As media reaction (both secular and Catholic) to the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia plainly suggests, the time is ripe for yet another serious conversation about what so-called “traditional Catholicism” (more simply, Catholicism) entails with respect to Church-State relations and the duties incumbent upon those who exercise civil authority or otherwise render official public service on behalf of the government.
This need is especially urgent (though certainly not exclusively so) for the faithful living in the United States, the Constitution of which treats religious pluralism as the ideal for a nation in pursuit of such praiseworthy ends as:
…forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty. (cf Preamble, Constitution of the United States of America)
NB: While the present article will examine certain American questions in particular, the underlying principles are universally relevant; especially in light of the Second Vatican Council having largely enshrined this pluralistic (and decidedly anti-traditional) model of religious liberty in the document Dignitatis Humanae.
Specifically with regard to the rights of U.S. citizens and the practice of religion, be it the one true faith or any of the many false religions of the world, the First Amendment of said Constitution reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Closely bound up with this version of religious liberty is the democratic ideal expressed in the Declaration of Independence, wherein it is proposed that “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
In other words, this nation is founded upon the notion that the vox populi shall determine what is “just” and what is not with respect to the powers of the State – a proposition with which Antonin Scalia appeared to be rather comfortable.
The noteworthy deficiencies in the aforementioned texts – obvious enough when read through the eyes of the Catholic faith – are treated in some detail HERE.
At present, I’d like to delve more deeply into the points raised in a previous post, Justice Scalia: A man of “true faith and allegiance,” wherein I suggested that the “devout traditional Catholic” label so widely applied to the late jurist doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
That is not to suggest in any way that he wasn’t a man of sincere faith. The depth of Antonin Scalia’s devotion to Catholicism, such as he understood it, isn’t in doubt in my mind, and all of us must earnestly pray for the repose of his soul.
That having been said, Antonin Scalia’s well-known views on jurisprudence simply cannot be squared with the doctrine of the Church.
As such, it cannot be said that his legacy provides other Catholic civil servants with an approach that is worthy of emulation. In fact, on this note, Kim Davis – the Protestant, Democrat county clerk from Kentucky – who chose to go to prison rather than uphold an unjust law, even though her job required it, provided the better example.
One would hardly know it, however, based upon the effusive praise that has been heaped upon the Justice and his legacy following his death; all-too-often by otherwise tradition-minded Catholics quick to employ such epitaphs as devout, staunch, traditional Catholic.
No doubt, they do so with pure intentions; presumably with the mistaken impression that it is only “good form” and an act of Christian charity, but it is imprudent nonetheless.
It would have sufficed to give mention to the many accomplishments for which Antonin Scalia deserves to be lauded, but regardless of their reasoning, a grave disservice has been done to those who are seeking truth.
Likewise are the innocent wounded when these ubiquitous claims concerning Scalia’s Catholicism are left unchallenged; not because the man should be posthumously tried – Our Blessed Lord alone can do that, and indeed He already has – but rather because this brand of misinformation represents a danger to souls.
At this, let’s take a closer look at the reality of the Scalia legacy.
In 2008, Justice Scalia was interviewed for the popular CBS program, 60 Minutes.
When asked about the connection between his “Catholicism” and his “judicial philosophy,” Scalia insisted:
It has nothing to do with how I decide cases. My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately.
Even the neo-conservatives must readily admit that this attitude doesn’t even come close to representing a model of devout Catholicism. There simply is no area of life, personal or professional, wherein one is justified in setting aside their Catholic faith and the objective truths that come to us from God through Holy Mother Church.
That Justice Scalia believed otherwise led him to some stunning conclusions. He went on to say in the very next sentence:
And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons…
The operative part of the Equal Protection Clause to which Justice Scalia referred says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws;” e.g., laws protecting citizens from dismemberment and murder.
The question Scalia was answering (even though his interlocutor never posed it) is simply this: Is an unborn human being a person?
To which he answered, No.
Now, if the late Justice had been asked:
Do you believe what the Church teaches in this case; namely, that human life begins at conception, that ensoulment takes place at that very moment, and the unborn human being is indeed a “person” whose life is entitled to every protection?
I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have answered, Yes, as a Catholic I believe this.
