Source: http://christorchaos.com/AnIllusionofaVictory.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 15:03:07+00:00

Document:
An Illusion of a "Victory"
The devil is a master of deceit and illusion. He wants us to believe illusions about ourselves and how "wonderful" we are, how much in need we are of avoiding anything that excessively taxes our physical or mental strength, how little in need we are of authentic penance to make reparation for our sins to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her consecrated slaves. Most of us live our lives laboring under some kind of delusion about ourselves and our abilities, minimizing our sins and cutting as many corners as we can in the belief that God will not hold us responsible for the "little" things we do when observing the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law as He has entrusted them exclusively to the Catholic Church for their safekeeping and infallible explication is just too "inconvenient" or "impractical" for us.
The devil also creates illusions in the realm of popular culture and civil governance. He has convinced even believing Catholics, including those who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the legitimacy of the conciliar ecclesiastical officials, that "progress" can be made in the retarding of various social evils without insisting upon an absolute adherence to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law in every aspect of social life, without even trying to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and nations to the Social Reign of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen. Loving to create a perverse game of false opposites, the adversary raises up some people in public life who are so very bad and obviously supportive of evil that anyone else appears to be better by comparison. Knowing that the human being is always looking for shortcuts in his personal and social lives, the devil wants people to get excited about apparent "victories" that are simply illusions that permit evil to be promoted under cover of law and in every aspect of popular culture while those who are opposed to various evils such as the surgical dismemberment of babies in their mothers' wombs under cover of law congratulate themselves on these illusory "victories."
Such is the case with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart that upheld the constitutionality of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion ban that was signed into law by President George W. Bush and then challenged in various United States Distinct Courts immediately thereafter. Reiterating what I have been writing on these subject for the past twelve years without any equivocation, the partial birth abortion ban did not represent a "victory" for the restoration of legal protection for the innocent preborn when it was first raised by Republicans in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate in 1995. The upholding of the constitutionality of the bill, which was twice vetoed by President William Jefferson Blyth Clinton, by the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, is not a "victory" for the restoration of legal protection for the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs. It is an illusion that changes nothing of the reality of the fact that not one child will be saved by the law, now fully effective, and the Supreme Court decision that upheld its constitutionality.
8.The Partial Birth Abortion bill that is now the law of the land contains an immoral"life of the mother" exception, meaning that this procedure of killing a baby will still be used. And it will be used not only in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is "endangered." Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?
Undermines the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process? Sentimentality and emotionalism have replaced the rule of law according to the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law, which binds all men in all nations in all circumstances at all times without any exception whatsoever. To justify a morally flawed bill that does not even fully outlaw the child-killing procedure described as "undermining the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery" is itself perverse and absurd. The only logical conclusion one can draw from this is that forms of child-killing that are publicly acceptable, largely because it is out of view and done on tiny human beings who cannot speak for themselves,will remain perfectly legal as they do not undermine "the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role" before delivery of a child. Such is the monstrous way in which jurists reason in a world where men and their nations are not subordinate to the Catholic Church in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ King in all that pertains to the good of souls.
Do not be deceived by the those who are creating and sustaining the illusion that a "victory" has been won. Do not be deceived by those who recite the old canard that we cannot "let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The partial birth abortion ban has never been anything "good." It has always been and it remains on this very day a cheap political trick by which phony pro-life politicians, most of whom support baby-killing in the "hard" cases and fund the chemical assassination of children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs, have burnished their credentials while they do nothing to reverse the Food and Drug Administration's September, 2000, decision to market the human pesticide, RU-486, the French abortion pill, while they do nothing to reverse the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), while they campaign most actively for fully pro-abortion candidates who belong to their own political party.
Even a reversal of Roe v. Wade would not end baby-killing nationwide, although it would limit it in some states. For example, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has stated quite publicly, including at a Communion Breakfast in the City of New York ten years ago next month, that is, in May of 1997, that the Constitution of the United States of America is "silent" about abortion, a belief that is itself most arguable (arguments can be made on purely constitutional grounds that the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit abortion), meaning that state legislatures are "free" to permit, restrict or prohibit child-killing. Scalia said that he would be duty bound to uphold the constitutionality of state legislation permitting abortion as he contends that it is not prohibited by the words of the United States Constitution and that he is prohibited from using anything extraneous to the actual words of the Constitution, including the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law, to strike down legislation he might not like personally but is not, as he sees it, prohibited by the words of the Constitution, making him a rank legal positivist (that law has no higher foundation that the actual words of various constitutions and statutes and codes and ordinances). Those states that chose to keep baby-killing "safe and legal" if Roe v. Wade would thus find a friend in the person of Antonin Scalia (and possibly John Roberts and Samuel Alito), as well as "states' rights" members of The Federalist Society, ever desirous of defending the "rights" of states rather than recognizing the primacy of the Deposit of Faith as Our Lord had entrusted it exclusively to the Catholic Church. No human legislature at any level of government (national, state, local, provincial) has any "right" to contravene by means of positive legislation and/or by judicial decisions the binding precepts of any of God's laws, including the Fifth Commandment.
