What to Do About Pedophile Priests

M. Williams

Pope Alexander VI
Alexander VI, who it is fashionable to criticise when mentioning the excesses of the Renaissance, may indeed have kept wives and had illegitimate children, even while he was Pope. In spite of his alleged impurities however (even if they were true) I would still prefer a man like him serving as Pope, and men like him as priests and bishops, if it were a choice between men like him and the legions of homosexuals and pedophiles to be found in the Novus Ordo Church today. For in spite of the impurities of Alexander VI, never has it been said that he was a homosexual and never has it been said that he was a pedophile.  

Put another way, I told a friend with only a little sarcasm: "Alexander VI may have had illegitimate children, but at least he wasn't gay!"
 
Indeed, if hypothetically the only people available for positions in the Hierarchy were sexually immoral, I would certainly prefer the lesser of two evils, viz., those with normal inclinations to women, rather than sodomites. While it is absolutely necessary that priests and bishops who commit "normal" sexual sins -- with a woman or an image -- should be punished, there should be an especially greater and more severe punishment for pedophiles and sodomites in the clergy.

Put them to death


Although most people will not admit it, especially after the latest change to the catechism of the Vatican II sect, the death penalty is the proper, just and entirely proportionate punishment for those who commit sodomy, lay or clerical. A constitution of Pope-Saint Pius V specifically ordered the State to use the death penalty for sodomy, for both clergy and laity:
If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees.
It is interesting to note, as an aside, that marital sodomy -- a practiced condemned by Catholic morals -- would also apparently fit in this category. Sodomy of all forms is worthy of the death penalty.

It is also quite interesting that the recent change to the Vatican catechism forbidding the death penalty comes nearly parallel to the exposure of widespread homosexuality and pedophilia in the Catholic Church.

In the same way that frequent religious exercises -- prayer, daily Mass, holy Communion, private devotions -- lead to higher and higher degrees of sanctity, so too does frequent sin lead to higher and higher levels of depravity. Thus, a "small" sin against chastity can lead to a larger one. In time, due to curiosity and dissatisfaction with more "common" sexual sins, more extreme actions will be taken. From heterosexual sexual immorality, very often will come homosexuality. From homosexuality comes, in the course of time at least, pedophilia. 
 
This is also quite obvious, for a man -- a priest -- will not abuse a young boy unless the man is also a homosexual. And if he is not a homosexual by the time he commits the abuse, he most certainly is a homosexual afterwards, for obvious reasons.

Restoring Christian civilisation will help end the homosexual crisis


There are two things left to consider. 
 
First, who is responsible for this crisis of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, the truth of which is confirmed again by the recent admissions. The blame lies with many: those Popes who surrendered the Papal monarchy to Freemasonic republics, effectively preventing any exercise of the death penalty on sodomy anymore -- these include Pope Pius IX, who surrendered the city of Rome effectively without a fight, rather than accepting the crown of martyrdom; Leo XIII who legitimised the Freemasonic French Republic, and above all Pius XI who surrendered Papal claims of temporal authority over northern Italy. This is more important than one realises, for this has effectively ruled out the re-establishment of the Papal States for the foreseeable future. It means that there will be no death penalty, at least executed by the Church, for pedophile priests and laity. There are others responsible, of course, and with far greater culpability: Pope Paul VI, for example, who liberalised the standards of admission for Catholic seminaries, which led to an explosion of homosexuality in the priesthood, and a commensurate increase in pedophilia. The Popes that succeeded Paul VI -- who himself may have been a secret homosexual -- have done little to stop the homosexual crisis. Undoubtedly, current or former Popes have knowingly conspired to help pedophiles, and may have even been pedophiles themselves.

Second, what must be done in the future now that this has happened? The first is the restoration of a truly Christian civilisation. This will be done in time, as Our Lady has predicted, but in the meantime, Catholic states have the right and the duty to prosecute homosexuals and pedophiles. Those that commit the act of sodomy should be given a fair trial, and if found guilty, sentenced to death, perhaps by particularly painful means, in order that the suffering help to remit future temporal punishments. Perhaps the death penalty for (repentant) sodomites could include a plenary indulgence. 
 
These are just some of my thoughts on the recent crisis of pedophilia and homosexuality.
Posted 14 August 2018

Zeal and Knowledge, We Have Both

M. Williams

I will make the setting as clear to your mind as possible: imagine that it is last week; at a reception following the ordination Mass of four new Catholic priests, and your author is mingling with different people in a crowded Church hall. I notice a group of brothers, whose names and Order I will obviously omit. Having questions on their view on Extra Ecclesium nulla salus, I approach one of them. "Hello, brother," I say. "Would you explain your opinion on the so-called 'Feeneyite' position to me, being uninformed and undecided on this topic?" At length we discuss this, and he gives his opinion to me satisfactorily. And then we discuss ourselves, our families, how we both came into the Catholic Church, etc. One person casually mentions my work for Reign of Mary, being Website editor for this important apostolate.

The brother, apparently unaware of the orthodoxy of Reign of Mary, appears to assume I'm another Novus Ordo conservative, even though I had already stressed my total opposition to the heresies of Vatican II. "For such a young convert as yourself," he says, and on hearing this I wince, knowing what perverse logic is to follow, "religious orders will not accept any form of writing. You must spend your time studying rather than writing. New converts often have zeal without knowledge," -- in other words, the usual. It is nothing I haven't already heard before. Of course, I didn't contradict the brother, politely listening as he insinuated I was interested in a religious vocation where I would take vows of obedience to prelates of the [c]hurch of the New Advent (as Pope John Paul II called the catholic church in Redemptor Hominis No. 20).

A "new convert"


The implication behind the brother's logic is this: "You are a new convert, therefore you are unqualified to write on religious topics." This is a non sequitur. Although the vast majority of new converts today are indeed unqualified to write on religious topics, the vast majority of people also have no interest in theology, much less writing about it. This is an unfortunate product of our materialistic age.

The only people "scandalised" by our articles
are "pearl-clutchers" like the woman above,
always looking to be offende
It is unfortunate that I have to answer the brother's claim, but since others have also made this claim, I will simply say that I've spent a great deal of time reading and studying, contrary to what the brother implied. If I should ever or have ever written anything explicitly contrary to the Catholic faith (this is hard to believe, though, and has never been shown), I would happily retract. But since I have not, and since my readership are people who want to read my materials and aren't afraid about being "scandalised", the objections to my writing articles and to Reign of Mary are foolish to say the least. Indeed, this unreasonable request -- to spend many more years in nebulous "studies" -- would be just as absurd as expecting me to have mastered algebra and calculus before I could teach a child how to add or subtract.

Although it comes from Sacred Scripture, the "zeal without knowledge" rhetorical attack has been so misused (and overused) that it becomes almost like a platitude, similar to lines like, "Judge not, that you may not be judged" and "Love thy neighbour". It isn't the first time I've been accused of this, and it isn't the last. 