And yet I also have no doubt that he would have quickly followed up with the previously mentioned disclaimer: My Catholicism has nothing to do with how I decide cases; my job is to interpret the Constitution accurately.
You see, while Antonin Scalia presumably felt bound by the Divine Law as a Catholic, as a Supreme Court Justice, he considered himself duty bound to treat the Constitution and the voice of the people as if they were sovereign.
With respect to interpreting the Constitution, Scalia was a practitioner of textualist originalism.
In his magnificent book (which I cannot recommend highly enough), Liberty, the God That Failed, Christopher Ferrara notes:
Justice Scalia’s ‘textualist’ originalism seeks to discern the meaning of a given Constitutional provision, including the First Amendment, as it was ‘originally understood’ – literally the ‘18th-century meaning’ or ‘original public meaning’ of the text. This peculiar hermeneutic is as dubious as it is arbitrary. [Liberty, the God That Failed, pg. 572]
According to Mr. Ferrara, this approach is “arguably even worse than the ‘living constitution’ of the liberals” since the latter “at least allows for the possibility that someday the Court, departing from an eminently debatable ‘original’ meaning or intent, might actually be able to correct objective moral or theological errors.” [ibid. pgs. 572-573]
As it is, Justice Scalia was so steadfast in his commitment to the “original” meaning of a text drafted in large measure by anti-Catholic Protestants intent on establishing a State free of the burdensome demands of Christ the King as made known by the Church, that he would one day declare that “a helpless human being that’s still in the womb” is not a “person” to whom equal protection under the law is due; Constitutionally speaking, of course.
“Note well,” Mr. Ferrara observed, “Scalia, the Court’s most ‘conservative’ reader of the Constitution, says that the Framers made religious belief subject to general civil law.” [ibid. pg. 578]
In a review of a noteworthy freedom of religion case that came before the Court, Mr. Ferrara cites as evidence the majority opinion authored by Justice Scalia:
… chillingly, Scalia quotes the liberal Justice Frankfurter for this proposition: ‘The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.’ [ibid.]
Of those “political responsibilities” that supposedly trump “religious convictions” in the American “political society,” Mr. Ferrara went on to observe:
… in our Lockean polity, founded on the social compact theory, ‘the relevant concerns of a political society’ and ‘political responsibilities’ are not subject to the limitations of any absolute theological standard – the Constitution, after all, does not even mention God – so that the objects of civil law can be, and often are, at odds with the natural and divine law. [ibid.]
Scalia’s Catholic faith was, just as he plainly admitted, quite far removed from his sense of civic duty; so much so that he would even go so far as to say:
You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. [Address to students at the Oxford Union, video clip shown during 60 Minutes interview]
Devout, staunch, traditional Catholics cannot but vehemently disagree; a so-called “right” to abortion is a very serious problem; in fact, such a thing can never truly exist.
The fundamental problem here can be summed up no more concisely, nor more accurately, than the following uncritical assessment of Scalia’s judicial approach as set forth in an article by “conservative” Catholic law professor Helen M. Alvaré:
Justice Scalia was a man blessed with an extraordinary mind and education, but who insisted on remembering that the law comes from the bottom up, from the people, and not from the top down.
These words may sound familiar to those who have explored the circumstances leading up to the Second Vatican Council’s departure from tradition in Dignitatis Humanae.
In a 1950 memorandum to one Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI), John Courtney Murray, the Jesuit architect of the Declaration on Religious Freedom of Vatican II, set forth the reasons why he believed that the Catholic Church should adopt the American Constitutional pluralistic model.
In it, he paid lip service to the idea that the State’s rule must be in harmony with the law of God while insisting that this “must be achieved from the bottom up, by the layman acting under the guidance of his Christian conscience.”
What is this “bottom up” approach to State rule embraced by the Framers of the Constitution, Antonin Scalia, and John Courtney Murray alike?
Truly, it is nothing more glorious than a repudiation of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Having considered all of the above, perhaps it is now clear, if perhaps it wasn’t already, why I refuse to sit silent while even certain of my con frères imprudently shower Justice Scalia with epitaphs such as devout, staunch, traditional Catholic.
At this, it is necessary to address a very important question for those of us living in the United States:
Readers may recall that my previous post on Justice Scalia quotes the following oath taken by all of the Supreme Court Justices:
“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
This oath is also taken by members of Congress (House and Senate).
