The only constraints which liberty-cultists will place upon their freedom-goddess, is that of preventing people from murdering or stealing from other people, at least for now. I say "at least for now," since we already have legalized murder in the form of abortion. For we have seen, one by one, the constraints of law that were in place in the United States or in other countries even fifty years ago, be dissolved in the name of liberty of choice. In the 1920's for example, a druggist could be arrested if he sold birth-control devices or chemicals. Now he might be arrested if he does not, and these wicked instruments of the devil are advertised on television alongside corn flakes and dish detergent, and are found prominently displayed in drugstores right next to the aspirin and shampoo, so that lusty teenagers can come in and grab them up without delay or inhibition.
In the name of liberty, mothers can walk into an abortion clinic more easily than they can go to their hairdressers, and kill their babies. In this country 4,000 babies a day are murdered. I think that twenty-five million or so is the last count. Again, fifty years ago these mothers would have been arrested and prosecuted, and the abortionists with them.
Even in cases of divorce in this Protestant country, it had to be proven that there was a "sufficient cause." Divorce, although legal, was considered fifty years ago to be scandalous, even among Protestants. For Catholics it was non-existent. Today there is no-fault.
Fifty years ago, you could be arrested for homosexual behavior or for wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Just recently San Francisco passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination against transvestites. That means that if the vice-president of your company decides he wants to wear a dress, liagsick, perfume, and high-heels, there is nothing you can do about it. I wonder if Freemason Patrick Henry had that in mind when he said "Give me liberty or give me death!"
The reason why these constraints were in place fifty or so years ago is that the population was naturally conservative, and illogically insisted on these constraints. I say "illogically," since, once you posit the principles of the cult of liberty, there is nothing to 'stop' the freedom of choice of 'anything'. If one were to cite the natural law against the abortionists, the homosexuals, the divorced, or the birth-control users, they would simply respond, "We don't believe in the natural law."
The liberty-cultist can make no answer to this, for, according to the principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, people have a civil right to reject the natural law. They have a civil right to profess atheism, to say that Our Lady was a harlot, and our Lord a fornicator, that children may be killed in their mothers' wombs, that homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality, that it does not matter how you dress, whether like a man or like a woman - whatever you feel like putting on that day. What law can the liberty-cultist cite against them, if for two hundred years the gospel of liberty of conscience, of religion, of speech and of the press has been preached everywhere as the highest and most ennobling qualities of human life.
One could perhaps object here that neither American culture nor the American Constitution intends such an abuse of human liberty, but strives to only those liberties which are true and good.
This argument is what the conservative objects to the liberal who throws the cult of liberty into the conservative's face.
But where is the foundation of such an objection?
Where is it stated in the Constitution or in any monumental document of the United States of America that the freedoms guaranteed to its citizens must be limited by the eternal law of God, or the natural law? Where is there a single mention of Our Lord Jesus Christ in any of these documents?
Where does it say in the American Constitution that the natural law exists, and that Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are bound to observe the natural law in their acts of lawmaking, law enforcement, and interpretation of law, respectively?
Nowhere. These three entities are three free agents, bound by no law, but are laws unto themselves.
No, the conservative's attempt to limit the freedom so cherished by American culture is spurious. Freedom of religion means that you have the right to worship whatever god you want, even Satan. Freedom of speech means that you have the right to say whatever you want, even blasphemy. Freedom of the press means that you have the right to print whatever you want, even pornography, blasphemy, and heresy.
Neither Congress nor any state legislature can put a clamp on these things logically, since such a restraint would be an arbitrary denial of someone's right to a freedom.
The effects of this cult of liberty are disastrous. For as long as the American people were naturally conservative, moral, and religious, they agreed enough about moral and religious issues at least to hold back the tide of most serious evils. It is those days, the days before the 1960's, or even better before Roosevelt, that most American conservatives dream about when they form their political views. But those days are over. We now live in the reign of Satan, in which people have handed themselves over to indescribable debauchery, wanton disregard for the laws of God and even of the natural law, and to a selfishness and cold-heartedness that justifies the killing of unwanted babies. There is no possible way in which this godless population is going to put back in place the restrictions which were in place fifty years ago.
The only thing that the conservative can hope for is a moral reawakening of the United States.
What supports this fact is the so-called "conservative" upsurge recently in this country has focused nearly entirely on economic issues. They are going to "dismantle the welfare state."
Bravo, but what about dismantling abortion? Gay rights? Birth control pills and devices? Sex education? Dirty movies and TV? Women's liberation? Secular humanism in the schools? These are the true plagues of American society, not high taxes or welfare, and these diseases are the effect of the general breakdown of the morals of the people. And the problem is that these infections cannot be eradicated legally and logically except by some 'principle, a principle which restricts human freedom only to those objects which are good'.
For as long as the cult of liberty is in place, these and the many other noxious influences in our daily lives must continue under the banner of protecting human liberty.
