Libertarians, Conservatives, and Newchurch's Child Holocaust By Patricius Anthony TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, Web: http://www.traditio.com Copyright 2011 P. Anthony. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. Last Revised: 04/03/11
The latest United States led military operation in Libya has elicited the typical response from those on the Right opposed to further Western military involvement in the Middle East. Libertarians and "isolationist" conservatives have lashed out at America's current commander-in-chief for engaging in another attack on a Muslim country which has not threatened either the United States or those European nations involved in the bombing.
Libertarians have focused on the deaths of innocent Libyans and the massive fiscal cost which will be borne by the already overburden Western taxpayers. In a similar vein, conservative commentators have lamented the swelling U.S. Empire and the "immorality" of attacking a nation that has not aggressed against any of its neighbors.
Neoconservative Catholic, Patrick Buchanan, one of the more popular voices opposed to the United States' global empire writes, "Since Bush I, we have intervened in Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya.... All these wars have helped mightily to bankrupt us" [syndicated column, 3-25-11].
Strangely enough, the indignation among many of the same libertarian/conservative punditry over Western intervention in Libya for its abuse of power, mass murder, and the violation of person and property rights has been nonexistent about the holocaust which has taken place within Newchurch upon the young, innocent, and even the handicapped by its clerics, as well as the cover up of these heinous actions by its hierarchy up to and including its very pinnacle, Benedict-Ratzinger. What makes this worse is that some of the harshest critics of the Libyan imbroglio consider themselves "traditional Catholics" and have, in other places, praised Benedict-Ratzinger especially for his Motu Mess hoax.
While there have been calls by many of these commentators for the impeachment of America's current commander-in-chief, there has been no demands for Benedict-Ratzinger to resign for his despicable action as Archbishop of Munich and Freising, as he shielded one of his subordinate presbyters from child rape charges. And, later, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith under the nutty John Paul II-Wojtyla, Benedict-Ratzigner orchestrated a cover up of the child rape and abuse rampant within Newchurch.
Doesn't child rape and assault constitute a violation of individual rights? Isn't this "aggression" in its most demonic form? Where are the "natural-rights theorists" who condemn state acts of war which lead to the death of the innocent and their impoverishment, yet, when it comes to Newchurch and its crimes, remain silent?
The latest intervention in Libya is just another episode in the destructive history of American imperialism which, under its current philosophical orientation, will not be its last. The nation long ago abandoned its republican principles and has turned into a dangerous and meddlesome empire which is pursuing the goals and interests of the financial and political elite while its populace pays for it in lives and wealth. And those Catholics who know their history understand that America, since its inception, has never sought the advancement of Christianity either at home or abroad, but has been governed by the ethos of "separation of Church and State."
Empires themselves are not necessarily bad. It would be hard to argue that the Roman Empire was not an instrument of Providence in that it provided the means through its language, law, military prowess, economic might, and culture for the dissemination of the Catholic Faith throughout the civilized world. Or, take the great Spanish Empire begun under the saintly Queen Isabella, which led to countless conversions of pagan souls in the New World. Was this empire "murderous" and "evil," or did it bankrupt itself, in part, because it expended its wealth in the process of converting millions, defending its overseas possessions from the "aggression" of Protestant England, and, in its vain, but heroic attempt to save European Christendom from fragmenting? Remember that Isabella and Ferdinand's reign so exemplified how Catholic monarchs should rule that they were given the august title of La Catolica by the pope (a title that the queens and kings of Spain still retain).
Our Divine Savior could not be more clear about the consequences for those who harm or corrupt the innocence of children: "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about the neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but, nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh" [St. Matthew, ch. 18, vs. 6-7]. A commentary on the passage explains the grievous nature of this sin: "By these strong expressions of Our Lord, we may judge of the enormity and malice of scandal. Rather than be the cause of scandal to any of the faithful, and occasion the loss of his soul, we must be ready to undergo every torment, yes, and suffer death itself."
Can one imagine what is in store for those who have committed such atrocities and those who have covered them up? While conservatives and libertarians may feel courageous and self righteous for their opposition to the latest American conflict, their silence, and, in some cases, support of Benedict-Ratzinger, will eventually result in their own exposure to the Divine Wrath for the holocaust that Newchurch has and continues to inflict upon Almighty God's children.