Officeholders in the various states, police officers and even lawyers are also required to similarly pledge fidelity to the U.S. Constitution.
As noted (most explicitly via the link provided above), said Constitution is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith on a number of points, as such, it is reasonable to ask:
How can a faithful Catholic go about participating in civil service; in particular, in any position that requires one to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution?
Before providing my own best attempt at an answer (surely not the best to be had anywhere), I think it bears mention that many Americans tend to think in terms of a “right” to hold a position of civil authority (Congressman, Senator, President, Supreme Court Justice, etc.), or at the very least, a right to seek such a position.
Properly speaking, however, this right isn’t absolute; rather, it is particular to our form of government.
Consider, for instance, that if an individual is living under a monarchy that provides no such right to attain to a position of civil authority, it cannot be said that this individual is being unjustly deprived of a God-given right.
With this in mind, if one was to conclude that, as a Catholic, it is not possible to take such an oath of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution in good conscience, and therefore not possible to take civil service positions that demand as much, it’s not a bona fide tragedy.
One may labor for a just society in any number of ways other than via a position of civil authority. In fact, all of us are obligated to do so regardless of our profession or the system of governance under which we live, and we have, therefore, a corresponding right to do so as well.
That said, I do believe that a Catholic may indeed take such an oath, but it’s important to realize that the pledge to uphold the Constitution is specific to the office one holds.
For instance, the police officer can very easily reconcile his professional duties under the Constitution with his Catholic faith. Likewise, it would seem to me, can the lawyer, the Senator, the state delegate, etc.
It further seems to me that the position of Supreme Court jurist is somewhat unique in that the “job” necessarily entails the task of determining what constitutes a just law according to a standard by which, as Christopher Ferrara pointed out, “the objects of civil law can be, and often are, at odds with the natural and divine law.”
In this case, an oath to do so “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” would seem untenable. Others may disagree.
Is there a case to be made for the morality of taking such an oath while secretly harboring reservations with the intention of one day using the influence of office to defend the divine law?
The truth is, very few of us will ever be faced with this prospect. If that day ever comes, it may be a good idea to consult with a trusted moral theologian. Until then, I’m not sure there is much point in laboring over it.
The bottom line is rather simple – anyone who must choose from the following, be it in the role of civil servant or otherwise, it is clear what must be done:
A) Affirm as a “right” that which is a clear offense against the Divine law as required by one’s job description.
B) Refuse to do so even upon pain of punishment.
As all devout Christians most certainly agree, we must reject the approach espoused by Antonin Scalia, the Catholic, in favor of the example set by Kim Davis, the Protestant.
Thoughtful piece, Louie. It really can be tough to be a Catholic but from what I hear it’s worth it in the long (very, very long) run.
I was a cop for over 20 years upon my recent retirement. I will never be able to justify certain things that took place over that time in my life. My regret is that I put earthly goals above the only True goal during that time….I didnt care about the Catholic Church until a few years ago and I was lost up to that point (and yes, I was always “Catholic” but what good is that in name only?). I will have to pay somehow for that and I sincerely hope that I will avoid hell, as we all should hope. These pieces by Louie regarding allegiance to America as opposed to allegiance to the True Church are very important.
Unlike Louie, I dont believe that one can be a true Catholic and a true police officer/lawyer (depending on where the police officer works and what type of law the lawyer practices). I was a big city police officer where crime and criminals were rampant.
Well, that does it. I’m not paying taxes – I’ll be damned if I’m complicit in this gangster enterprise. Louie – Bail me out???
Psalm CVII 13-14 O grant us help from trouble: vain is the help of man.
Through God we shall do mightily:and he will bring our enemies to nothing.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice.”
St Paul Epistle to the Romans 1:18
Men who detain the truth of God? Who could that be?
My favorite Chesterton quote: “You should know a person is Catholic by the way he climbs a tree.”
“…And you remember in particular what happened to the Count of Chambord. He was criticized for not accepting to be made king of France after the 1870 Revolution in France on the grounds of changing the French flag. But it was not so much a question of the flag. Rather, he refused to submit to the principles of the Revolution. He said, “I shall never consent to being the lawful King of the Revolution.” He was right! For he would have been voted in by the country, voted in by the French Parliament, but on condition he accept to be a Parliamentary King, and so accept the principles of the Revolution. He said “No. If I am to be King, I shall be King like my ancestors were, before the Revolution.” He was right. One has to choose. He chose to stay with the Pope, and with pre-Revolutionary principles.