Reign of Mary fulfills an important purpose


Furthermore, it would be rash and insulting to say what the brother also implied: that Reign of Mary is superfluous. "We have no need of more 'blogs' and articles," he might have said. "There are already plenty of other Web sites that are approved by the Church." However nice this is in theory, the reality is that Reign of Mary fulfills an important purpose. We write on issues that other Web sites ("approved by the Church") refuse to discuss. We do not mince words. We do what others refuse or are afraid to do.
The latest claim: Criticising Vatican II is "scandalous"
The brother and I, of course, hadn't finished talking. I brought up Bishop Williamson and the Society of St. Pius X. "We prefer not to give our opinion on each and every topic," he said, and yet he had no qualms in saying, almost with urgency or from a script: "What matters is that the Gospel is preached. Talking about Vatican II or the New Mass from the pulpit will just scandalise people." As some of his fellow brothers approached, joining the group, I broached the subject to them as well, and they near-verbatim echoed his party line. "But of course, Vatican II contains material heresy," I replied politely. They didn't seem to see the logic in what followed: "So, in that case," I had said, "we have to reject all the Vatican II documents." The discussion never really got any further than this. And needless to say, if I ever even considered joining a religious community, as the brother implied, it wouldn't be a group remotely similar to this one... (I'll just note in passing that this particular religious order has friendly ties with the non-Catholic "Counter-Revolution" organisation, which explains a lot)

The truth is that progressivists and conservatives are afraid of pages like Reign of Mary. They know that by using simple logic and the clear teachings of the Church, we overthrow this new Gnostic religion, demolishing the entire heretical Vatican II system over and over again. Vatican II has been a big pile of rubble for over 50 years, it appeared to be an orderly structure only for a very short time. It is a creaky, rotten wooden house that fell down simply by kicking the door in. It is on this hill of rubble that the aging progressivist prelates have chosen to die; ignoring the cause of the false Council is lost, some conservatives have joined them in quasi-suicide; their battle-cry is "Hermeneutic of continuity!", but their battle is lost before it even begins.

Posted 7 August 2018

Echoes of Feminism in "American Catholic Etiquette" (1962)

M. Williams

A Reign of Mary book review 
of American Catholic Etiquette by Kay Toy Fenner
Newman Press, 1962, 402 pp.



Plenty of good advice, with sprinklings of progressivism
More and more traditionalists are realising the Crisis in the Church didn't begin in 1958 with the death of the "conservative" Pope Pius XII. To believe otherwise is to sacrifice the Militant character of the Catholic Church -- for the truth is that the Crisis in which we presently suffer, the Modernist Progressivist Crisis, has been creeping into the Catholic Church for over a hundred years. Thus, it is not automatically safe to assume a "pre-Vatican II" book will be acceptable reading. This is why I am writing about a particular book that might gain popularity among traditional Catholics today. It is called American Catholic Etiquette, published in 1962 and written by a woman named Kay Toy Fenner. While I must stress this book contains much useful advice, there are sprinklings of feminism -- likely a by-product of the 1960s mentality -- that have to be addressed.

I first heard about American Catholic Etiquette on Tradition in Action's article entitled "Courtesy: An Essential Element of the Catholic Home", and having heard much good about the book from another friend, I purchased it. It is no longer in print today, hence it is somewhat costly -- about $45 for my copy. To me, however, this was a good sign: after all, I reasoned, a book no longer in print, with a traditional-looking cover design, and frequently cited by Tradition in Action would be worth reading. When the book arrived in the mail, I was impressed and eagerly set about reading it. I had already read portions of it on-line, and everything I had read so far seemed orthodox. 

On closer inspection, however, I noticed some serious issues with this book which I address here.

Fenner, the feminist


The first noticeable problem with American Catholic Etiquette is the mentality of its author, who describes herself in a biographical note on the back cover (emphasis mine):
Kay Toy Fenner's busy life as a newspaper woman, magazine writer, wife, and mother includes such varied interests as gourmet cooking, local history, and child guidance. Her ambition is to "always have more plans for the future than time to fulfill them."
A picture of Fenner in the book
It seems inappropriate for the author of a book on Catholic etiquette to describe herself as a "newspaper woman" and "magazine writer" before "wife" and "mother". In charity, we should assume that Fenner (whose two children were married at the time of publishing) didn't engage in career pursuits until after her children were grown. However, there is no proof of this. Owing to her other credentials mentioned in the note, such as graduating first in her college class and receiving a Pulitzer scholarship, it seems obvious that Fenner accepted the notion of "Working mothers", and likely was one herself. Perhaps this apparent neglect of family life explains why obituary information for Mrs. Fenner cannot be found online. 

However, I would not dare to criticise Mrs. Fenner -- a skilled writer -- for this one particular point, unless it was supported by additional evidence, of which there is plenty.

Marriage proposals


Fenner's extensive chapters on Engagement and Marriage are useful and interesting. Indeed, they make up the bulk of the book, and in my research, it appears to be Mrs. Fenner's area of expertise. So, you can imagine my surprise when I read Mrs. Fenner's very unorthodox view of marriage proposals:
In present-day America, an engagement is more solely the concern of the contracting parties than in any other country in any age. A young man often proposes and is at least tentatively accepted without either family's being consulted. Thereafter the young people sometimes announce it to their families as a settled thing, without any permission being asked or given.

The more old-fashioned way is the better one. Let the young man tell his family in advance that he intends to propose, and what his marriage plans are. Let him listen to his parents' opinions in the matter, especially if they know the girl .He may not--indeed, if he is of age, he need not-- take their advice, but she should hear it, and try to weigh it dispassionately.

After proposing and being accepted, he should then call formally on his fiancée's father and ask his consent to the marriage. He should tell him what his present financial status is [etc].
Read the entire quote and the contradiction is apparent: Fenner appears to approve of the "mutual consent" being "more solely" the means by which a couple is engaged. Then she appears to contradict herself, saying "the old-fashioned way is the best". Then she contradicts herself a second time! Do you notice the problem? Fenner says it is proper to seek the approval for marriage after the proposal. This is plainly wrong. Traditional Catholic teaching, however offensive to modern ears, says that fathers have a quasi-"ownership" (though not precisely this term is used) over their daughters. This is why, during weddings, fathers escort their daughter down the aisle, give their daughter a blessing, and then give her hand to her husband-to-be at the altar. It represents a transfer of "ownership", although perhaps the more proper term would be "protectorship", for as with bad husbands and fathers, wives and daughters have rights under the Church to protect themselves when their fathers and spouses refuse to do so.

This is also the reason why the father's permission is required if there is to be any lawful familiarity -- courtship -- between a daughter and a young man exceeding normal acquaintanceship and friendliness. In traditional Catholic morality, when it comes to courtship and marriage, fathers reign supreme, and rightly so. But Fenner, even living in the supposedly "conservative" pre-Vatican II times, embodies and approves just the opposite: liberty, emancipation, mutual consent. This one line -- essentially an endorsement of feminism --, which somehow received an imprimatur and a nihil obstat, is enough to condemn the entire book and place it on the Index. Unfortunately, the "smoke of Satan" had already entered the Catholic Church, so of course it never happened, and this book is still being paraded around today.

