even defined. The rule of Jesus Christ derives its form and its power from Divine Love: a holy and orderly charity is both its foundation and its crown. Its necessary consequences are the strict fulfilment of duty, respect of mutual rights, the estimation of the things of heaven above those of earth, the preference of the love of God to all things. But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor selfdevotion. Man may indeed be king, through Jesus Christ: but only on condition that he first of all obey God, and diligently seek his rule of life in God’s law. By the law of Christ we mean not only the natural precepts of morality and the Ancient Law, all of which Jesus Christ has perfected and crowned by His declaration, explanation and sanction; but also the rest of His doctrine and His own peculiar institutions. Of these the chief is His Church. Indeed whatsoever things Christ has instituted are most fully contained in His Church. Moreover, He willed to perpetuate the office assigned to Him by His Father by means of the ministry of the Church so gloriously founded by Himself. On the one hand He confided to her all the means of men’s salvation, on the other He most solemnly commanded men to be subject to her and to obey her diligently, and to follow her even as Himself: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me” (Luke x, 16). Wherefore the law of Christ must be sought in the Church. Christ is man’s “Way”; the Church also is his “Way”-Christ of Himself and by His very nature, the Church by His commission and the communication of His power. Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.
As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from “The Way.” The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. “And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him” (Daniel vii., 14). “I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God’s providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men’s minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at.
7) Who are the chief supporters of naturalism in the world?
The chief supporters of naturalism adhere to a line of beliefs promoted by what is called Judeo-Masonry, although not all naturalists are adherents of the Talmud or belong to Masonic lodges. It is enough for the “organized forces of naturalism” to convince men, especially those who are Catholics, that it is unimportant for men, either individually or collectively in civil society, to adhere to a specific religious creed to live a “meaningful” and “prosperous” life and to live together as “brothers” in the midst of society.
Pope Leo XIII noted this in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:
Now, the fundamental doctrine of the naturalists, which they sufficiently make known by their very name, is that human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide. Laying this down, they care little for duties to God, or pervert them by erroneous and vague opinions. For they deny that anything has been taught by God; they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by reason of his authority. And since it is the special and exclusive duty of the Catholic Church fully to set forth in words truths divinely received, to teach, besides other divine helps to salvation, the authority of its office, and to defend the same with perfect purity, it is against the Church that the rage and attack of the enemies are principally directed.
In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result — namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church.
Nor do they think it enough to disregard the Church — the best of guides — unless they also injure it by their hostility. Indeed, with them it is lawful to attack with impunity the very foundations of the Catholic religion, in speech, in writing, and in teaching; and even the rights of the Church are not spared, and the offices with which it is divinely invested are not safe. The least possible liberty to manage affairs is left to the Church; and this is done by laws not apparently very hostile, but in reality framed and fitted to hinder freedom of action. Moreover, We see exceptional and onerous laws imposed upon the clergy, to the end that they may be continually diminished in number and in necessary means. We see also the remnants of the possessions of the Church fettered by the strictest conditions, and subjected to the power and arbitrary will of the administrators of the State, and the religious orders rooted up and scattered.
8. What does naturalism teach about religion?
As Pope Leo XIII noted in the passage cited above from Humanum Genus, naturalism teaches that anything concerning “God is a matter of “opinion,” which is why popular references to “God” and “faith” and “freedom” by careerist politicians of both major political parties in the United States of America signify nothing whatsoever. God can only be understood as He has revealed Himself through His true Church, the Catholic Church, founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Ultimately, the religious indifferentism (the belief that one religion is as good as another) results in the triumph of atheism or agnosticism as the lowest common denominators in civil society.
Pope Leo XIII made this point in Immortale Dei:
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.
9. How does naturalism undermine the precepts of morality?
Naturalism undermines the precepts of morality by convincing men that they are the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, resulting in the triumph of what is called moral relativism as the foundation of personal lives and public policy.
10. What is moral relativism?
Moral relativism is the belief that the morality of human actions is determined by the relative conditions of time, circumstance, place and motives of the actor(s). Moral relativism, therefore, contends that there are no laws that are absolutely true that govern the conduct of human behavior.