We too have chosen to be Counter-revolutionary, to stay with the Syllabus, to be against the modern errors, to stay with Catholic Truth, to defend Catholic truth. We are right!” Archbishop Lefebvre
“We are not “free” in religious matters any more than we are free in moral questions; we do not have the right to follow whatever morality our conscience suggests; we do not have the right to follow whatever kind of faith conforms to our temperament and way of thinking. Faith and morals are imposed upon us by God, and Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. It is thus inadmissible to give the impression that all religions are equally good, that all moral teachings are equal.” +Lefebvre
“He must be the King of our intellects and of our thoughts because He is the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth, because He is God.
Is then Our Lord Jesus Christ truly King of our thoughts? Is it He who truly orients all of our thoughts, our reflections, our intellectual life, in the life of our Faith? Is it truly Our Lord Jesus Christ Who is the light of our intellects? Is He King of our wills?
He is the Law. If the Tablets of the Law were found in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, they represented precisely Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who today is found in our tabernacles. But today with a tremendous superiority have we the Law in our tabernacles, in our “arks of the covenant.” It is no longer the cold stones of the Old Testament but rather it is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself Who is the Law. The Word of God is the Law by Whom all has been made, in Whom all things have been created. He is the Law not only of souls, of minds, of wills, but He is the Law of all nature. All the laws which we discover in nature come from Our Lord Jesus Christ – come from the Word of God. It suffices to consider that all creatures follow with incomparable fidelity the laws of God, that they follow physical laws, chemical laws, and all the laws of vegetative nature, of animal nature. These laws are followed impeccably.
And we, too, must follow in a diligent manner, in a free manner, the laws of God inscribed in our hearts. It is precisely due to our liberty that we must attach ourselves to this law which is the path of our happiness, the way to eternal life.” +Lefebvre
“But you will not forget that opposed to the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ there is the reign of Satan. The reign of Satan has never perhaps been more extensive and penetrated everywhere into all domains as it has today. It surrounds us on all sides.What is the reign of Satan? The reign of Satan is the reign of scandal but scandal understood in its true sense understood in the sense of that which leads us to sin and, as a consequence, which leads us to HELL. That is scandal! Scandal is that which leads to sin, that which draws one into sin and indeed the reign of scandal is to be found in this world. Much is scandal around us, much is contrary to the law of God. Henceforth, in society, even the commandments of God are not only ignored but they are publicly and officially attacked. Laws are passed which are contrary to the law of God. All of this is legalized, officialized; the magistrates, the doctors are obliged to do some things which are contrary to the law of God, which are unjust, which are horrible, abominable! All of this in a time when one believes that our civilization has never been as great or as beautiful! On the contrary! This civilization bears the mark of SATAN and it bears the mark of HELL!
You will denounce these scandals in order to prevent them from leading souls to hell. You will not be afraid to denounce all that which drags souls into sin.
In order to have this courage and this force, you will ask these graces particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You know, my dear friends, Mary is our Mediatrix Mother. She is the Mediatrix of all graces.”
Wonderful quotes, thanks.
Teaching like Archbishop Lefebvre’s shows how we compromise in this world. We will obey God but not fully, not if the cost is too great, not if we feel we can serve better by a little tad of compromise. That’s the problem: when we will only follow Our Lord so far, we can tend to think the good we can do overshadows the compromise. Do we obey, letter and spirit, or do we ‘succeed’ by compromise even if some good appears to come from it?
It doesn’t work that way, unfortunately. Is it true that to serve in government one must necessarily compromise? I think it does mean just that. Could Justice Scalia have done great work for God in some strip-mall law office? Maybe. But his brilliance, and perhaps a bit of ambition, led him to rely on a flawed document, and a tradition of life built on that flawed document – he built his career on that.
Funny how Scalia was able to separate his two lives – private and public. Before we’re too hard on him let’s examine our lives and see that we’re there too, far too often.
It’s hard to find a flaw in Archbishop Lefebvre’s arguments. Do we compromise or not? No matter what the problems between the Vatican and the SSPX in their canonical status, what they say and do matches up perfectly with our beliefs and practices prior to Vatican II.
Lefebvre counselled no compromise and his followers are obeying that, and living it out, in the face of almost total opposition. What’s the lesson there? Obedience no matter what compromise is required? Or obedience to a Higher Authority and willingness to take the consequences?
The ‘turning to the world’ whatever the perceived good, has played out badly. Faith is an infused virtue, therefore we can pray for an increase and it will be given for ourselves and for those poor priests and bishops, and the pope, who have compromised, and weakened their Faith – the while thinking they are doing good.
These quotes are excellent and are much needed to hear. Thank you.
Excellent posting. Your pencil is indeed getting sharper and clearer by the day. Thank you so much for this much needed clarity of instruction on the constitution and the Social Kingship of Christ the King.
On a “constructive criticism note” though, I beleive that it is flirting with imprudence to hold Kim Davis as the hero in all this. She is a bad example of someone who could be counted on as knowing what God’s purpose and plan for marriage is. After all she is handing out state sanctioned marriage liscences under the name of “We the people” government who accept divorce, remarriage and contraception as a right in marriage laws and she has no problem with this. Ok so she gats all fired up when the government crosses her line and adds on same sex rights to the marriage laws and now requires her to accept these new add on rights to marriage. Sorry but this is inevitably where one ends up when they didn’t ever get fired up about divorce, remarriage and contraception as a false right in marriage.. She accepted to go by the all the previous “We the people” rules on marriage laws from the get go. God does not appear to be her guide in a complete knowledge on marriage. I would never vote for her.
Thanks Anastasia –
I’ve assigned far less credit to Kim Davis than your critique suggests. This post in no way anoints her a reliable source for complete knowledge on marriage or anything else.
She’s a heretic who provided a very specific example: She did the right thing when confronted with the choice between the divine law and the demands of her job. That’s it.
Anything more than that being read into this piece is coming from the reader, not me.
It is very difficult to be truly Catholic in every aspect when the man who is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ does not lead the way. Difficult, but not impossible. We have the untainted Deposit of Faith handed down to us by the Apostles, the example of the pre-Vatican II Saints, and the teachings of the Doctors of the Church. It is good to read the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre (no compromise there!) Kim Davis hit a home run in spite of the fact that she was on the wrong team.
Of all the trad blogs I read, none of them have said anything like this about Scalia. I find that really strange.
THis is another good post, but I’m also a little disappointed. I was hoping to find something here to answer my questions about the Remnant and Michael Matt. They have an interview with Scalia that makes it seem like “bottom up” and “soveriengty of the people” is traditional. It’s ridiculous.
Michael Matt even accused Louie of acting like Fr. Paul Nicholson for bringing Scalia’s anti-traditional views up. Christopher Ferrara obviously agrees with Louie. Is Michael Matt going to cut him out now?
And now the Remnant has Ann Barnhardt writing articles for them. If I recall, she said that the SSPX is Protestant even before Fr. Nicholson did.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who wants to know what’s up with them. I had brought some of this up in another post and I hope you don’t me pressing, Louie, but what are we supposed to make of all this? It’s getting harder every day to know who we can trust.
As Michael Voris says, you don’t get to Heaven by being a good American, you get there by being a good Catholic.
I think it was wise on Louie’s part to include words by Christopher Ferrara whose point is obviously in agreement with Louie’s. That IS perhaps “enough said”!?
Keep us updated on any reaction on FB, if there is any.
“It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.” —– Sister Lucia of Fatima.
She also said that the Rosary will be more efficacious than ever.
So we can pray for them (The Remnant staff), for Louie, for us all —– for final perseverance, that we stay the course —– and do whatever Our Lord requires of us for our own salvation.
And while we are praying for the repose of the soul of Justice Scalia, we can also pray for the conversion of Kim Davis to the “fullness of Truth” found only in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Sovereign King. —- All acts of charity which please Our Lord.
The 3 little shepherds of Fatima (and Louie) would concur, I’m sure.
Excellent explanation in the article. I would also like to commend the quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre from MaryIloveher and Barbara’s summation. I know it is off the topic but I watched this link on 40 Years of the SSPX, others may be interested too: http://youtu.be/Ecbmc2Bat9o
I’m confused by this article. I’ve always considered Scalia a pretty good role model as a Catholic and a judge and a man. I hold my mom in pretty high regard as well. It’s good to have role models – in this world and in Heaven.
But, given the corruption of the world and original sin, we all fall short. Still, we should all aspire to be noble men despite our failings and mistakes along the way. It seems to me that Scalia tried really hard to the best of his ability and succeeded for the most part.
Scalia’s legal pronouncements may not have always met the thomistic standards or the political standards or the rhetorical standards or the prudential standards or the religious standards as judged by some opining at the moment. Indeed, who among us always does? But I would argue that Nino, on the whole, moved himself and his family and his country towards the Truth despite the obstacles in this valley of tears.
We don’t have to canonize the guy, but golly – he did pretty good – a lot better than I can expect to do myself. It’s good to have role models.
I beleive you when you say that you do not as give her as much credit for being a relible source for the defense of marriage as my comments may insinuate. Thanks for pointing out that she is a heretic and that she is no reliable source for complete knowledge on marriage. I assume you mean to say that she did the right thing when it came to natural law on marriage being between a man and a woman. Please help me here if I am wrong but isn’t God’s law on divorce divine law. I am thinking that she does not stand behind defending this divine law on the permanency of marriage.
Look at who some of his close friends were. Lots of people and things look great on the surface but are not so nice once you dig a little.
It’s a trick of Satan to get traditional Catholics to fight each other instead of him, our common enemy.
PioNono, you are not getting much traction from your comments. There are differences but they are not basic ones. We must stand together and not become distracted by petty infighting.
Rich, that’s not the point. Who his friends, or more likely acquaintances, were in life given his exalted position is not as important to his rulings, speeches, and writings.
The Remnant is fading fast. Publishing Ann Barnhardt, who also has a completely opposite view than the Church when it comes to the jews, ( She thinks Catholics should be enamored with them and she loves the anti – christ state of israhell, unless she has changed her views very recently ) is something no real traditional Catholic publisher should do. She even trashed Ron Paul as an anti-Semite ! I’ll pass on Ann.
A true Catholic follows the Faith and Holy Mother Church’s traditional teachings. Saying ” My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately”, in dismissing his supposed Faith as his guide, is all too typical of most “Catholics”. Whatever Scalia believed, his allegiance was to an anti – catholic and anti- christ, judeo – masonic document ,not our LORD JESUS CHRIST who said: “you can’t serve two masters !”
Barbara of course its the point. If Im a great friend with a satanist I’m a good Catholic? Enough already with defending this sort of thought. Its wrong
This right here is the reason I usually avoid comment boxes. People love to argue for the sake of argument. This has nothing to do with what the article says.
Everyone already knows that Kim Davis has been divorced and remarried many times. She’s a protestant. You didn’t discover anything special. What are you trying to accomplish?
And what difference does it make if she thought she was defending natural law instead of divine law? She did the right thing.
Her statement seems to say that she had the divine law in mind anyway. Look it up.
Lets not forget USURY – the man had a mortgage
And our men-at-arms? All swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution…Young John Hitlers all, no doubt
On the contrary, PioNono, I am particularly interested in this information.
I do not want to waste my time with people who are not providing perfect Catholic truth. I have not visited The Remnant for any significant amount of time since you revealed the occurrences from Facebook.
This is CLEARLY a “Catholic” issue which Louie discusses here. Not many will understand it, but this issue distinguishes those who want solid TRUTH from those who are simply in it for the show. —- The Men from the Boys —– the Clarion Call, as Bishop Olmsted says in Louie’s next post.
We must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side and all the manifestly bad men on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is the good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.”
(Fr. Frederick Faber, Sermon for Pentecost Sunday, 1861; qtd. in Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World; underlining added.)
I think that it is important to Louie. I think that it is the reason he wrote with this follow-up post here.
Louie is making his point loud and clear. He is instructing the ignorant — a spiritual work of mercy.
We are not fighting. Louie is clarifying CATHOLIC truths.
From his fellow traditionalists (The Remnant, etc.) —–
He should be applauded, not admonished.
