Servus Fidelis ~ The Faithful Servant

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam ~ For the Greater Glory of God

What is the Church preoccupied with today?











The answer seems to be social issues, economic issues and moral issues in relation to the current socio-political agendas. The clarion call is for helping the poor (always of interest to Christians), redistribution of wealth to the poor (not charitable alms, but forced by the state), normalizing sexual taboos (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, same sex marriage, contraception, abortion and the like) and now, of all things, man-made global warming.

The politicians have long used the Christian majority in the US as a means to an end by appealing to our sense of charity and justice. They have tried to make a moral argument for the poor or the less fortunate by theorizing, no matter how blatantly false their reasonings might be, that their policy, programs, laws or regulations will benefit those who are oppressed. Of course every group that is being oppressed is not them . . . as they seem to be thriving; both economically and in terms of special privilege; especially exemptions from their own laws and regulations. So the politicians have made their arguments for socialist governance and Marxist economics as an instrument of equalization which will benefit the down trodden: and whatever group that they are speaking to are, of course, the unfortunates that will be helped by some governmental ‘fix’ for the problem. As always they are quick to point out that their political opponents are responsible for the sufferings and inequality of the prospective voter.

The poor or the disenfranchised are all the talk as is multiculturalism, lifestyle choices, open borders and immigration. It is reflected in everything. To hear them speak, the enemies of the people are the rich, the white Western European men, polluters of all kinds, enforcers of the law, business owners, Christian moralists, gun-toting patriots and all who think that the government should get out of the way so that we might simply work, live our respective lives and prosper or fail. But failure is now being taught to be unacceptable in our society and the redefined role of the government is to get as many people as possible to rely upon the them (through the taxes taken from ordinary working stiffs) to give them food, clothing, shelter and more and more discretionary spending money. In other words we are a bank that hands out loans without being paid back and in fact gives everyone a bigger loan each year to cover inflation and other ‘necessities’ in life.

Now oddly there seems to be a partnership developing of strange bedfellows; the Church and the State. It seems that the Church has been wooed, cajoled or convinced that the governments of the Western World really do have the best interest of the people in mind and and not simply garnering votes to feed their own elitist aggrandizement.

Let’s take a look at what is on the mind of the Church these days.

The Catholic Church has helped Obama in lifting restrictions and sanctions from Communist Cuba. The USCCB and the Vatican are favoring amnesty to illegal trespassers into the US and putting them on the dole and giving them the right to vote. Since when did the Church take a stance against democratically established laws of a nation if they are just?

The Pope’s first encyclical seemed to many as a critical attack on capitalism. Many Christians are clamoring for an increase in the minimum wage, increasing ‘entitlements’ (formerly a charitable gift of welfare checks) for the poor like food stamps and EBT cards that can be traded for anything they want. . . in other words, redistribution of wealth. Most  Christians support the government on issues such as raising taxes on corporations and the rich and stifling regulations on businesses and communities under the guise of the man-made global warming hoax. Each of these will eliminate jobs or force businesses to close down costing a loss of the very jobs that we say are needed for the same people the advocates say they are trying to help.

The most often spoken message from our Pope concerns the poor which is a message that has been with us from the beginning and nothing new. We have been doing our part to help the poor for over 2000 years . . . and without state welfare and entitlements. In the Western world today however, the poor have never been richer or more privileged as they are today. We live twice as long as we did a century ago and that age keeps increasing. We have better access to medicine, to good food, to amenities like cars, electric lights, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning that even the very rich of 200 years ago could not even have dreamt. But, in the West, those on the extremities (below our arbitrary poverty line) are usually there because of choices which they made in life; most importantly to have children out of wedlock and to throw away their opportunity of a free public education even though it was provided at the expense of the government (the tax payers).

What is the strangest in all of this is not only the synergy of each of these things to actually hurt the people they claim to want to help but also the negative effect each of these will have to the nuclear family. The moral issues such as adultery, fornication, abortion etc. all are anti-family as are these new ‘alternative lifestyles’ and the attempt to normalize them. The higher minimum wages only encourage people to remain in a starter job meant for high school students and retired folks. The same is true of the ‘entitlement’ culture which has destroyed any desire that the poor might possess to actually learn a skill and work for a living. Opening the borders will create an even larger class of poor who are seeking employment where there are many times as many people as there are jobs. So we will put them on the welfare roles and grow the ranks of the people that our tax payers and businesses must support. Businesses can’t grow and new businesses will have too many regulations and taxes facing them to grow faster than the welfare roles. What you are doing is effectively bolstering every problem we face and making sure that the nuclear family as we once knew it will ever return . . . at least not among the welfare roles.

Newsflash for the Church and other Christians who think they are supporting a righteous and good cause: as soon as they are finished using you for your votes and your support, they will sell you and your faith for a song. They have no need of you anymore and you will never fit into their end game. In fact, if you think the war on Christianity is bad, you haven’t even seen a glimmer of the real war that will certainly come against us like a firestorm. The frustration and the hatred that has been stirred up among the classes, races, and genders will eventually explode into violence on a large scale. What is going on with the black communities, stirred up by professional anarchists backed by left wing or Marxists groups are only looking for an excuse to riot, burn and destroy the system. The ultra rich will not worry but the moderately well off folks might start thinking about leaving before the anarchists use them for target practice.

