“[In America] One searches in vain to find in Catholic catechisms before Vatican II, even on the High School level, the Church’s teaching on the duty of states to the Catholic religion. Rather most pre-Vatican II Catholic catechisms and history books are either totally silent on the subject, or actually extol the American system of indifference to all religions, and extol freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.

Why was this so? Why were these teachings and condemnations purposely ignored by the Catholic clergy of this country, to the extent that students who came through twelve or sixteen years of Catholic schools knew nothing of them? The answer is that the Catholics of the nineteenth and early twentieth century felt an urgent need to convince the Protestant establishment of this country that Catholics were good Americans, and had no problem in accepting American mentality and culture. Irish, German and Italian immigrants, most of them Catholics, were eager to secure for the Church peace and prosperity in a land peopled by those who, in large degree, had fled Europe in order to get away from Catholic influence. And since the cult of freedom, the cherishing of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience was paramount in the existing protestant-masonic culture of America, Catholics perceived it necessary to somehow marry their Catholicism to the cult of liberty. The result was the neglect, through nearly total silence, of very important moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It furthermore required a whitewashing, a pulling, and a stretching of historical facts and events of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in order to make them appear compatible with Catholic principles.”

— Bishop Donald Sanborn, (Sacerdotium 14, Spring 1995)

X 🔗

Protestants, Jews and Liberals will tell you (and mostly mean it) they are not anti-Catholic — provided (of course) you remain silent about the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the objective necessity of the State to worship God in the true religion.

There’s a lesson in that.

Therefore, if you’re not being called anti-America by these types, you likely have a fatal omission in your messaging.

America can never be a good country in the eyes of God until she is converted, that is when she accepts the glorious and harmonious union of Church and State.

X 🔗

Fulton Sheen explains his views on excommunication to William F. Buckley in 1970 on ‘Firing Line’.

“Well again, it’s the change with the spirit of the times. I think the Church has become much more patient and kind. It’s much more related to the world than it was then — the Church was very much locked up in itself, after all what the Vatican Council did was to relate it to the world.”

Hyper progressive. Watch until the end. ☠️

X 🔗

If Bishop Sheen was truly in possession of heroic virtue, which is necessary in order for someone to eventually be canonized a saint, why did he once tell contracepting married couples on national television to ‘continue making love’ and ‘trust in the mercy of God?’

My latest for Integrity Magazine exposes this scandalous remark from Sheen on Robert Frost’s program in 1969: https://integritymagazine.org/2026/09/24/devils-advocate-4-inconvenient-questions-for-admirers-of-fulton-sheen/

‼️Exposing the faulty presuppositions contained in the “lesser of two evils” argument, a favorite of Republican propagandists.

— REMINDER: The general conditions by which Catholics judge a worthy political candidate and his platform, which is distinct from his person, were laid out by Pope Pius XII in his 1948 allocation to the clergy of Rome. Worth noting is that failing to satisfy a single one of these conditions, let alone many or all, renders a candidate, objectively, unworthy.

“However, it is obvious that the voice of conscience imposes on every Catholic to give his vote to the candidates who offer truly sufficient guarantees for the protection of the rights of God and of souls, for the true good of individuals, families and of society, according to the love of God and Catholic moral teaching.”

Now, returning to the presuppositions which deserve attention:

First, abstracting from other important considerations, the moral principle that it is permissible (which is distinct from obligatory) to vote for an unworthy candidate that is the lesser of two evils is not absolute, i.e. valid in all cases.

Another is that choosing Liberalism (Conservatives/GOP) to oppose the Left, which we can call communism, is still to embrace and legitimize a deadly system of moral and religious error! In some sense, it is more dangerous, owing to its partially masked nature and how it inexorably produces communism. If, however, one has no horror at the American Conservative program and movement, well, that is but a reflection on him.

Yet another faulty presupposition is that consistently choosing the “lesser of the two evils”, particularly when this pattern manifests itself over the course of decades, runs the risk of legitimizing evil, far from opposing and overcoming it —which is the actual, motivating reason for that initial decision of toleration, i.e. to “choose the lesser of the two”.

X 🔗

What has the Republican Party ever done for you?

• Besides calling your views on religion theocratic
• Besides calling your views on American identity racist
• Besides calling your views on women sexist
• Besides calling your views on economics socialist
• Besides calling your views on foreign policy antisemitic

X 🔗

The same people claiming you have to vote for Vivek in November, not only fell for Trump in ‘24 but were shocked when he started new wars, failed to do mass deportations, orchestrated the Epstein cover-up and deepened the destruction of the American economy.

X 🔗

“The moderate Liberal is just as bad as his extreme confrere; but he takes good care not to appear so. Social conventionalities and good manners are every thing to him; the rest is of little importance. Provided his iniquity is kid-gloved, it finds ready extenuation in his own mind. The niceties of polite society preserved, his liberalism knows no bounds. He would not burn a convent — that would appear too brutal; but the convent once burned he has no scruple in seizing upon the outraged property. [...]

At the mere mention of the name of a nihilistic or socialistic club he is thrown into a cold sweat, for there, he declares, the masses are seduced into principles which lead to the destruction of the foundations of society; yet, according to him, there is no danger, no inconvenience in a free lyceum where the same principles are elegantly debated and sympathetically applauded; for who could dare to condemn the scientific discussion of social problems? [...]

The extreme Liberal roars his Liberalism, the moderate Liberal mouths it, the tainted Catholic whispers and sighs it. All are bad enough and serve the devil well. Nevertheless the extreme Liberal overreaches himself by his violence, the fecundity of the tainted Catholic is partially sterilized by his hybrid nature, but the moderate is the real Satanic type; his is the masked evil, which in our times is the chief cause of the ravages of Liberalism.”

- Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, El Liberalism es Pecado (Liberalism is a Sin), (1886), chp. XVI, pp. 33-35

X 🔗

My latest for Integrity Magazine on why the establishment GOP despises young White men and why every racial group should be able to engage in healthy identity politics. 👇
https://integritymagazine.org/2026/10/01/sarah-sanders-welfare-ad-exposes-everything-wrong-with-the-gop-establishment/

I see this exact strategy working with success in the USA except that there is no need for a separate party.

Rather, an American Nationalist and America First faction *within* the GOP can simply engage in principled abstention when basic demands are not met (Christian morals, immigration moratorium, remigration, law and order). As a conservative estimate, we currently have 5-10% of the Republican constituency. This is only going to grow.

Already in swing states, should this faction withhold the vote in an organized and principled way, the GOP utterly will be brought to its knees. The party must capitulate and fundamentally transform itself to reflect who is “on paper” its base — and if it does not, it will lose all future races.

And like Restore is messaging, when the establishment invariably loses, it will be its own fault.

X 🔗

Jacob Rees Mogg, a highly-educated British aristocrat, invoked St. Thomas while butchering a fundamental tenet of Just War Theory: due mode.

— The means employed in waging war must not only be proportionate to the offense inflicted but consists chiefly in that no innocent person is intentionally killed.

The indiscriminate, mass bombing of civilization populations is therefore absolutely unjust and abhorrent. Fueled by Masonic and Liberal ideology, what the USA did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima will forever remain a blight on our country’s history.

Woe to Rees Mogg for defending it, running afoul of St. Paul (III, 8) in his epistle to the Romans:

“And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? —as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.”

X 🔗

To date, I have yet to see a serious defender of the “continuity thesis” with respect to Francis and his magisterium grapple with the actual argument made in CCC no. 2267 on the death penalty.

It centers almost entirely on Francis’ understanding of human dignity, shared by Leo XIV who believes one cannot be “Pro-Life” if he is for the death penalty.

As proved in the embedded post, it is a grave error in a circumstance in which Francis arguably ought to be infallible. The official clarification and development leaves absolutely no doubt as to the reality of the error.

Here is the insoluble contradiction:

In the context of his official teaching in Dignitatis Infinita “Infinite Dignity,”Francis lumps (para. 34) in the State infliction of the death penalty with murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide as “grave violations of human dignity today.”

Under what sense of dignity is he referring to here? Either it is under the aspect of 1) ontological or 2) moral dignity, the former which is inviolable in men (though not infinite) and the latter which can be lost through the commission of serious sin.

By conflating five things that are intrinsically evil with something which is not, namely the State infliction of the death penalty, Francis has revealed why he is so energetically against the death penalty and enjoins all to “work for its abolition worldwide.”

X 🔗

“The doctrine of the Church settles the matter, both in the profession of faith prescribed by Innocent III for the Waldensian heretics being led back to the Church: ‘Concerning the secular power we assert that it can exercise the judgment of blood without mortal sin, provided that, in inflicting vengeance, it proceeds not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but with deliberation;’ and in the bull of Leo X, Exurge Domine, in which the errors of Luther are condemned, among which: ‘That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit’. Hence theologians do not hesitate to hold as heretical the opinion that universally denies the power of the prince to punish by death; but the opinion of Scotus, some say, is rash and erroneous in faith, so Báñez; others, more than dangerous in faith, so Molina; or at least less consonant with the faith, as Sylvius; less conformed to sound faith and rejected by all, so Wiggers; etc.” — Gustave Joseph Waffelaert, Tractatus Theologici de Virtutibus Cardinalibus, (1886), vol. 2, p. 49

X 🔗

With Alexander Poe on Wednesday evening (8:00pm - EST), I will be reviewing the recent discussion over Jewish identity between Dr. E Michael Jones and Gideon Lazar.

It will be on the weekly Church & State program hosted by myself at Integrity Magazine.

Set your reminders and we will see you there. Bring your questions — you won’t want to miss it!

Here is the stream in case you missed it: https://youtu.be/ozGZ-G6YHTM?si=lOmxWXTagAB3NkVE

“That Paul VI and John Paul II did not have the authority is a necessary consequence of the fact — also supported by the TC — that Vatican II erred in its teaching and that the new missal is morally unacceptable... the faithful do not yet adhere to this conclusion (John Paul II is not – formally – Pope) as a truth of faith, because the Church has not yet defined it as such. Anyone who rejects this conclusion is not, by that very fact, a heretic who places himself outside the Church...

However, by denying this theological conclusion [vacancy in the Apostolic See] and affirming that John Paul II is Pope, one risks being forced to deny certain truths of faith (either by accepting his teaching, which is in opposition, on many points, to the Magisterium of the Church, or by rejecting it, thus attributing the error to the Pope and the Church). The position of the Society of Saint Pius X and the TC, which opposes a private judgment (on Vatican II, on the new missal, on the new code of canon law, on the canonizations proclaimed by John Paul II, on his magisterium) to that which, according to them, remains the Magisterium of the Church or its discipline, is indeed illegitimate: preferring one’s own judgment to that of the Church is the attitude proper to the heretic.”

— Fr. Franceso Ricossa, Sodalitium no. 55, (2003), p. 60