I’m reading Fr Faheys The Mystical Body Of Christ In The Modern World , first printed in March 1935, he certainly has this game plan down pat and his writings coroborate Myron C Fagans audio recordings . What I really appreciate is the fact that Fr Faheys book was written some eighteen years after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia so the reactions are current and he documents things in the real time that the events occurred before too many counter reactions from those who wish to deceive and distort. There are truly many accurate sources out there and while we cannot judge what’s in the heart of an individual, we most assuredly can judge their actions.
in defence of J. Scalia, I would underscore the fact that any temporal and earthly state is not of divine origin, whereas the Catholic Church is.
Even the 18th century Catholic philosopher Giambattista Vico, perhaps following St. Augustine, premised his philosophy of history on the remarkable difference between sacred history and secular history. Even Vico’s epistemology conformed to this difference as he entrenched the principle that man can only truly know what he has created (the “verum-factum” theory), which means that man can “know” the State, because man has created all the human institutions that comprise the State, and, unlike Descartes — Descartes who held that we cannot know with any certainty history and the liberal studies — Vico held that man can study and “know” the history of the nations because he has created all the institutions comprising and passing through that history. (Vico therefore attempted to preserve the study of history, politics and rhetoric, whereas the modernist political and social philosophers tended towards positivism.)
In other words, therefore, the constitution of the USA was founded by men and not God, and we can “know” with certainty what the founders intended. On the other hand, the Catholic Church was founded by God and not men, and, in essence, is a “mystery” now and will continue to be a “mystery” in heaven, although we will paradoxically, somehow, “see” God in heaven face to face.
Secondly, I would argue that J. Scalia swore his oath of supporting the constitution the way a Catholic ought to, that is he avoided breaking his oath and the charge of treachery — the way St. Thomas More did until his martyrdom. Treachery was the single most detested sin during the Christian Middle Ages, and that is why we see Dante in his Inferno placing Brutus, the murder of Caesar, right beside Judas, the betrayer of Christ, being chewed by Satan. That is also why the military crusaders justified the sack of Constantinople in 1204, notwithstanding the covetous designs of the Venetians and rebukes of Pope Innocent III.
Thank you, Alarico.
“As all devout Christians most certainly agree, we must reject the approach espoused by Antonin Scalia, the Catholic, in favor of the example set by Kim Davis, the Protestant.”
Kim Davis is currently employed in an office that is issuing wedding licenses to sodomites. So is her son (nepotism? –before that Kim worked for her mother). Kim has no problem being equal to a man although the Bible disagrees — and it is this assertion that men and women are equal which makes sodomite marriage inevitable (if 2 quarters=50 cent piece they are interchangeable (the same)). Kim has no problem issuing 2nd and third and fourth wedding licenses w/her name on it despite what the Bible states about divorce and remarriage. One doesn’t have to be married by a minister to obtain a license from Kim even though according to the Bible ‘what GOD has joined together let no man put asunder.’ Therefore to draw an arbitrary line around sodomite marriage (and note her son didn’t go to jail but issued the licenses while his mom was in jail) and then to continue to draw your $80,000 salary (same w/sonny) while the evil is committed just w/out your name on the license is not an example I would cite for “devout Christians” to follow.
“Licenses issued since Davis’ refusal state that they are authorized by “the office of the Rowan County Clerk” but no longer bear her name” [a rose by any other name would smell as sweet]
Suggest you read 2 Maccabees 7.
It also happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king to force them to eat pork in violation of God’s law. One of the brothers, speaking for the others, said: “What do you expect to learn by questioning us? We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors.” At that the king, in a fury, gave orders to have pans and caldrons heated.
These were quickly heated, and he gave the order to cut out the tongue of the one who had spoken for the others, to scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of his brothers and his mother looked on. When he was completely maimed but still breathing, the king ordered them to carry him to the fire and fry him. As a cloud of smoke spread from the pan, the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, with these words: “The Lord God is looking on and truly has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song, when he openly bore witness, saying, ‘And God will have compassion on his servants.’”
After the first brother had died in this manner, they brought the second to be made sport of. After tearing off the skin and hair of his head, they asked him, “Will you eat the pork rather than have your body tortured limb by limb?” Answering in the language of his ancestors, he said, “Never!” So he in turn suffered the same tortures as the first. With his last breath he said: “You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up* to live again forever, because we are dying for his laws.”
It goes on like that through all seven brothers and the mother…that’s devotion to God’s law — over eating PORK mind you.