An analysis by the Life Legal Defense Fund (see PDF - Executive Summary, Table, and Map for a most comprehensive and cogent summary of the actual truth of the situation that we face at the present time; please take the time to review this factual information as it will help you to "sober up" in the face of illusory "victories") concludes that baby-killing would be limited or prohibited in only seven states if Roe v. Wade was overturned. Thus, even the overturning of Roe v. Wade would not be a "victory" for the restoration of legal protection for the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs. Much like yesterday's decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v. Carhart, a reversal of Roe v. Wade would make pro-life Americans "feel" better without changing the reality of the daily slaughter of the preborn under cover of law.
The professional, career politicians and their political consultants know all of this. So do the leaders of the various advocacy groups. The illusion created by the whole partial birth abortion ban debate, which did, to be sure, explain the horror of one particular form of child-killing, is tailor-made for those who run for office ("Vote for for the Democrats to protect Roe v. Wade;" "Vote for Republicans to protect life")and those who make quite a substantial living from the direct mail appeals that are made whenever these illusions are created during times of "crisis" and "controversy" ("Give to us now in order to keep abortion 'safe and legal';" "Give to us now in order to continue making the progress we are making under our pro-life leader, President George W. Bush"). Both sides will sound the clarion calls, knowing full well that nothing has changed and that nothing will change in this country as long as we assassinate millions of babies this year by means of chemical abortifacients and as long as anyone in public life maintains that there is a single instance in which an innocent human being in his mother's womb under cover of law. This is one of the absolute, iron laws of naturalism, which cannot admit that the one and only way to retard evils in the hearts and souls of men and thus in their nations is Catholicism and Catholicism alone.
Given the fact that both those who support baby-killing in all instances and those who believe in baby-killing in some instances (Bush, for example, and most other so-called "pro-life" public officials and leaders of the National Right to Life Committee and its related organizations and sycophantic supporters) know that nothing substantive has changed as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, it is truly laughable to see the likes of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and other completely pro-abortion advocates adverting to the "forty years" of "legal precedent" that support baby-killing under cover of law. The devil knows that the only way to combat that sort of fractured history is for someone to point out that full protection to innocent human life in the womb has been afforded only as a result of the influence of the Catholic Church in history, a point that no "conservative" Catholic commentator is going to make lest he lose his "access" to the "talking head" shows and support from pro-life Protestants and Jews and Mohammedans.
There is quite a parallel here, if you think about it.
That is, an illusion of monstrous proportions is about to be created by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI when (if) he issues the motu proprio "liberating" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition for "private" celebrations by priests in the conciliar structures (many of whom are not validly ordained priests, obviously) without a conciliar bishop's permission (and which might, some press reports indicate, authorize a group of thirty people in a parish to request the offering of the Mass according to the Missal of John XXIII). Ratzinger knows full well that there are conciliar bishops (Roger Mahony, Tod Brown, George Niederauer, Joseph Adamec, et al.) who will protest the motu proprio with all of their might, causing them to protest personally to Roman officials themselves and/or to drag their feet in acting on the implementation of the motu proprio. These conciliar bishops will point to the "forty years" of "tradition" represented by the Novus Ordo Missae, much as those who support abortion fully are pointing currently to the "thirty years" of "legal precedent" of Roe v. Wade. The "liberation" of the Mass would be as "divisive" to a conciliar church that has "prospered" under the "inclusion" of the "people" in the "liturgy," the "bad" conciliar bishops will argue, just as the no-exceptions pro-abortion crowd is saying that Gonzales v. Carhart is "harmful" to the women who have grown up with the "rights" established in Roe v. Wade.Oh, yes, there is quite a parallel here.