11. Can you explain why moral relativism is wrong?
Moral relativism is wrong because it violates the basic precepts of right reason, which inform us that there must be truth (defined on the merely natural level as a phenomenon that exists in the nature of things and that does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity) and that truth of its nature is absolute, universal and eternal. Cicero, a pagan philosopher in Rome in the First Century before Christ, explained the nature of moral truth known from reason alone, the Natural Law, as follows:
True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. And he who does not obey it flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. And by so doing he will endure the severest penalties even if he avoid the other evils which are usually accounted punishments.
Cicero had it almost entirely correct. Almost. He was wrong in asserting that the natural law does not need any “other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience.” He lived before the Incarnation and before the founding of the true Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Cicero thus did not know that man does need an interpreter and expositor of the natural law, namely, the Catholic Church. Apart from this, however, Cicero understood that God’s law does not admit of abrogations by a vote of the people or of a “representative” body, such as the Roman Senate in his day or the United States Congress or state legislatures, et al. in our own day.
12. Is there anything logically inconsistent about moral relativism?
Yes. Moral relativism contends that there are no absolute moral norms or laws, which is itself an absolute statement and therefore a contradiction of the contention that nothing is absolutely true.
13. What are some of the other consequences of naturalism?
Some of the other consequences of naturalism include: “Positivism,” the contention that something is true because it has been asserted as being true; “Materialism,” the acquisition and retention of wealth and material goods as the ultimate end of human existence; “Utilitarianism,” the belief that public policy must be founded on the principle of the “greatest good for the greatest number,” meaning that “inconvenient” or “useless” human lives may be “engineered,” either passively or aggressively, out of existence; “Pragmatism,” the belief that social problems must be resolved on a “practical” basis without regard to a consideration of “root causes;” “Egalitarianism,” the belief that there are no divinely-instituted distinctions among men in society, starting with a rejection of the authority vested in the hierarchy of the Church (which is also known as “anti-clericalism”); “Feminism,” the assertion that there are no distinctions ordained by God between the sexes and that women have the “right” to do everything that men can do in society; “Evolutionism,” the rejection of Special Creation of man by God and his subsequent the Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden and replacing it with a belief that life evolved over billions of years, thus convincing man that truth itself evolves over time and that there are no fixed standards by which one can judge human behavior; “Majoritarianism,” the belief, drawn, although in different ways, from John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that public policy is determined by will of the majority in society at any given time; “Liberalism,” the political ideology that contends that it is possible for a majority of reasonable men to devise social structures to improve social conditions by the light of their own unaided reason; “Conservatism,” an amalgamation of different philosophies that have one thing in common: a rejection of the necessity of men and their nations to subordinate themselves to the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church; “Libertarianism,” the belief that the civil government has only a limited role to play in the restriction of the behavior of its citizens; “Socialism,” a term used to describe any number of specific politico-economic systems that reject, to one degree or another, the private ownership of property and places the control of the major means of production in the hands of the state while imposing confiscatory taxation in order to “redistribute” wealth according to the decisions made by the socialist elite; “Communism,” the ultimate form of socialism that contends it is possible for all clash among men to cease once private property is confiscated and the wealth derived therefrom distributed equitably amongst the workers according to the principle of “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need; “Nationalism,” the exaltation of the myths of one’s nation above love of God as He has revealed Himself exclusively through the Catholic Church; “Statism,” the exaltation of the state as being endowed with the properties of infallibility and invincibility its domestic and international policies; “Fascism,” very much related to statism, seeks to orchestrate politics and the national economy and popular culture to the honor and glory of the state (private property might be permitted in a fascist state, only subject to state-imposed restrictions; corporate enterprises not controlled directly by the state must produce what the state demands and according to the price control established by the tate); “Secularism,” which is simply another name for naturalism.
14. Apart from the organized forces of Judeo-Masonry, who is chiefly responsible for naturalism?
The devil. The devil hates Our Lord and His Holy Catholic Church. He hates Our Lady and the cult of the saints. He wants to convince man today that he can remake the world without Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen just as he convinced Adam and Eve that they could like unto “gods” if they only ate of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that God had forbidden them to eat.