I believe this is sufficient proof that Fenner accepted a (albeit less radical) form of feminism that is nevertheless unacceptable to Catholic morals in every respect. This also explains Fenner's unusual choice to describe herself as a career woman before a wife and mother, in her list of traits on the biographical note.

Fenner promotes excessive familiarity (above) between the unmarried

More misguided teaching


It should not come as a surprise, then, that Fenner's views on marriage -- essentially a question of mutual consent, without much care for the opinion of the families -- would also affect her views on courtship and "dating". Now it is important to reiterate that courtship and dating are two separate things, the first is acceptable under the norms of Catholic morals, the second has to be condemned. Fenner herself doesn't seem to realise this, for although I basically skimmed through this book and focused on the parts I deemed important, I read the sections on "dating" as carefully as I had read the sections on marriage, and there are several points in which traditional Catholic teaching are violated. This is actually proven by Fenner's admission: "Much dating is casual and brief, and does not lead to marriage, just to fun and learning about other people."

This is false. Dating is wrong because it has as its intention the pleasure of the company of the other person. There is no end-goal for marriage, or if it exists it is only vague. Courtship, on the other hand, (which is approved by the Church as the correct path towards marriage) when begun with the approval of the young woman's father, has clear goals: marriage is the end, and the object of "dates" during this time is to see if the two are compatible for marriage. 

Thus, Mrs. Fenner's suggestions for how "teens" should "date" are at best a moot point. At worst, it is bad advice. "Teens" are not old enough to get married under the present legal circumstances, although there is nothing inherently evil about it, no more so than arranged marriages. It is pointless for "teens" to "date" others even with the intention of getting married, if the young man in the relationship is not financially and morally stable. The chapters on dating -- the mannerisms expected, etc -- could only apply to various outings which might occur during courtship, but even then, one-on-one activities are not appropriate until engagement, and even then with great prudence.

Although I've already said much, this is actually just the beginning of Fenner's problematic book. On page 368, Fenner allows for mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics, and gives the reasons for this. "It's unfair," Fenner actually says the word! --, "to non-Catholics. [That they should not be allowed to date Catholics] Thousands of them are mature enough, reasonable, fair-minded, honorable enough, to make and keep the promises required of them if they wish to marry in the Church."

"The Working Wife"


Working wives pave the way for...
As is to be expected by now, Fenner also tacitly approves of working wives. In a section titled "The Working Wife", Fenner lays down her belief that "to work or not to work is a decision one rightfully makes for oneself". "[T]housands of wives work outside the home," Fenner argues. "Mother may be working to help buy a home, a car, a summer camp, a boat or some other advantage for the whole family. To do so she must carry an extra-heavy work load, and Father and the older children must take over some of her family responsibilities, thus increasing their work load." Although Fenner admits "only a woman with superb health should attempt it", she is clear that this is the woman's choice.
It is obvious Fenner would adopt this line of reasoning, given that she was a "working wife" herself, and she could not openly criticise working mothers. Even if she actually disapproved of the practice (and she appears to disapprove it in principle), she seems to accept it in some kind of moral expediency, in the same way that many Vatican II catholics justify outings to stores and restaurants on Sundays and holy days. 

It is good that Fenner writes, "They [families] should set up a budget in which all ordinary expenses [...] are geared solely to the husband's income." This is correct, but like her faulty logic in dating and marriage, she contradicts herself here just a few sentences prior when she says "[T]housands of wives work outside the home. Many are the sole support [!] of their famlies [sic] ...". In other words, Fenner's position on this matter is unclear, typical of the contradictory, ambiguous mentality of 1960s Catholics that produced the rubbish Vatican II documents.


A revolutionary book


Some might say -- "you go to far. You expect perfection from Catholic books, but this is not practical." Although I do not expect lay authors to be perfect (although it shouldn't be much to expect), I certainly demand freedom from error in the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat which is given to this book. Clearly, however, this book is full of moral errors, and it is disgraceful that it is presented as being "free from error" when it is not. The Imprimatur and Nihil obstat must therefore be considered doubtful pending a future canonical investigation.

Yes, American Catholic Etiquette is a very faulty book on closer examination. Despite the good-looking cover and the flawless credentials of the author, this is a book that is in need of serious revision. I cannot recommend this book in its entirety, and as such I cannot recommend it at all. Only the discerning, counter-revolutionary Catholic can read it and profit from the good portions. Those easily swayed into changing their mind should not read this book, since its revolutionary logic is very attractively presented. I would instead suggest other books, like Courtesy Calls Again by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D. and Judith Fife Mead, Restoring the Family by Marian T. Horvat Ph.D., and especially Catholic Manual of Civility by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

Indeed, if there's a term that describes this book better than "feminist" or "progressivist", at its core it is a Revolutionary book. It advocates a form of Etiquette that is not Catholic -- it reminded me of the "Company manners" mentality, wherein one acts very proper publicly but privately acts like a Hun. Although that's an extreme example, and doesn't really apply here, that was my thought in analysing this book. It reeks of hypocrisy. I haven't even discussed the portions on ecumenism -- etiquette, for example, in asking a Protestant "pastor" to give a prayer at a party; attending non-Catholic weddings, etc. 
In this book, what is called "American Catholic Etiquette" is really just the total disregard of the Militant spirit of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Posted 31 July 2018

Reasons to Avoid Amusement Parks this Summer

M. Williams

The summer months are again upon us, and with the hot weather and clear schedules come the customary excursions: road trips, summer camps, beach vacations; and not just these, but a whole litany of opportunities for entertainment: movie theatres, restaurants, visiting relatives, playdates... And of course, another distinctly American tradition, at least for middle-class families, is an afternoon at the local amusement park (Disney Land, Sea World, Six Flags, etc). Roller-coasters are ridden, cotton candy consumed and souvenirs purchased.

For many, visiting an amusement park is just another harmless activity. But for the discerning counter-revolutionary Catholic, vigilant to fight the bad tendencies in all things, amusement parks pose real dangers towards both culture and morals. They are especially bad for the formation of youth, but all ages will be affected by the inherently revolutionary ambience of the amusement park.

The Six Flags mascot embodies
the immaturity of amusement parks
To me, the childishness of amusement parks -- absurd mascots, overpriced toys, junk food, and the general air of frivolity -- is the most immediately-apparent problem with them. Today's amusement parks (along with restaurants, schools, and homes) are child-centered. Because of this, it is difficult today, without at least spending a great deal of money, for adults to enjoy mature and sensible leisure, even with the company of their children. The parks cater and perpetuate the most base and crude tendencies in children. By their nature the parks effectively say, "Childish behaviour is good, and needs to be promoted." And only the most resilient adults maintain the air of dignity in the parks. The rest become just like the children they bring with them.

The costs are unjustified


Amusement parks are not only childish and uncivilised, they are also notoriously expensive. The higher-end parks -- Disney Land, etc -- cost a small fortune to visit just for a day. But even the more "down to earth" parks charge exorbitant fees for parking and admission; in addition to the expensive food and merchandise. It isn't unusual to spend $60 per person before even entering the park. 