Such false opposition within the counterfeit church of conciliarism upon the issuance of any motu proprio "liberating" the modernized version of the Traditional Mass will serve Ratzinger's purposes so very well, causing traditionally-minded Catholics to be swept away by the emotion of the moment and to leap to the defense of the "pope" who "liberated the Mass," choosing to go easy on him on such things as the ecclesiological and Eucharistic heresies, choosing to go easy on him about ecumenism and religious liberty and the abomination that is the Novus Ordo Missae. Some, although not all, Catholics in the "resist and recognize" camp will join their brethern in the "indult" community and learn how to keep their peace in order to oppose those nasty conciliar bishops who are opposing the "pope" who is a Modernist to the very core of his being. This is exactly what is happening now in the political realm as even some sensible people have taken leave of their senses and are hailing George W. Bush as a "pro-life hero" for signing the partial birth abortion ban into law, ignoring the truth about the law itself and ignoring the fact that Bush is a pro-abort and supports and funds the chemical killing of children in their mothers' wombs in this country and around the world, ignoring also the death and carnage he has visited upon Iraq. Ah, who is going to preside over a memorial service for the 170 people killed in Baghdad, Iraq, yesterday? Oh, well, more invisible people that are killed every day, joining the four thousand invisible babies who are killed by means other than "intact dilation and extraction." Who wants the facts to get in the way of a good time?
As noted above, conciliarism has played a very significant role in helping to reinforce the underlying suppositions of Americanism concerning the alleged "necessity" of opposing various moral evils in a generic, non-denominational way, opening up the path to scores of logical inconsistencies. . . . . We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are one or two elections away from this or that goal, that the closely divided results of various elections and referenda augers well for us. They do not. They are a sign of the fact that the forces of evil are inculcating more and more young minds in an acceptance of moral depravity as their "right" and that the sentimentalities of naturalism are the foundation of individual moral judgments and thus of public policy itself. And just consider how most of the conciliar shepherds are deaf, dumb, and blind as their flocks vote for the likes of Edward Moore Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton and and Debbie Stebenow and Maria Cantwell and Arnold Schwarzenegger by the droves. No, it is not the route of electoral politics that is going to change the country or the world.
1. No one who supports a single exception to the inviolability of innocent human life is pro-life. Such a person is simply less pro-abortion that those who are support baby-killing under cover of law without any restrictions or exceptions.
2. No one who supports contraception is pro-life.
3. No one who supports candidates for public office who support baby-killing under cover of law is pro-life. How can we "build a world where every child will be welcomed in life and protected by law" when people said to be "pro-life" not only believe that babies can be killed in some instances but that it is no impediment to the building up of a "culture of life" by supporting the public careers, whether elected or appointed, of men and women who believe that the civil law can and must permit mothers to pay killers to slaughter their children?
As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men." This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.
Hallowed, therefore, in the minds of Christians is the very idea of public authority, in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the Divine Majesty, even when it is exercised by one unworthy. A just and due reverence to the laws abides in them, not from force and threats, but from a consciousness of duty; "for God hath not given us the spirit of fear."
We do not remain indifferent to the daily slaughter of the preborn, both by surgical and chemical means, even though the political processes afforded us by naturalism will stop this massacre. No, the daily, invisible massacre of thousands of children must be uppermost in our prayers. We must pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe and Saint Gerard Majella so that at least one child may be saved each day at each place where babies are killed by surgical means under cover of law. We commend the preborn and the elderly and the disabled and the unwanted to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart in her Most Holy Rosary, which can be prayed before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament of a true Catholic Church, one that has validly ordained priests. And we can be a prayerful presence in front of abortuaries with our fellow traditional Catholics as we seek to give a visible, tangible witness to the fact that every abortion is an indirect attack on the Incarnation itself, which is why, for example, Saint Gertrude the Great Church in West Chester, Ohio, held a Pro-Life Vigil on the Transferred Feast of the Annunciation on March 26, 2007, with the Most Blessed Sacrament solemnly exposed for adoration and acts of reparation.
We can also get good scientific facts in the hands of our relatives and friends. A new DVD being distributed by the American Life League (one can see that Mrs. Judie Brown has offered her own remarks concerning Gonzales v. Carhart, Judie Brown's blog: Partial victory or blowing smoke?) describes the first sixteen days of life. A clip can be seen by clicking here: http://www.all.org/babysteps.php.
Providing people with such information is useful, obviously. Much more importantly, however, is to seek the conversion of those whom God has put into our paths from all eternity to a knowledge and acceptance of and submission to His Holy Truths as He has entrusted them exclusively to the Catholic Church, which is why we must lead people to those places where the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is offered only by priests who make no concessions at all to conciliarism or to the legitimacy of the "shepherds" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that says it is opposed to various evils as it accommodates itself over and over again to the prevailing ethos of naturalism that is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King it accepts as irreversible.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.