Thank you, Christian and Jewish leaders, socialists and Marxists everywhere (yes the new Marxist Democratic party mostly) for this Brave New World. You will have to be pretty darn brave to live in it the way things are going

THE REMNANT NEWSPAPER:The Anti-Christian Pogrom

India today, America tomorrow

( The stark reality of deadly schoolhouse violence and the intellectual fraud that is the pathetic national narrative makes my blood run cold.  I don’t think I’m alone when I say, “the handwriting is on the wall”.  To those who are awake and standing watch, the truth is clear: we are witnessing the breakdown of our national social structure.

We know in our hearts that the political power and force has shifted into the court of those who adhere to the philosophy of socialism and the rules of Saul Alinsky.

How quickly and to what extent will the radical and tyrannical elements metastasize into street violence depends on the strength and resistance of the conservative Christian body.  Let’s be honest, the Christian body, for the most part, is in denial of the reality that threatens its existence.

Read more . . .

A God-acknowledging party- if we strive to build it, will you come? | Loyal To Liberty

by loyaltoliberty on November 11, 2012


24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house. (Mark 3:24-27)

To make sure that it serves its intended purpose (which is the overthrow of Constitutional self-government, of, by and for the people) the elitist faction’s script for the 2012 election included a post-script.  No matter how the election turned out, the moral of the story was always going to be the same- in order to win American politicians must embrace elitist socialism.  Of course, this lesson especially targets the GOP.

This is so because the GOP’s role in the elitist faction’s orchestration of the political process is to befuddle and demoralize the conservatives with results that

…move the government toward greater consolidation of socialist politics.  In the process the term “conservative” gets progressively (pun intended) redefined to encompass more and more of the features of socialism.  What is more important, those who articulate and insist upon approaches that actually correspond to conservative principles and institutional goals (like respecting unalienable rights, preserving the natural family, encouraging morally responsible individual  entrepreneurship and competitive free enterprise) are put in the false position of being unrealistic “purists” and rigid opponents of “the possible”. (Is Romney to lead conservatives to self-extinction?)

Had Romney won the election, conservative principles would have been abandoned in order to “reach across the aisle” in a bipartisan spirit of unity.  Such was the theme of Romney’s speeches in the closing days of the campaign.  But Obama won. So, like a teenager on prom night, GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner can’t wait to drop his abstinence only conservative date at her outdated home. He’s ready to shed the formal wear put on for the campaign season.  He’s almost frantically eager to cast off the GOP’s façade of phony conservative inhibitions (against tax and spend government policies,)  and get down with the newly elected Prom King in an orgy of bipartisan socialist relations, aimed at proving that a lame duck still has one leg to paddle with.

Such is “the culmination of more than twenty years of…stupidly destructive…”conservative pragmatism.”  In terms of politics it “represents the successful “transvaluation of values” (as the Nazi’s muse, Friedrich Nietzsche called it. That’s the political equivalent of a sex-change operation.)

Many GOP leaders dutifully played their role in the elitist faction’s election farce.  They were the supposedly conservative chorus,  luridly portraying Obama as the last act of America’s play, and “reluctantly”(?) touting Romney as the “less evil” (because somewhat longer?) alternate version of the same ending.  As the elitist faction media launches into the post-script phase, these leaders are coming forward to react against the notion that conservatism had anything to do with Romney’s defeat.  This requires, of course, implicitly contradicting the notion that Romney is a conservative, making all their actual or implied statements to the contrary during the campaign seem rather like, well, lies.

That’s the problem with making expediency your political standard.  It’s especially a problem for self-professed conservatives in the GOP who want people to believe that they still embrace the “self-evident truths” on which the U.S. was founded.  People who show no respect for factually observable truths have little or no credibility when they claim to respect truths that require sound reasoning as well as observation.  After all, reason ultimately derives its force from a moral commitment to its discipline, i.e., a willingness to acknowledge, the truth, in principle, and to follow its logic, whether or not it serves our passionate interests.

By encouraging people to let their fear of Obama drive them to Romney, these supposedly conservative prophets of “lesser evil” lent themselves to corrupting the mind and character of the electorate.  Such corruption is the definitive cause of the destruction of Constitutional self-government in the U.S.  Uninformed by principle, passionate self-interest can no more provide a basis for human self-government than the random interaction of uninformed matter provides for the orderly relations of material things. I made this point back in February (Santorum’s Ave Maria U. Speech “off message”? ), in a discussion of the “divided against itself” passage quoted from Scripture at the opening of this post:

A rational thinker as renowned as Immanuel Kant thought it reasonable, by exploring the limits of purely human understanding, to preserve a basis for moral reasoning that secures the salutary effects (especially in the political sphere) of acknowledging this Being of beings, beyond the limits of our self-conscious knowledge, which we must nonetheless assume in order to exist, no matter what conviction we hold with respect to its reality.