Compare the chaotic Park of today (top), with
the refined, dignified park of yesterday (bottom).
To justify the cost, someone might argue: but what about the aesthetics of amusement parks? Doesn't that make it worthwhile? I would answer: how so? Show me beauty in an amusement park I can't find in far greater proportions in a church, a museum, or a garden. Although today's amusement parks usually have some areas set aside for a taste of yesteryear (German-themed "town squares" complete with tasteful façades, botanical gardens, etc), this is usually a jarring contrast to the vast majority of the park, which is composed of concrete, metal, and plastic in varying combinations, usually producing architectural monstrosities. This was not the case with many amusement parks of yesterday, such as the (now destroyed) Dreamland Park in New York City, which was full of tasteful exhibits, statues, and not-so-extravagant rides. Examine the picture at left: which one, the modern park or the old park, inspires a sense of wonder? Amusement parks of today are all about pleasure, satisfying passions, and generating emotions. But many amusement parks of yesterday were intended to awe and inspire.

Roller coasters can be a near occasion of sin


Another major problem with amusement parks, that few are willing to admit, are the roller coasters. "What is wrong with roller coasters?" one might ask. "They just give a little fright and cause a little excitement."

A near occasion of sin?
I would answer them: What an understatement. While the roller-coasters from a hundred years ago did cause a "little" fright and excitement, today's coasters have taken the premise to an extreme. Extremism characterises today's coasters: absurd, deadly heights (the tallest in the world being over 400 feet); perilous steeps (some rides being entirely vertical, and involving a free-fall drop, like the Superman at Six Flags St. Louis), and dangerous speeds (one coaster nearly topping 150 miles per hour!). All of these are a "recipe for disaster" -- the slightest mishap: a badly-calculated angle, a settling of the coaster in the ground, or a faulty brake can kill and injure many people. 

The "thrill-seeking" (for adrenaline "rushes") attitude of roller-coaster enthusiasts is of the same variety as those who frequent horror movies. It is a kind of pseudo-courage, embracing danger simply for the sake of it, and not for any noble purpose. To court danger simply for the "fun" of it -- that is,  without cause -- is sinful, perhaps even be mortally sinful.

Roller coasters aren't just dangerous, they are contrary to the dignity inherent in human beings. How absurd and foolish to see a person in a roller coaster, screaming loudly, his shoe or hat falling off, his face and physiognomy contorted in the high winds. And have you ever ridden a roller coaster before? I know as for me, the feeling in my stomach while going down a steep hill was enough never to do it again.

Other dangers


The neo-barbarian  "water park" at Six Flags St. Louis
Roller coasters are not the only danger, however. The "water park" is also found in many amusement parks, with attractions like swimming and wave pools, "hot tubs", water slides, water spouts, etc. Up until Vatican II, Catholic morals were clear in this regard: just as it is censurable to visit public beaches immodestly dressed (and generally ill-advised to visit in the first place), so too must one dress properly at water parks, but it is best to simply avoid them altogether, since most other people do not follow the rules of modesty, thus creating a near occasion of sin.

In addition, parks usually feature shows, movies, and performances which are usually unacceptable (for vulgarity, crudeness, etc). These should be avoided.
Amusement parks also tend to keep late hours, which is another source of moral danger...

Case in point: the "Duck Boat" tragedy


But this is not just theoretical. There are real instances of death and tragedy coming from extravagant amusement. Just one example (fresh in our memory) occurred on July 19, 2018 when a tourist boat in Branson, Missouri -- known as a "Duck Boat" -- capsized during a sudden thunderstorm, claiming the lives of 17. While details concerning the incident are still disputable, it seems that the captain of the boat (who died in the incident) told the passengers, at the beginning of the outing, to not worry about life vests, as they "wouldn't need" them. The motivation behind this order from the captain was probably entertaining the guests: the life vests would be a hindrance to them, he probably reasoned; and he probably thought he wouldn't get a good tip afterwards if the passengers were distracted with bulky life vests the whole time.

The sunken "Duck Boat" being lifted from the water
Photo: CNN
The Duck Boat tragedy was avoidable, but the extravagant, frenetic desire to please led to risk-taking, and consequently to the deaths of nearly 20. In a perversely poetic way, then, did so many people perish in the waters of Table Rock Lake. I believe Divine Providence permitted this tragedy to stir the nation's conscience -- entertainment must be within reasonable limits. One should never risk his life for the sake of leisure, and those who own entertainment businesses should not risk the lives of their customers or employees for the sake of profit. 

Indeed, when one considers not just the death toll from the Duck Boats and other tragedies, but also the moral pitfalls of amusement parks, one realises that the extravagance of amusement parks hasn't just claimed the lives of hundreds, but the souls of millions.
Posted 23 July 2018

A New Course for the Society of St. Pius X?

M. Williams

It may be thirty years since Archbishop Lefebvre's Écône Consecrations, but the Church is still in the state of general Emergency. That Emergency, which is the Crisis begun with Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, is the fundamental raison d'être of the Society of St. Pius X, embodied in the Archbishop's aptly-named "Operation Survival" -- to form Catholic bishops and priests in Tradition; to fight Vatican II and the New Mass; in a word, to ensure the survival of the Catholic Church. Since the Crisis continues, the Society continues to fight it, even in spite of condemnation and attacks from all sides. Although under its previous Superior General the Society suffered many compromises and setbacks, some of which we will discuss in this article, we see with the Society's new Superior General a chance for the Society to take up once more the banner of Counter-Revolution against the Vatican II Counter-Church. We hope, then, to aid the Society in its fight by confronting its detractors and spreading the truth. This article may provide a small piece of ammunition in that fight.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
First of all, the claim of pseudo-traditionalists that the SSPX is "in Schism" is plainly false. What Archbishop Lefebvre did -- the simple act of consecrating bishops -- is not schismatic, and the new Code of Canon Law affirms this. It would only be schismatic if Archbishop Lefebvre pretended to grant those bishops jurisdiction, as though he were giving them dioceses to run, for this would be setting up a parallel church and would be schismatic. But Archbishop Lefebvre only performed the Consecrations to ensure the succession of traditional Catholic bishops and priests would continue. This proves the Society of St. Pius X is not in schism. Further, it shows that those who repeat this false claim knowingly are guilty of sin.

We at Reign of Mary believe the Society is a God-send. Archbishop Lefebvre was a truly heroic figure, for without him and without the SSPX, it is likely the traditional Mass and by extension the traditional Catholic Church would have ceased to exist.

A quarter-century of setbacks


There have been nearly a quarter-century of setbacks for the Society caused by both the direct fault of Bishop Fellay, the former Superior General, and innocent mismanagement within it. Just a few problems have been:
  • "Negotiations" with the Vatican, which give a false impression to the world that the SSPX has abandoned its mission;
  • A sharp change of tone on Vatican II -- from Archbishop Lefebvre condemning all of Vatican II as poisonous, to Bishop Fellay saying "we agree with 95% of Vatican II". 
  • The illegitimate and unacceptable expulsion of Bishop Richard Williamson;
  • The revelation that the SSPX and Bishop Williamson sought to "re-brand" itself to make it more palatable to Vatican II catholics
Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the new Superior General
Could the election of Fr. Davide Pagliarani to the Superior-Generalship of the Society be a sign of a change in direction? Unfortunately, it is too early to tell, and we would not want to embarrass ourselves by putting all our hopes in this new prelate. It is heartening to see even the SSPX Resistance, a group I admire much, holding its breath in anticipation, instead of forming a judgment too soon. If Divine Providence should will it, we could see a stronger, more traditional (but perhaps smaller) Society, with Bishop Williamson and his successors restored to their rightful places. What a joy it would be to see a more militant SSPX, especially during the Francis pontificate.

There are questions that have yet to be asked. Was Bishop Fellay "toppled"? He did not choose to seek re-election to the Superior Generalship -- did he not think he could win control for another term? Or, did he have a hand-picked successor that failed to win? One thing is clear: Fr. Pagliarani does not seem to be another Bishop Fellay. But whether he is a "liberal" or a "traditionalist" is still rather unclear. Time will tell, and we should ardently pray for him. Let him not be another Archbishop Lefebvre, let him be greater than Archbishop Lefebvre. Let us storm heaven that Fr. Pagliarani exceed our comfort level in his zeal, militancy, and traditionalism. Let, if God will it, Fr. Pagliarani be a true counter-revolutionary.

The course ahead

 

The SSPX, like the Barque of Peter, must set a course
If I may be so audacious, I have a few propositions for the future of the Society of St. Pius X. Were Fr. Pagliarani to take these steps, I would consider him a true counter-revolutionary.

Before anything else, were I Fr. Pagliarani, I would apologise to Bishop Williamson and humbly call upon him and all his successors, and all the Resistance, to come back into the Society and be reinstated. It is not he that has left the Society; the Society left him. He did not leave, he was expelled quite unjustly, for the simple "offence" of refusing to accept the questionable Holocaust statistics. The Resistance does not need to dissolve, however: rather, it should form the core leadership of the Society, to ensure it remains true to Archbishop Lefebvre's principles.

Now, if the Society's hierarchy can be reconstituted, which can only be done if Bishop Williamson is restored, there are other matters to handle as well. I would say there can be no reconciliation with the Vatican until the Vatican returns to the Catholic Church. This reconciliation -- in the form of a personal prelature or whatever they want to call it -- is a moot point; it cannot happen until Vatican II is condemned and cancelled, the new canonisations are all re-reviewed by true traditional Catholic authorities, the New Mass is banned and the true Mass restored, all bad bishops and priests removed from office; the suppression of the schismatic FSSP and the order that all its priests return to the SSPX; etc, etc. In so many words, the Church has to start acting like the Church again. A good rule of thumb might be: don't negotiate with a Pope who doesn't wear the Tiara.

Other auxiliary objectives might be: trying to form co-operations with the Institute of Christ the King (ICRSS), Ecclesia Dei organisations and affiliated ("Indult") priests, for the purpose of converting them fully to tradition (no more wishy-washiness) and uniting against Cardinal Sarah's proposed "Hybrid Mass". Perhaps, as a gesture against the illegitimate occupation government, the American flags in SSPX chapels could be taken down. Perhaps the Society could take a more firm stance in promoting the counter-revolution instead of 1950s WASP culture.

What to expect


It is expedient, then, that the Society of St. Pius X change course, lest it fail and, God permitting, a new traditional group take over the work of preserving the Catholic Church from the Novus Ordo apostasy. Fr. Pagliarani has a real chance to reverse 25 years of mistakes and bad decisions, an opportunity to re-assert the SSPX as the standard-bearers of the true (not false) Counter-Revolution.

Will this happen? What else can we say other than, Fiat Voluntas Tua. Whatever happens, it will be in the hands of Divine Providence, and will work for a greater good. May God, though Our Lady, give us the grace to survive the Conciliar Crisis, with or without the help of the new SSPX Superior General.

Posted 16 July 2018


How to Behave in a Restaurant

M. Williams


The counter-revolutionary Catholic has to resist the bad tendencies in all things and in all places, not the least of which is a restaurant. It is this fact, and my awareness of the state of the restaurant industry today, that leads me to bring the counter-revolutionary fight into the restaurants. I believe Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira put it well when he used the following example:
A man goes to the store to buy a small box of paper clips to put on his desk. The clips on offer may have a certain revolutionary influence. He must refuse them. He goes to another store to buy a pair of shoes; he has to make sure they are not revolutionary. A person goes by and greets him: he has to see whether that greeting was not revolutionary. He must be able to see the meaning of Revolution in everything in order to perceive and reject the Revolution in everything. Because, if he does not do that, the Revolution enters and takes over the situation.
– Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, What Should a 21st Century Knight be Like?
Now, restaurant behavior is certainly more important than what type of paperclips or shoes to buy, so for the counter-revolutionary, this is something worthwhile. And it is in this context that Reign of Mary presents these suggestions to our readers. The objective of this article is to help our readers to learn to better behave in restaurants, and to apply the principles here to other social situations as well.

This restaurant table may as well have been used by Attila the Hun
Indeed, it was only a few days ago when I was at a modest restaurant, peacefully enjoying a meal and discreetly reading a book. This was rather difficult to do, however, because I was distracted by an absurdly misbehaved (and large) group of people taking their dinner across the room. I realised they were celebrating a birthday, but it was being done with the height of bad manners. It started with a woman standing up at their comically long table, the width of the dining hall: she loudly gave instructions concerning some party favor they were giving away to the 20-some guests. This would be pardonable if it were an isolated incident, but it was just the beginning. Of course, the women were all immodestly dressed (and so were most of the men, with their childish clothing -- shorts, ostensibly because of the heat, and yet I was doing quite well myself in pants). The screaming children -- just one is all that is needed to totally ruin an evening, but they had three or four -- were another "nice touch". Further, the adults may as well have been children themselves, for when the group of neo-barbarians finally left the restaurant, all the place settings looked like they had been occupied by Huns. Straw wrappers here, food, crumbs, and stray silverware there. They left their table -- not to mention the floor -- in a state of totally filthy anarchy. "Oh, but at least we left a tip", they may very well have been saying to themselves as they left the restaurant to the general relief of all patrons. As if that were justification for their crude, brutish behavior...

A disgusting public display by a baseball player:
Spitting chewing tobacco in public
On another occasion, while attending to the Men's room at (incidentally) the same restaurant, I was privileged to see an abandoned mess of chewing tobacco spittle and vomit (likely from one and the same filthy mouth) all over the floor. The person who left the mess didn't bother to inform the staff of his misfortune. Instead, he certainly left the washroom without any interest in performing the courtesy. This is supreme selfishness.

What is the root of all these problems? This is an easy answer -- the Revolution, which has caused most forms of public courtesy and manners to be dispensed with in the alleged interest of "comfort". The only rule of the Revolution, after all, is that "it is forbidden to forbid." It is natural, therefore, that horror stories like those above, should happen in our present milieu.