Part III: The Attacks Upon the Social Reign of Christ the King from Protestantism and the Modern State
1) Is Protestantism an attack the Social Reign of Christ the King?
The Protestant Revolt is, as was described so well by Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, a revolution against the Divine Plan that God has instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church. It is but another attack of the devil upon Christ the Kin and Mary our Immaculate Queen.
2) How does Protestantism attack the Social Reign of Christ the King?
There are many strains of Protestantism, each of which attacks the Social Reign of Christ the King.
First, the Lutheran strain of Protestantism attacks the Social Reign of Christ the King by its insistence that Our Lord did not create a visible, hierarchical Church to sanctify or to govern men, either individually or socially. The denial of the visible, hierarchical church meant that individuals no longer had the sure guidance of the Catholic Church as to how to live their lives and that civil rulers no longer had to answer to a pope or a local bishop if he did things contrary to the good of souls. This opened the way to unbridled monarchical despotism in European kingdoms and principalities where potentates sided with Luther, giving rise to our own modern totalitarianism. Individual licentiousness and civil despotism are the logical results of a world where the Catholic Church is no longer recognized and obeyed as the true teacher and sole sanctifier of man.
Martin Luther himself said that a prince may be a Christian but that his religion should not influence how he governs, giving rise to the contemporary notion of “separation of Church and state,” condemned repeatedly by Popes in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.
Father Denis Fahey explained this in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:
The tide of revolt which broke away from the Catholic Church had the immediate effect of increasing the power of princes and rulers in Protestant countries. The Anabaptists and the peasants in Germany protested in the name of ‘evangelical liberty,’ but they were crushed. We behold the uprise of national churches, each of which organizes its own particular form of religion, mixture of supernatural and natural elements, as a department of State. The orthodox Church in Russia was also a department of State and as such exposed to the same evils. National life was thus withdrawn from ordered subjection to the Divine Plan and the distinction laid down by our Divine Lord Himself, between the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s, utterly abolished. Given the principle of private judgment or of individual relation with Christ, it was inevitable that the right of every individual to arrange his own form of religion should cause the pendulum to swing from a Caesarinism supreme in Church and State to other concrete expressions of ‘evangelical liberty.’ One current leads to the direction of indefinite multiplication of sects. Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, this would, this would give rise to as many churches as there are individuals, that is, there would not be any church at all. As this is too opposed to man’s social nature, small groups tend to coalesce. The second current tends to the creation of what may be termed broad or multitudinist churches. The exigencies of the national churches are attenuated until they are no longer a burden to anybody. The Church of England is an example of this. As decay in the belief of the Divinity of Jesus continues to increase, the tendency will be to model church organization according to the political theories in favour at the moment. The democratic form of society will be extolled and a ‘Reunion of Christendom,’ for example, will be aimed at, along the lines of the League of Nations. An increasing number of poor bewildered units will, of course, cease to bother about any ecclesiastical organization at all. . . . .
The first [political] result was an enormous increase in the power of the Temporal Rulers, in fact a rebirth of the pagan regime of Imperial Rome. The Spiritual Kingship of Christ, participated in by the Pope and the Bishops of the Catholic Church being no longer acknowledged, authority over spiritual affairs passed to Temporal Rulers. They were thus, in Protestant countries, supposed to share not only in His Temporal Kingship of Christ the King, but also in His spiritual Kingship. As there was no Infallible Guardian of order above the Temporal Rulers, the way was paved for the abuses of State Absolutism. The Protestant oligarchy who ruled England with undisputed sway, from Charles the Second’s time on, and who treated Ireland to the Penal Laws, may be cited, along with that cynical scoundrel, Frederick of Prussia, as typical examples of such rulers. Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV of France and Joseph II of Austria, by their absolutist tendencies and pretensions to govern the Catholic Church show the influence of the neighboring Protestant countries. Gallicanism and Josephism are merely a revival of Roman paganism.. . .