That principle which is so badly needed is the 'law of God'. But since Congress is obliged never to establish a religion, it cannot even apply the Ten Commandments to our lives, it cannot even mention Our Lord Jesus Christ the King, and least of all the Roman Catholic Church. No, our country is condemned to worshipping the masonic Liberty Goddess, and thereby to fall headlong into moral corruption and finally destruction. America - or any other country which worships the Liberty Goddess - can only avoid this destruction if it abandons the Cult of Liberty.
A Truly Catholic Politic
I do not mean to deter people from actively pursuing the suppression of abortion and the removal of other liberal influences in their lives. Nevertheless, I think that the Catholic should understand the political and moral principles which are at play in the American culture. There is not a permanent peace of law and order to be hoped for, for as long as the cult of liberty dominates the mentality of the American people or the people of any other nation, for that matter. I do not think that American Catholic conservatives should hold up, as an ideal, the very system of the cult of liberty which gave us this dreadful problem, which gave us abortion, gay rights, sex education, pornography and the rest of it.
The only truly Catholic stance in politics is to desire a Constitution for one's country which recognizes Our Lord Jesus Christ as King and the Roman Catholic Church as the one, true Church of Christ, and which submits the nation to the laws of Christ as promulgated by His Church. As distant and impossible as this state of affairs may seem, it must nevertheless, by definition, be the Catholic's ideal - 'by definition', since a Catholic would not be a Catholic unless he desired such a state of affairs for his country.
Anything less than such a state of affairs is not an ideal, but a mere half a loaf, which, although better than none, still does not measure up.
Most of all, Catholic politics should bitterly oppose any system of government which makes a cult of human liberty and places on a pedestal the indifference of the state toward religion. For such a system leads logically to exactly what we have today: moral anarchy.
Far from losing hope and energy, however, Catholics should strive as much as they can to hold the line of moral rectitude in local and national laws. Although logically the cult of liberty leads to moral anarchy, it is never less true that people are not always consistent and logical. Strong pressure from Catholics and from others, who at least believe in the natural law, could effectively bring about significant changes in favor of good. My only concern is that the Catholic mind be not poisoned by protestant and masonic ideals concerning human liberty and the secularistic, non-religious state.
And while we are on the subject, I would like to take the opportunity to say a word of caution about a well-known national "conservative" radio talk-show host. While his comments about liberals are definitely amusing, what bothers me about him is that he has a dirty mind, and jokes about filthy matters in a most disgusting manner. He is divorced twice, and "married" three times, which is not my idea of a "conservative." What I also notice is that most of the moral issues for him are on the back burner, while the economic issues are the really hot topics. He represents, unfortunately, the state of many conservatives: people who are as morally bankrupt as liberals, but who simply want to keep the government out of their pursuit of money and success. He is also alarmingly "one-worldy" on many issues. My fear is that he is going to educate the conservative into being someone like himself: a liberty-cultist to the fingertips, morally trashed, and an egotist trying to keep government out of his way in this pursuit of happiness, consisting of money, prestige, and success.
America-bashing?
I must now deal with the objection that I have been engaging in America-bashing. The very term implies that there is nothing seriously wrong in the American system. It implies that, in itself, America is great and fine, and that its problems stem only from the fact that the American people, politicians in particular, have strayed from the original American ideal.
But I do say that there is something seriously flawed in the American system, because it is a country which is professedly religion-less It prides itself on being religion-less. It prides itself on the fact that its laws are regulated by no superior principle. It prides itself on the fact that it will not recognize Our Lord Jesus Christ as King. This, to me, is an abomination, and is a quality which it shares with the howling mob of faithless Jews in Pilate's courtyard.
Even pagan and cowardly Pilate had the guts, however, to place the inscription upon the Cross, 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'.
And when the chief priests objected, claiming that it should say instead, "He said, 'I am King of the Jews,"' obviously to protect the religious liberty of Judaism, Pilate had the guts to say to them, "What I have written, I have written." It was an eloquent and very Roman way of telling them to shut up. So also I think that Americans should write the inscription above America, 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the United States of America'. And when accused of America-bashing [for it is a slap in the face to the Liberty Goddess], I think that they should have the guts to respond, "What we have written, we have written." For it is in no way contrary to the justice owed to one's country to point out its faults, particularly those systemic faults which would bring about its destruction. On the other hand, it would be a sin to love, either in an individual or a country, that which is sinful in it, that which is not of God in it. No one will ever convince me that the indifference of the American government and American culture to God is something pleasing to Him. Leo XIII said it: "A society well regulated without religion is impossible."
Everyone should be devoted to his homeland as the source of many good things in his life. A country is an extension of one's family, and should therefore always be treated with respect, love, loyalty, and admiration. But just as it is a duty of charity to point out to members of one's family their serious faults, so is it a duty of charity to point out the serious faults of one's country. One such fault of America - and of every other Western nation - is that it glories in its indifference to Christ the King. Catholics cannot relegate this glaring defect to being a mere misdemeanor of politics, but must desire for their countries what their Catholic Faith desires: the repudiation of the masonic cult of liberty, and the public recognition of Christ the King and of His Holy Catholic Church. -END QUOTE- mason11.htm