A desperate need for etiquette in restaurants


The true counter-revolutionary will want to apply the principles of counter-revolution to every aspect of his life, and behavior at restaurants is by no means frivolous, particularly in the American culture, quite disposed towards fast food. Being personally acquainted with the restaurant industry for several years, I am happy to provide some of my own tips, as well as that of others, for behavior in a restaurant.

Do not bring children to restaurants...
At the beginning, however, I have to stress a few absolute, unchangeable principles.
  • Most important of all, traditional Catholics, under pain of the sin of scandal, must avoid attending restaurants or events involving unnecessary servile work, on Sundays and holy days of obligation, at least of your own accord;
  • Sort out who will pay for the meal prior to the meal. Do not debate payment of the meal in public, especially not at the restaurant.
  • Bringing to restaurants babies, young children, invalids or the mentally disabled is always inappropriate;
  • Encouraging one's family to go to fast food "restaurants" and as a result getting your children or relatives addicted to fast food, is probably sinful;
  • Going to "rustic" establishments that don't use forks and knives, and going to things like hot-dog eating contests, make one responsible for the sins of scandal, and accessible (if not responsible as well) to immodesty and gluttony;
  • Visiting "breastaurants" (yes, this is a real term) like "Hooters", or "bikini grills" (typically found near beaches) which in addition to being occasions of sin, also offer men the most crude food (hot dogs, cheese french fries, energy drinks, etc);
  • Patronising "24/7" restaurants, is generally bad taste. Places such as Waffle House and Denny's ought to be avoided if other alternatives are available and in good taste, since 24/7 establishments are intrinsically disordered and against nature;
  • Avoid restaurants where smoking is permitted at tables. While traditional Catholic morality approves the practice of smoking for men, it is grossly bad taste, and not in the slightest bit masculine, to smoke while dining. Therefore, visiting restaurants that promote this degenerate custom is questionable.
Now, we will overview a typical restaurant visit, from beginning to end, offering concrete advice for how to behave and what to do.

Prior preparation and arrival


A large and poorly-groomed group at a restaurant:
the type of people who don't make reservations
It is very irritating for restaurant staff to see a large group -- perhaps a traditional Catholic family -- arriving at a restaurant without giving prior notice; without making any reservations. Moreover, it is extremely offensive to arrive not only without prior notice, but also at an inconvenient time: while the restaurant is already full or crowded, for example; but also when the restaurant is within an hour of closing.

Unless you are dining alone or with a small group -- up to four people (the number of guests a typical restaurant table or booth can comfortably accommodate) -- one is bound in charity to make proper reservations in a timely manner. Even calling the restaurant 10 to 15 minutes before arrival is better than nothing...

I have already stressed my opinion that babies and young children ought not to be brought into restaurants. If you must bring them, be prepared to take them out and discipline them as soon as they cause the slightest disturbance. Your fellow patrons will be blissfully pleased with you for taking these measures, however extreme. I have also spoken on the uncharitable act of bringing the (excessively) physically deformed or mentally disabled. The Revolutionary mindset is quick to say: "You are being hateful". Quite the contrary: to the Revolutionary reader I would say, "Would you bring a foul-smelling, unwashed person to a restaurant?" No, if you are sane, you would not. And neither ought you to bring someone with such a debilitating physical disability as to be a nuisance to other guests or the restaurant; nor a mentally unstable person, nor a person with an unmasked, deformed body. There is no such thing as "warts and all" for the counter-revolutionary restaurant-goer.

It is also necessary to arrive neither too late nor too early, as busy restaurants are often unable to prepare your table until moments before your scheduled arrival. To be too late, then, would be discourteous to the preparations made for you.

In even a revolutionary society, 50 years ago, it would go unsaid that one goes to restaurants properly attired. A suit and tie is always appropriate, or for women, the usual modest dress or skirt; at the minimum, for more "casual" occasions, remember to avoid graphic tee shirts, hoodies, shorts, sandals, etc. A blank or patterned tee-shirt is infinitely more acceptable than one with logos, phrases, and pictures...but of course, nothing but fine clothing would be acceptable at a fine restaurant.

Having arrived, one is to wait patiently for the maître d'hôtel or a waiter to escort you a table, unless a sign directs you to do otherwise (e.g., please seat yourself); this would not apply, however, if you come with a group larger than four. Again, it is important not to arrive more than an hour prior to the restaurant's scheduled closing, and it is definitely advisable not to frequent a restaurant (such as Denny's or Waffle House) at an excessively late or early hour, even though the restaurant may be (however imprudently and impiously) open 24/7. It is preferable, if one chooses to patronise a 24/7 restaurant, to visit at a time within normal business hours. Nevertheless, it is always morally questionable to visit a restaurant at, say, 2 'o clock in the morning, however hungry you might be.

Seating



These may not be tolerated or accepted,
lest millions become unemployed
Once you are seated at the table, it is important to immediately remember: do not slouch and do not put your elbows on the table. Many restaurants have introduced the revolutionary custom of putting up television. It is bad taste to watch the television while dining alone, and even more so while with a group of people. Another example of technological intrusion into the dining experience is the use of computer-tablets on the tables, so one can do his ordering, payments and tip-paying, and the like, without interacting with the waiter. This is something we must resist. Summon a waiter if it is at all possible and make payments or queries in person. These computerised tablets are driving more and more good people to unemployment. Speaking of technology, it should go without saying that one must never make use of computers or cell phones at the table. If one must receive a call, it is always advisable to take the phone out of the restaurant, or into a vestibule or private place. It is not, however, wise to bring the phone to a restroom, where other patrons are likely to be disturbed in their use of the facilities, and where noise tends to be amplified greatly by the bathroom floor and wall tiles...

Arts and crafts at the table is inappropriate
Put a napkin in your lap, even if a special napkin is not provided for that purpose; enjoy drinks and appetizers with moderation; and do not waste time in deciding what to order. If your children cannot decide, choose for them. Do not permit children to use coloring books or crayons at restaurants if they are offered to your children. This is a revolutionary custom that turns the dignity of a meal into another territory for the empire of child's play to conquer. If your children are unable to resist, they are too young to come to a restaurant, and should moreover be disciplined.

The meal


Since appetizers are the first things to be eaten, say grace before taking appetizers. The prayer is important, not just because it is commanded by God and the Church, but also because it helps one to obtain graces to maintain good behavior at the table. It reminds one of his dignity before God, and therefore, the necessity to adequately reflect that dignity. Remember to avoid hand-holding in prayer, as this is an egalitarian Protestant custom. The person who is the most important member of the family or the party -- usually a father -- should lead the prayer, and him alone. The sign of the cross must not be neglected. Nevertheless, the prayer should be discreet, without great noise, and in no way ostentatious, as this is a sure sign of hypocrites, and can be a cause of scandal among fellow patrons.
Please, don't hold hands while saying grace

While at the table, remember to keep voice levels down. Restaurant visits can often be joyous occasions, since anything from a birthday gathering to a meal with a friend can be a source of great excitement. One may be tempted to be a bit more "loose" (whatever that means), and not be so "uptight" (perhaps at the urging of friends). This may be well and good for you, but other patrons will just be annoyed. I know, in the case of my dinner being interrupted by the French and Indian War going on at the birthday party across the hall, I had no interest in their excitement...

During the various courses of the meal, one distinguishes himself by using silverware correctly. To learn how to hold silverware properly, click here. I personally advise using the Continental Style as opposed to the American Style, since the Continental Style is less awkward and convoluted, and also not of revolutionary origin. The particulars of fine dining, such as the arragements of silverware and china, descriptions of the different courses, may be found at this invaluable link.

Common courtesies such as: making use of coasters if provided (use a neatly folded paper napkin as a coaster if there is no tablecloth); not talking with one's mouth full; not making wide gestures; eating slowly; and always being courteous to wait staff, are easy to forget in the revolutionary world, but quite important.

Preparing to leave

 

Follow the example of this man, who
politely -- and discreetly -- summons his waiter
It is never acceptable, unless in an emergency, to call a waiter from across the room. Every time I hear a person shout, "Waiter!" in a restaurant, I cringe. It is the same tone of voice one uses when calling a dog, and it is simply degrading. Loudly calling for one's check is equally inappropriate; and it is the same to hold one's credit card in the air for the waiter to come by. It is always far better to politely summon the waiter with a glance or discreet wave, and to kindly entreat them to do whatever you need them to.

If it is appropriate, try to put your table in as good order as possible. This is easier to do when it is done consciously throughout the meal. Again, if appropriate, stack plates, gather trash and wrappings, corral stray silverware. Do a once-over of the table for any personal possessions. I personally like to scoop up any crumbs on the table and gather them, as it leaves the table looking quite nice, and surely makes the waiter or table cleaner quite happy.

Leave an appropriate tip for your waiter. It is rare that one should experience atrocious service, especially if he is courteous at the table. It is only under a circumstance like that where one would be justified in reducing or skipping the tip -- but this is a rare instance, one I have never felt necessary even with mediocre table service.

An appropriate tip might be 10% at a modest restaurant; if you are dining alone, it seems proper to increase it perhaps to 15%. But at a fine restaurant, 20% seems to be the minimum whether you are alone or in a group. For traditional Catholics, one can never go wrong leaving a small religious gift like a holy card or a small medal as a gift to the waiter, but for fear of causing scandal, always accompany this gift with a substantial tip, so a positive impression is left. This can and should also be done in hotels for housekeepers, and perhaps in taxi cabs.

Final points


And yet, although much has been written so far, based on my own experiences and insights as to how a restaurant-goer ought to behave, there is still much more that must be said on the moral evils the restaurant industry creates. Even more worthwhile of study is the origins of the modern restaurant industry, something I believe has come about due to the mass-resignation of women and mothers from the household (and thereby from cooking for family), forcing many to go to restaurants to find suitable food to eat. This, of course, has led to the rise of cheap and fast food "restaurants", since one generally cannot afford to eat a decent and healthy meal every time one goes out to eat, especially if one goes out often.

But, those facts notwithstanding, this concludes Reign of Mary's article on How to Behave in a Restaurant. We hope it will be useful to the Catholic counter-revolutionary who truly desires to establish the reign of Mary in all things, even at the dinner table.

 Posted 10 July 2018








What Does the Fourth of July Really Mean?

M. Williams

Freemasons gather to foment an evil rebellion
Without a doubt, the American Revolution is one of the greatest successes of the satanic revolution (which has taken many different forms, in religion, culture, and politics) that has been afflicting Christendom for so many centuries. The American Revolution -- so often overlooked and whitewashed as though it were "better" than its French counterpart -- was just another advance of Satan's so-far successful war to overthrow the last vestiges of Christendom in the western world.

Indeed, the Declaration of Independence -- the document signed by the Freemasons to make a casus belli (however farcical) for their revolt -- is commemorated every year in the United States on July 4th, or as it is formally known, Independence Day. For most Americans, this is simply an occasion for festivities, dinner parties, fireworks, etc. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with this. There is no inherent evil in celebrating this holiday simply for a day of relaxation, leisure, and fellowship.

Where the Fourth of July becomes troublesome, especially for the counter-revolutionary Catholic, is when the principles that underlie it are celebrated and approved. Counter-revolutionary Catholics may not, at least in my judgment, celebrate the Masonic form of government which we are under. We may not justify the atrocities this Masonic government has perpetrated. We may not allow ourselves to be Americans before we are Catholics.

Yes, the Fourth of July becomes for the counter-revolutionary Catholic, so often visiting with friends and relatives on this day, a chance to share the truth about the United States and its unholy origins. It is my hope that this article will share some useful information, and propose solutions to the "American Question" (which I will elucidate later) in general.

Evil motivations for Revolution


"Granted," one might say. "This nation was founded by wicked men, but they would've been shocked at the state of things today. They would never have rebelled had they known how evil the United States would become." This is to say the least a milquetoast claim. It is worthy of neo-conservatives, not counter-revolutionaries. Despite their many faults, the founders of the United States were well-educated in history and in the philosophy of the so-called "Enlightenment"; they knew what they were doing, in other words. They were fully aware that republics tend to degenerate and turn into dictatorships in relatively short amounts of time. This is what Benjamin Franklin meant when he famously responded to a woman who asked him whether the United States was a republic or a monarchy. "A Republic," he said; "if you can keep it."

This Republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers was one based on the heretical and philosophically absurd principle of government, that the consent of the governed is the source of all political authority. This is a contemptible system which has produced many rotten fruits, just a few of which will be discussed in the following paragraphs. This system of "consent of the governed", also denies the existence of a common good which government should seek, choosing instead to let each one decide for himself what is best for him and pursue it as an individual, and leaving moral questions up to majority vote instead of to stand against objective principles. Indeed, for America, the principle "consent of the governed" is nothing more than a weapon to turn against our enemies. Anyone we wish to destroy -- Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran -- we will simply say, "their people call for revolution", and this principle is invoked. Of course, any enemies of this democratic "crusade" (domestic or foreign), do not enjoy the benefit of "consent of the governed" -- they are subhuman because they oppose "progress" and "freedom".
George III was a good king
To be sure, the founders of the United States were wicked rebels, but they were not fools. Many historical studies have given ample evidence to show their true motivations for rebellion -- not "freedom", of which King George III had given them plenty -- but wealth, which they also had, but evidently not enough to satisfy their insatiable avarice. I believe the true reason for the Declaration of Independence was to wrest control of the virgin lands of America from the king of Great Britain and put it under their control. The signers, after all, were primarily of the merchant class. A new nation under their authority would give them plenty of riches, teeming with opportunity for exploitation.


A litany of sins of the blood-spangled Empire


An unjust rebellion against a rightful king was just the beginning of the crimes committed by this new nation. One of the more poignant occasions in American history -- perhaps exceeding the American Revolutionary War in infamy -- is the war which most are apt to call the "Civil War", but is more reasonably called the "War of the Northern Aggression", because the Southerners never declared war against anyone. The federal government of the new nation got out of control rather quickly, treating the southern states with abuse and arrogance. Thus, when the Confederacy was founded with the intention to peacefully secede from the Union, the federal government (fearing the loss of power) waged War on its own people.
The federal government, at Lincoln's behest,
pillages and destroys the land of fellow Americans

Within 70 years of winning independence from a "tyrannical" Great Britain, the American government began to hypocritically emulate the alleged sins of their former masters, in such horrific and barbaric episodes such as General Sherman's "March to the Sea".

Then came the Spanish-American War, another successful campaign of the Revolution, which now was growing stronger and bolder. The Catholic Spanish Empire was of course seen as a threat to the envisioned "New World" -- that is, the Western Hemisphere -- intended as a haven for secularism, Protestantism, and the Enlightenment. It is very obvious, however unproven, that the United States government orchestrated a false flag by blowing up the USS Maine to justify going to war against Spain. The very Americans who decried the imperialism of Great Britain were guilty of it themselves, entering the Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines as conquerors, never returning any of those territories, but instead subjecting them to the tyranny of republican government.

The blame for the evil holocaust of
tens of thousands of Jews belongs to
America just as much as Germany
The Great War (World War I) which followed some years later was, in short, an unnecessary waste of human life. What could have been simply another Napoleonic-esque European War, in terms of devastation, became much more, for the "American Empire" saw in the War an opportunity to impose republicanism over all of Europe, as it had done with Spain's colonies. Under the careful oversight of President Woodrow Wilson (a Freemason himself), the Germans were given an absurdly harsh sentence in the Treaty of Versailles, and Austria-Hungary, the last significant Catholic monarchy in Europe, was ordered dismantled. Even though Austria-Hungary had incidentally desired peace more than any other nation in the War, the Americans did not desire peace, but total and unconditional surrender. Being victors of the war, they saw fit to do as they pleased with their vanquished enemies. This would, whether intentional or not, come back to haunt America eventually, for the Treaty of Versailles would pave the way for Hitler to come to power and, however evil he was in other respects, quite justifiably liberate Germany from the Treaty's tyrannical provisions. By extension, all the crimes committed by Hitler (even the more Dubious Ones) can and should be treated as the fault of the Americans who insisted on the unjust terms at Versailles.

The civilian center of Dresden:
A military target? The US government says yes
It is ironic that the very nation that had decried the killing of "innocent" Americans at the so-called Boston Massacre did the exact same thing on a scale of millions in incidents at Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. It is even more ironic when one considers the fact that, unlike the violent protesters at Boston, the citizens in the bombed cities were not violent, and as non-combatants were not fighting the Americans when they were murdered by them. The whole Revolution continued to prove itself to be a hypocritical sham by these tactical missteps. 

Indeed, the incident known as the "Bombing of Dresden" was one of the most horrific war crimes committed by the United States government in its history, on an equal level with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if not worse. Dresden itself was firebombed with incendiary bombs dropped from over 700 bomber planes, which quickly set much of the city ablaze; estimates say as many as 200,000 German citizens were killed; some from burning alive, others from burial under the collapsing buildings, others from suffocation due to lack of oxygen due to the flames, still others from all of these at once.

Exceeding Stalin and Mao in brutality


The United States is a sanctimonious, self-righteous state, to say the very least. But of all the atrocities its government has committed (that we are publicly aware of), none exceed the crime of legalised infanticide which has claimed the life of some 60,000,000 infants. This is a number that exceeds the official Holocaust statistics by 10 times; it exceeds the death toll of the mass-murder Joseph Stalin by at least 20,000,000; and it is on par with, perhaps even greater than the amount killed by the policies of Chairman Mao. It is a wonder that God, whose Providence has destroyed the empires of Hitler and Stalin, has not destroyed also the empire of our own impious government, for its sins cry up to heaven for divine vengeance.


The flag, not respected, becomes
merely an article of clothing

But is the "American experiment" beginning to falter now that most of the world hates us, and even many American citizens no longer believe in the clichéd "American dream"? Are we seeing in America a future where the Revolution will be undone? This is a possibility. We see (albeit negative) examples of this in the decline of genuine patriotism. The flag of the United States, for instance, has become what was once unthinkable: an article of clothing to wear. In my opinion, this phenomenon would not happen in a nation whose people were truly confident in themselves.

It is obvious that the Revolution (I am speaking generally of all Revolutions) is self-cannibalising, seeking to "destroy" rather than "build". Indeed, in the 242 years since 1776, has the United States seen fulfillment of the goals the Founding Fathers proposed in the Declaration of Independence? Take another cliché: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Where is Life? the nation has no vitality, the birth-rate has fallen, abortion and contraception are rampant. Where Liberty? the government is always stripping away rights and mistreating its people. And the pursuit of happiness? -- suffice it to say we counter-revolutionaries do not think sodomitical "marriage" and legalised vice is going to make anyone truly happy.

The "American Question"


When we at Reign of Mary attack the United States government for what it has done in the many incidents listed above, and many more left unsaid, we are not attacking those who have been caught up in the mess. We would, for example, not blame an American citizen (I am one myself) for what their government has done. Even more, we would not blame a member or former member of our armed forces -- except perhaps high ranking military officials (and for that matter, politicians) who have been directly responsible for the atrocities and misdeeds. This being said, it is obvious that the United States government is not only illegitimate, as it was born in an unlawful revolt, but it is also a tyrannical regime. This is evinced by the fact that under the current laws, an American citizen could be carted away to a secret prison for years at a time under the auspices of "national security". Very alarming indeed.

Unam Sanctam: Every human creature and every human
government is subject to the Roman Pontiff, ex cathedra
But there is a solution to what I call the "American Question", that is, what we as Catholic counter-revolutionaries ought to make of it all. The Roman Pontiff should declare on the basis of its unlawful revolution, its offences against natural law, atrocities and warcrimes, that the United States government is an illegitimate authority and totally deprived of all authority. All Catholics and non-Catholics (for all human beings are subject one way or another to the Roman Pontiff per Unam Sanctam by Boniface VIII, AD 1302) should be released from obedience to the United States government. The federal government should be peacefully dissolved and the European powers (which simultaneously should be replaced with restored Catholic monarchies; this, too, by papal decree) should be called upon to reclaim their old colonial possessions.

For those who think this is a ludicrous proposal (and I would not blame you for thinking this, if not simply at the shock of the idea), know that this is based in historical precedent. Pope St. Pius V did this very thing with the government of Queen Elizabeth I, whom he declared an illegitimate monarch and deprived her of all her subjects' loyalty, going so far as to excommunicate anyone who obeyed her orders. It is unbelievable Elizabeth managed to stay on the throne. But in our current situation, a papal bull against the United States government could prove decisive where Pope St. Pius V's bull Regnans in Excelsis did, unfortunately by the mystery of Providence, not.

If this will not happen in this age, we can be sure it will happen in some form in the reign of Mary's Immaculate Heart that Our Lady has predicted will happen one way or another. "A Republic," Franklin had said; "if you can keep it." What Franklin proposed to us was a false dichotomy; a lie. Our hope is not in a republic, but in a Catholic monarchy. Verily, verily, a time will come when a truly just government will be found in America once more. May Our Lady's reign come soon!

 Posted 2 July 2018