The rejection by Luther of the visible Catholic Church opened the door, not only to the abuses of absolute rulers, supreme in Church and State, but soon led to an indifference to all ecclesiastical organizations. As faith in the supernatural life of grace and the supernatural order grew dim and waned, the way was made smooth for the acceptance of Freemasonry. The widespread loss of faith in the existence of the supernatural life and the growing ignorance of the meaning of the Redemption permitted the apostles of Illuminism and Masonry to propagate the idea that the true religion of Jesus Christ had never been understood or been corrupted by His disciples, especially by the Church of Rome, the fact being that only a few sages in secret societies down the centuries had kept alive the true teaching of Jesus Christ. According to this ‘authentic’ teaching our Saviour had established a new religion, but had simply restored the religion of the state of nature, the religion of the goodness of human nature when left to itself, freed from the bonds and shackles of society. Jesus Christ died a martyr for liberty, put to death by the rulers and priests. Masons and revolutionary secret societies alone are working for the true salvation of the world. By them shall original sin be done away with and the Garden of Eden restored. But the present organization of society must disappear, by the elimination of the tyranny of priests, the despotism of princes and the slavery resulting from national distinctions, from family life and from private property.”
Second, Martin Luther believed that the Bible was the sole source of Divine Revelation, rejecting the 1,500 years of belief in Apostolic or Tradition as other source of Divine Revelation, and he believed that each individual was his own “interpreter of the Bible. He thus planted the seeds of contemporary deconstructionism, which reduces all written documents to the illogical and frequently mutually contradictory private judgments of individual readers, by rejecting the Catholic Church as the repository and explicator of the Deposit of Faith, making the “private judgment” of individuals with regard to the Bible supreme. If mutually contradictory and inconsistent interpretations of the Bible can stand without correction from a supreme authority instituted by God, then it is an easy thing for all written documents, including a Constitution that makes no reference at all to the God-Man or His Holy Church, to become the plaything of whoever happens to have power over its interpretation
Although the Anglicanism strain of Protestantism differs from the Lutheran strain in some areas, Anglicanism is founded on a specific rejection of the role of the Catholic Church in its exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King, arrogating the “headship” of the “church” to the King (or Queen) of England. This resulted quite specifically in the rise of monarchical absolutism in England. Over 72,000 Catholics who remained faithful to Rome after King Henry VIII’s revolt (largely over his own personal lust) against the Catholic Church were executed on Henry’s orders between 1534 and his death in 1547. Monarchical absolutism in England has been replaced over the centuries by majoritarian absolutism as exercised by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom’s Parliament.
3) How did naturalism and Protestantism influence the founding of the United States of America?
The sons of the so-called Enlightenment, influenced by the multifaceted and inter-related consequences of the errors of the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt, brought forth secular nations that contended the source of governing authority was the people. Ultimately, all references to “God” were in accord with the Freemasonic notion of a “supreme intelligence” without any recognition of the absolute necessity of belief in and acceptance of the Incarnation and of the Deposit of Faith as it has been given to Holy Mother Church for personal happiness and hence al social order.
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not believe that it was necessary to refer all things in civil life to Christ the King as He had revealed Himself through His true Church, believing that men would be able to pursue “civic virtue” by the use of their own devices and thus maintain social order in the midst of cultural and religious pluralism. This leads, as Pope Leo XIII noted of religious indifferentism, to the triumph of the lowest common denominator, that is, atheism.
4) What is the principal defect, therefore, of the Constitution of the United States of America?
As the Constitution of the United States of America admits of no authority higher than its own words, it, like the Bible for a Protestant (as mentioned above), is utterly defenseless when the plain meanings of its words are distorted and used to advance ends that its framers would have never thought imaginable, no less approved in fact.
This is but the secular version of Antinomianism: the belief advanced by those who took the logic of Luther’s argument of being “saved by faith alone” to its inexorable conclusion that one could live a wanton life of sin and still be saved. Luther himself did not see where the logic of his rejection of Catholic doctrine would lead and fought against the Antinomians.
In like manner, you see, the Constitutionalists and Federalists of today do not see that what is happening today in Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is the inexorable result of a Constitution that rejects Christ the King and the Catholic Church. These Constitutionalists and Federalists will fight time and time again like Sisyphus pushing the bolder up a hill. They will always lose because they cannot admit that the thing they admire, the Constitution, is the proximate problem that has resulted in all of the evils they are trying to fight.
5) Are you saying that the founders of the United States of America had evil intentions?
Intentions are irrelevant. What matters is the truth or the falsity of the ideas that men possess. It is not true that men can organize themselves socially without referencing the true Faith and by permitting false religions to propagate their false beliefs openly.
6) What is wrong with giving each “religion” the ability to speak publicly to win adherents to its cause?
To give false religions the civil “right” to speak publicly, which is different than tolerating their existence and their private practice of their false worship, is to blaspheme God, Who does not want the souls for whom he shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood confused about Who He is and what He has revealed and How they are to be happy here in this life as a prelude to eternal happiness in Heaven.
7) Has the Catholic Church condemned the “religious liberty” enshrined in the First Amendment to Constitution of the United States of America?
Many times. Pope Gregory XVI did so in Mirari Vos, cited above. Pope Pius IX did so in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”
8) Are you saying that the Catholic Church condemns the form of government created in the Constitution of the United States of America?
No. As noted above, the Church can adapt to any particular form of government. She does insist, however, that she be recognized by the civil government as the true religion and that her right to intervene with civil officials as a last resort after the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation be acknowledged in a civil state’s organic documents and/or a concordat with the Holy See. Everything else is left to the free judgment of men, who are nevertheless bound to pursue their actions in the civil realm in light of their eternal destiny.
9) Do secular, naturalist talk show hosts and commentators have anything of value to offer us?
No. Nothing. Naturalism is divided into false “opposition” camps of the “left” and the “right.” This is a gigantic diversion from the devil to waste our time and to expend needless energy on projects that can never solve or even ameliorate a single social problem. The saints did not need to “consult” secular, naturalist talk show hosts to know how to order their lives and to know how to order the lives of societies. Neither do we.
10) Isn’t the conversion of the United States of America to the Catholic Faith impossible?
Nothing is impossible with God, is it? Catholicism thrived in much what is now the land of the United States of America long before English-speaking peoples came to displace the natives who had been converted to Catholicism in many instances. Our Lady appeared to the Venerable Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill to effect the conversion of all of the Americas to the Catholic Faith.
11) How do we convert a nation to the true Faith?
One soul at a time, starting with our own by means of cooperating with the graces sent to us by Our Lady each day, and one family at a time. We may be able only to plant the seeds for the conversion of a nation. Those seeds may not take root and flower for many years. It took several centuries for the first Christendom to arise from the ashes of the Roman Empire and the pillaging of various barbaric tribes. Even though we may very well be in “end times” as the Mystical Body of Christ suffers the Passion and Death of her Divine Redeemer in the Church Militant, we must nevertheless continue the work of seeking converts.
We do this by enthroning our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We do this as a family by trying to get to the daily offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, offered by true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the “legitimacy’ of the false shepherds who belong to the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We do this by spending time together as a family before the Most Blessed Sacrament in prayer, if only once or twice a week. We do this by praying at least one set of mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary every day in the home as a family. We do this by avoiding the near occasions of sin, especially by refusing to participate in any “cultural” enterprise that propagandizes in behalf of naturalism, if not openly attacks the true Faith. We do this by consecrated ourselves to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Unlike naturalists, you see, Catholics do not look for the “results” of their prayers and good works and mortifications and penances and humiliations and sufferings and fastings and almsgiving and sacrifices. They simply strive to remain faithful each day to the fullness of the Catholic Faith, understanding that the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church is part of the Deposit of Faith and thus falls under the charism of infallibility of her Ordinary Magisterium.
We should think of the totality of the Deposit of Faith, including the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church, the next time that we pray the Act of Faith:
O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God, in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost: I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.
With Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., and the Cristeros in Mexico to whom he brought the Sacraments, who uttered the battle cry of “Viva Cristo Rey!”, we must always lift high the banner of Christ the King, remembering these stirring words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:
We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.
Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.