Read more . . .

Were Early Christians Socialists, Marxists or Communists?

In Acts 4:32-35 we see the early Christians experiment with a form of community that greatly resembles socialism or communism: selling their land and possessions and laying the proceeds at the feet of the apostles for distribution among the people. One might easily surmise that this is proof that the Church favors this type of government and finds that private property and private ownership is opposed to Christian values. It is the furthest thing from the truth.

However, it seems much more akin to the structure of many modern monasteries or convents where the people abandon their worldly goods and take a vow of poverty, receiving from their superiors and stewards of the goods, only what is needed. It is a way to free one from the concerns of the world so that one might have complete focus on the real purpose of life: serving God.

Though the text does not state it, I would imagine that the state of mind of these followers was not much different than those who take religious vows of poverty; seeing all worldly possessions and gains as gifts from God and therefore the real ownership belonged to God alone. Their possessions then become no more than things that were entrusted to their safe-keeping so that God’s chosen leaders might best utilize these gifts to care for the community without them becoming focused on the worldly. It is a way to heed the warning that we cannot serve two masters (Mt. 6:24, Lk. 16:13). Obviously, this idea would not work well for an entire country as everyone would have to be of the same mind. Therefore this idea was abandoned rather quickly as a general way of life but preserved in religious orders where nuns and monks take vows of poverty to serve God and man. They leave far behind their ambitions to acquire worldly fame, power, riches or honor.

If this is true, then the belief that all goods come from God and are His to distribute is very distinct from the ideals of Socialism, Marxism or Communism. Beside the completely sectarian, and might I say obvious disdain for religion that these ideologies bear in common, they also have a differing view of who owns the fruit of their labors.

In socialism, one believes that the government owns our production and can redistribute these goods or money to those who need it. The ‘takers’ live off the ‘makers’. Many feel entitled to these benefits and have no shame in taking whatever they can get. In fact, they continually push for more and more goods that they feel are owed them and eventually comes a day of reckoning when there is not enough money from the working people to support their increasing greed for handouts. The system collapses on itself.

In Marxism as notably expressed through the National Socialist (the Nazis), the government desires to take over all industries deigned to be essential to the well being of the collective; banks, armaments, steel production, food production, health care, education and the like. They would likewise distribute goods to those who were loyal party members and those who produced the most good for their state.

Communism, on the other hand, regarded all production and wealth as owned equally by all (though the elites would always get a bit more). When you are no longer producing, you are no longer a valuable member of society and would be considered expendable.

All three systems strive for strong government controls and have a vested interest in eliminating all opposing viewpoints from the arena of ideas. Free speech is destroyed and controlled by the state to further their agenda.

So the difference between a system that considers that God is the source of all good and of all the fruit of our labor is diametrically opposed to a Godless system that views everything as the bounty of the state or collective. These systems are into exercising control of everyone and everything. There is a huge philosophical and theological difference between the voluntary surrender of goods for love of God and man and the abolishing of private property rites and the confiscation of wealth. These forms of government see always to rely on taking from the haves by the government and distributing these goods in any way they see fit – especially for the benefit of the collective. A religious vow of poverty is founded upon the sound virtues of love of God and neighbor while the other secular ideologies are founded upon the sins of power, envy and greed. The Church views people with true compassion while these ideologies view their subjects as faceless masses to be controlled and cajoled into producing what the state needs or wants. The collective always seems more important than the individual or personal freedom.

It is no wonder then that the Catholic Church’s Popes have a long history of opposing these socialist style doctrines: Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum by Pius IX, Encyclicals Diuturnum, Humanum Genus, Quod Apostolici Muneris, Libertas Praestantissimum and Graves de Communi Re by Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique Mandate by Saint Pius X, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum by Benedict XV, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, by Pius XI, Encyclical Summi Pontificatis, by Pius XII, Encyclicals Mater et Magistra, by John XXIII, Centessimus Annus, by John Paul II, Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, by Benedict XVI. All of these decry the dangers of socialism and these other ideological systems. I find it very disturbing that even among Catholics, socialism is now being viewed as a benign and perhaps even a social good that we should embrace. They somehow find it a very caring system and think that they are in agreement with the Social Justice teachings of the Church. However, social justice in the Catholic Church respects private property and stresses charity for the poor and disadvantaged but makes it a personal and Christian endeavor to take care of our poor and does not find it necessary to relegate charity to an all powerful government.

Before we let our emotions trump common sense and before we start idealizing socialist systems we should take time to read some of the above wisdom from our popes, past and present, and realize the dangers these forms of government pose to personal freedom and especially to religious liberty.

Once you do, you may want to get involved in the Fortnight for Freedom effort by our Church leaders in the US by visiting the USCCB website and seeing what you can do to preserve religious liberty in America. It is a fight worth your effort.

%d bloggers like this: