My old pal Michael Voris recently had Dr. Alan Keyes on his Mic’d Up program to discuss the disillusionment of so-called “conservative” American voters, but the segment revealed something far more important than this…
My old pal Michael Voris recently had Dr. Alan Keyes on his Mic’d Up program to discuss the state of the Republican Party in the United States, and the disillusionment of so-called “conservative” voters.
In a “free” video clip provided by CMTV (presumably as an inducement to pay for access to the complete interview) Dr. Keyes, who is widely considered a “traditional Catholic,” described the deceptiveness of the Republican Party as follows:
VIDEO / DR. KEYES: “They have a platform, it sounds fine; it’s supposed to be pro-life and in other areas it’s supposed to respect the basic tenets of respect for unalienable rights, religious liberty, other things. But then, when push comes to shove, they are funding and passing and tolerating all the things that are breaking down the constraints that constitutionally should keep government from getting involved with the promotion of evil and injustice in our society…”
OK, let’s stop here. For the “traditionalist” – aka Catholic – a couple of red flags come into view:
First, Dr. Keyes speaks of religious liberty – meaning, the American pluralistic model, wherein the truth that comes to us from Jesus Christ through His Holy Catholic Church is treated by the government as if it is just one more opinion among many; an opinion of arguably no more value to society than the many falsehoods that are disseminated by the Muhammedans, the Wiccans, and the heathens.
Dr. Keyes speaks as if this brand of religious liberty somehow belongs in the same category as the right to life and “other unalienable rights” that are proper to the human person. His is a decidedly American view, but it also happens to be the view adopted by the Second Vatican Council in the document Dignitatis Huamane, which reminds me:
Back in the day, Voris had me on his program as well. In fact, the last time I was there in studio, as I recall, we discussed the Council’s stark departure from immutable Catholic tradition with respect to the matter of religious liberty, and Michael had no problem recognizing it and the dangers involved in placing false religions on the same level as the one true faith.
Don’t waste your time trying to find the video, even if you’re one of their “premium subscribers.”
This video, and many others like it, have all been deleted. Apparently, the traditional doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church is no longer welcome at CMTV; much less is anything that comes close to exposing the Council’s errors.
In other words, their viewers are being cheated – not out of truths that CMTV doesn’t know, but out of truths that are told only at a cost – a cost that CMTV isn’t willing to pay.
In any case, getting back to Dr. Keyes: He mentions “the constraints that constitutionally should keep government from getting involved with the promotion of evil and injustice in our society…”
Look, Michael Voris is a news man. I wonder if he asked Dr. Keyes the obvious question that this statement clearly invites; namely, exactly how does the Constitution of the United States in any way so constrain the government?
It’s an important question, especially for Americans; American Catholics in particular, and posed another way we might ask:
How does the U.S. Constitution go about defining “evil” and “injustice” so as to limit the government’s involvement in such things?
Now, I’m no Constitutional scholar like Dr. Alan Keyes, but I can tell you that government of the United States isn’t founded upon any such objective principle as these. To quote the Declaration of Independence, this nation is founded upon the idea that man enjoys certain “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Sounds so far so good, but then it goes on to say “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
In other words, in these United States, at least insofar as her founding documents are concerned, the power to define what is evil and what is good, what is unjust and what is just, belongs not to Jesus Christ who is truth incarnate, but to the people.
Dr. Keyes seems to understand, and even embrace the idea.
VIDEO / DR. KEYES: “As a result, the Republican Party has been of no use; it’s been worse than of no use, because it absorbs votes, but it doesn’t deliver what the people casting those votes believe is necessary for the country’s future…”
Let me make sure I have this straight. So, according to Dr. Keyes, the Republican Party is blameworthy for failing to do what the people casting votes believe to be necessary?
Seriously? How much further must society descend into the depths of depravity before neo-conservative American Catholics come to realize that it does not matter one whit what the people casting votes believe to be necessary for the country’s future …
What really matters is what Our Blessed Lord knows to be necessary for a just society wherein men are capable of attaining toward the end for which they were created.
Now, on this note, oddly enough, Dr. Keyes wouldn’t seem to disagree.
VIDEO / DR. KEYES: “That is why the prudent Jesus Christ, the wise Jesus Christ told us to look to God’s not to some relative imperfection of human beings to determine what we should be working for when it comes to justice, because that’s the key thing … You’ve gotta consult the standard of God and then do what is right by God, and if you don’t, you’re going to progressively go farther and farther down the path toward evil, which is what is happening in our politics.”
There’s a glaring contradiction here.
On the one hand, Dr. Keyes speaks as if the Republican Party is failing us because it isn’t carrying out the desires of the electorate.
On the other hand, he says that we must look not to the imperfections of human beings for guidance in our civil affairs, but rather to the standard of God as he calls it.
So, which is it? Are we to be guided by the whims of the electorate, or by the standard of God?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I take Dr. Keyes at his word that, as a so-called “traditional Catholic” he recognizes the primacy of God’s standard, but what this illustrates very well is the degree to which the defender of the U.S. Constitution, and would-be traditional Catholic, is a person conflicted.
So much so, in fact, that one cannot be both.
The question that needs to be asked here is obvious: How do both voters and elected officials come to know the standard of God?
To use Dr. Keyes words – the prudent Jesus Christ, the wise Jesus Christ established a Church; He established the Holy Catholic Church, and invested it with the authority to teach in His name.
But according to the Constitution – this Church, her teachings, and her followers, deserve no more consideration than any other constituency.
That means we have a choice folks: Either we can be true soldiers for Christ in the Church Militant as traditional Catholic defenders of immutable truth, or we can be defenders of the U.S. Constitution and by extension the Second Vatican Council.
Make no mistake about it; you cannot be both.
A few weeks ago, I made the same case with respect to Justice Antonin Scalia given that obituaries were widely hailing him as a “staunch traditional Catholic defender of the Constitution.”
Setting the record straight and pointing out the glaring contradiction in this case invited the criticism of certain self–described “traditional” Catholic media members who whined about how insensitive it was to speak the truth so soon after Scalia’s death – as if it charity somehow demanded that we who know better sit back and allow unsuspecting readers to be deceived, at least until some undefined waiting period has passed presumably.
Well, perhaps you’ve noticed: Antonin Scalia died over a month ago, and yet, these whiners who pose as dependable defenders of Catholic tradition have remained silent; content to allow the lie that one can be both a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution and a devout traditional Catholic to go unchallenged.
One wonders, why is that? Is it because they aren’t willing to upset their readers with the truth, or is it because they don’t accept it themselves?
Only they can say, but either way, the lesson is clear:
When it comes to so-called “traditional” Catholic media outlets, be careful what you watch, what you read and who you support. Scrutinize everything.
Clearly, there are those who pose as “defenders of tradition” whose priorities lie not so much in building the Kingdom of Christ as in building their own little brand.
Who are the ” self–described “traditional” Catholic media members ” remaining silent?
“…..what this illustrates very well is the degree to which the defender of the U.S. Constitution, and would-be traditional Catholic, is a person conflicted.
So much so, in fact, that one cannot be both.”
ONE CANNOT BE BOTH!
Semantics. Semantics. Whoever wins the “war of words” ….. WINS.
“The vocabulary follows the change of ideas.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Archbishop Lefebvre page 26)
These so-called traditionalists are a large part of the problem when they do not recognize the importance of words. You have once again gone above and beyond to search carefully and systematically (not just accepting what Voris and Keyes presented to be true) in order to inform your readers of the Catholic truth with clarity and charity.
Thank you once again, Louie.
If you can’t see that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans by now, maybe you never will. If Trump is the nominee I will vote for him. I will not vote for anyone else. He who is not with me is against me.
“Now, I’m no Constitutional scholar like Dr. Alan Keyes, but I can tell you that government of the United States isn’t founded upon any such objective principle as these. To quote the Declaration of Independence, this nation is founded upon the idea that man enjoys certain ‘unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'”
Actually, there are other interpretations. The Declaration originally was a non-binding propaganda document to impress the French to aid the revolutionaries. The original compact, the Articles of Confederation, was a non-binding agreement among the 13 colonies, most of whose original constitutions or charters included mentions of God.
For example, the 1662 Colonial Charter of Connecticut, operative until 1818, read: “Our said People Inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably and civilly governed, as their good life and orderly Conversation may win and invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and obedience of the only true GOD, and the Saviour of Mankind, and of the Christian Faith, which in Our Royal Intentions, and the adventurers free Possession, is the only and principle End of this Plantation.”
Right on, brother! Saying like it is once again. I hope and pray for your continued fortitude and perseverance. Thanks for clearly pointing out the simple Truth which is right before our eyes, yet all to often clouded in our minds, especially here in The U.S.A. :
CHRIST IS KING! !
Wow, that felt good. Now remind me again next week.
“Clearly, there are those who pose as “defenders of tradition” whose priorities lie not so much in building the Kingdom of Christ as in building their own little brand.”
Es tu Brutus: vide your recent posts on Fellay, Sisco & Salsa, SSPX (which seems to be your own “little brand” — hopefully not in hell).
Ha ! You might want to brush up on your history. The SSPX single handedly preserved the link with Tradition. The SSPX continues to preserve the link with Tradition. Looking for a Catholic Bishop, look no further than the SSPX. Looking for a group that rejects Vatican II and the new mass, it’s not the FSSP.
Christ The King:
ALL glory, praise, and honor
to Thee, Redeemer, King,
to whom the lips of children
made sweet Hosannas ring.
R. All glory…
Thou art the King of Israel,
Thou David’s royal Son,
Who in the Lord’s Name comest.
the King and blessed One.
R. All glory …
The company of Angels
are praislng Thee on high,
and mortal men and all things
created make reply.
The people of the Hebrews
with palms before Thee went;
our pralse and prayer and anthems
before Thee we present.
R. All glory…
To Thee before Thy Passion
they sang their hymns of praise;
to Thee now high exalted
our melody we raise.
R. All glory…
Thou didst accept their praises,
accept the prayers we bring,
Who in all good delightest,
Thou good and gracious King.
R. All glory…
Hail Redeemer, King Divine
Hail Redeemer King divine!
Priest and Lamb, the throne is thine,
King, whose reign shall never cease,
Prince of everlasting peace.
Angels, saints and nations sing
“Praised be Jesus Christ, our King;
Lord of life, earth sky and sea,
King of love on Calvary.”
King, whose name creation thrills
Rule our minds, our hearts our wills
Till in peace each nation rings
With thy praises, King of Kings. (to chorus…)
King most holy, King of Truth,
Guide the lowly, guide the youth
Christ thou King of glory bright
Be to us eternal light.(to chorus…)
Shepherd King, o’er mountains steep
Homeward bring the wandering sheep;
Shelter in one royal fold
States and kingdoms, new and old. (to chorus…)
“Man The King” stuff:
Quotes from Pope Paul VI:
“Man, this atom in the universe, of what is he not capable!
“Honour to man;
“Honour to his thought; honour to his scientific knowledge;
“Honour to his technical skill; honour to his work;
“Honour to human daring;
“Honour to that combination of scientific activity and organisation whereby man, unlike the other animals, can invest his spirit and manual dexterity with the instruments of conquest;
“Honour to man, king of the earth and today prince of the heavens;
“Honour to the living being that we are, wherein is reflected the image of God and which, in its dominion over things, obeys the biblical command: increase and rule.”
Pope Paul VI, February, 1971 (landing on the moon)
“ This is the finest aspect of the United Nations Organisation, this is what gives it its most genuinely human guise, this is the ideal that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history. We would venture to call it the world’s greatest hope, for it is the reflection of God’s design – a design transcendent and full of love – for the progress of human society on earth, a reflection in which We can see the gospel message, something from heaven come down to earth.”
Address to the U.N.
“The Conciliar Church has also, it is true, been much concerned with man, with man as he really is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself, with man who not only makes himself the centre of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the end and aim of all existence…
Secular, profane, humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible shape and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against a religion – for there is such a one – of man who makes himself God. And what happened? An impact, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the Council’s spirituality. It was filled only with an endless sympathy. Its attention was taken up with the discovery of human needs – which become greater as the son of the earth makes himself greater…
Do you at least recognise this its merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism: we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man”
Pope Paul VI December 7, 1965, address to the Council
“Yes, Peace is a gift of God, and presupposes the intervention of His action which is so good, so full of mercy, and so mysterious. But it is not necessarily a miraculous gift; it is a gift which accomplishes its wonders within the secret of men’s hearts; a gift which requires their free acceptance and their free co-operation. And therefore, after having addressed Our prayer to Heaven, we now address it to all men throughout the world:
“Men, make yourselves worthy of the divine gift of Peace.
Men, be men.
Men, be good, be wise, be open to the interests of the general well-being of the world.
Men, be generous…
Men, begin to come closer to one another in your desire to build a new world.
Yes, a world of true men which can never come about without the sun of God upon its horizon.”
Pope Paul VI, Fatima, May 13, 1967
More “Man the King” stuff from Pope John Paul II:
“Christ is king in the sense that in Him, in the testimony He rendered to the truth, is made manifest the ‘ kingship ’ of every human being, the expression of every person’s transcendent character. Such is the Church’s proper inheritance. ”
“Here we have before us the Christ in the truth of His kingship. Pilate says: ‘ Behold the Man. ’ Precisely. All the kingship of man, all man’s dignity, which Jesus Christ came to express and renew, are here summed up in Him. Now it is well known that this is a kingdom that is frequently overpowered, thrown to the ground and thrust deep into the mud. It is also well known that this is a dignity that is subjected to every kind of humiliation. We are reminded by the Second Vatican Council (cf. Lumen Gentium 9, 10, 26, 31, 36) that Jesus came in order to reveal the kingship of man, and here He is confronting humanity, crowned with thorns! Man’s kingship is redeemed and his dignity is paid for, all by the blood of the Son of God ”. (Le signe de contradiction, p. 107) Pope John Paul II
“It is a fact that Vatican II sees in human praxis a manifestation of the kingly character of man, of his dominion over the earth, nature and the world. These two terms belong to the Christian biblical gospel vocabulary” … JPII
“It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy…”
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, 1960
“We must make up our minds if we too want to collaborate in the destruction of the Church and in the ruin of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, or are we resolved to continue working for the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? ”
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
“Who uncrowned him. Who? Who did the uncrowning and who was uncrowned? Who was uncrowned? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who uncrowned him? The authorities in Rome today. And the uncrowning shows in a very clear way in the Assisi ceremony. Jesus Christ is uncrowned. He is no longer King. Universal King, the king we proclaim in our liturgy from Christmas through to His Ascension. All the liturgical feasts proclaim the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. From end to end of the Liturgical year we chant: King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now instead of extolling the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, here they are instituting a Pantheon of all religions. And just as it was the Roman authorities, or pagan emperors, who built the pagan Pantheon then, so to the pagan Pantheon of today, the meeting place of all religions, is being constructed by the church authorities of Rome! What an immense scandal for souls, for Catholics who already question the universal kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
Archbishop Lefebvre 1987
I believe the underlying erroneous belief Mr. Keyes has, and many constitutionalists have, is that the “people” are responsible for carrying out God’s will, and it is at their discretion to interpret/figure out what God’s “standard” would be. The underlying premise always being that the “people” would be of some Christian orientation. However this entire mindset is protestant in its perspective, namely that man as an individual has the right and responsibility to ascertain what God wants, irrespective of the one true Catholic Church Christ instituted. Just as what now passes as “Catholicism” as understood in our wider secular society has eroded into primarily a form of Protestantism, this is the type of “catholic” you are going to get. To Mr. Keyes, I am sure those things are not contradictory at all, we the people supposedly have the right and responsibility to ensure we figure our and promote God’s will – and the Republican party, to him, is not listening to the voting Christians who are supposedly the ones doing the interpreting, and, presumably, are still in the majority.
Very Good point – thank you for the article!
Traditionally you dont disobey the pope.
Trump is as wrong as two boys kissing.
There is such little difference between Hillary and Teflon Don that it makes voting in December pointless, a waste of petrol. Both are equally morally bankrupt.
Thy Will be done.
The U.S. Constitution may be (and rightly is) interpreted according to the Natural Law, that is objectively true and comes from God, the author of our natural reason, and all.
Actually, recognizing but resisting a pope who teaches error or attempts to harm the Church has always been the Catholic way. Granted, such things are not seen in *normal* times, but that’s not of what we’re speaking.
Here are a few things:
Sedevacantists like the papal bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio because they think it justifies their position. However, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio speaks of *valid popes*: “the Roman Pontiff… who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the faith”. Here we have a veritable R&R proof-text, don’t we? We have a Supreme Pontiff telling us in a papal bull no less that the faithful should, indeed, “contradict” (resist) a pope who has “deviated from the faith”. Implicit in the statement is the notion that human beings must be willing to use their intellects to determine what is congruent with the defined, infallible Faith and what is not. (He is to be resisted, but certainly there no justification for declaring him deposed.)
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from De Membris Ecclesiae, as quoted in True Or False Pope, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope).
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, *the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings*” (Cited by Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, as quoted in True or False Pope, pp 647, emphasis mine).
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists themselves to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
Of course, there are many more such quotations, from theologians including Aquinas, that could be brought to bear.
These teachings of the theologians and papal Magisterium are congruent with what the Magisterium teaching about itself, in that it is the Deposit of Faith that is the primary rule of faith, with the Magisterium secondary. The secondary Rule cannot contradict the primary without losing its essence and validity. Aquinas: “We believe the successors of the apostles only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings” (De Veritate, as quotes in True or False Pope, pp 648). Aquinas points out that it is the virtue of Faith that allows Catholics to sense error – Catholics have the blessing of the Church as Mother and Teacher, but, especially in abnormal times, no Catholic can leave himself without the benefit of both his intellect and the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost.
I remember when Michael Voris based the SSPX being in Schism on the basis of not accepting all of Vatican II.
He is a Novus Ordite Catholic. His ChurchMillitant.com actually proclaimed “Amoris Laetitia” as a thoroughly orthodox document as soon as the Exhortation came out, then pulled it down.
Dignitatis Humanae, which helped spread the current False Ecumenism as well as the Dearth of Conversions to The Catholic Church, well Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre disagreed with this.
Voris is a VII Catholic and Poseur.