The Abominable Sands

‘Freedom of speech and expression…’

The magisterium has given ‘socialism’ a defined meaning and condemned it. No Catholic can adhere to Socialism in that sense and to adopt the term on the grounds that one adheres to a generically similar but formally distinct doctrine is to give very serious scandal.

“[T]he socialists … are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy.” Rerum Novarum 4

“Socialists, therefore, by endeavouring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.” Rerum Novarum 5

“The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.” Rerum Novarum 14

“Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.” Rerum Novarum 15

The Church teaches that the goods of the earth are given to the entire human race to provide for their subsistence and security and that by our application of fruitful labour to some part of the earth we appropriate that portion of the earth to provide for our own subsistence and security and that of our dependents. This right of property includes essentially the right to alienate these goods by sale, gift or bequest. Once provision is made for our own subsistence and security and that of our dependents whatever remains should be employed whether gratuitously or in exchange for labour or goods to assist others in providing for their subsistence and security. Only if this last obligation is not fulfilled does the right of property lapse and do third parties (destitute individuals and families or the civil power acting on their behalf but without respect of persons)  become entitled to treat the additional goods in question as if they had not been appropriated. Socialism essentially consists in the claim that the initial appropriation is undertaken by the community as a whole and so the right of property is vested in the community not in individuals or families and is only enjoyed by individuals and families by a concession of the community that may be modified or revoked.

The Rainbow


David Steel, the author of the 1967 Abortion Act, has been forced under oath to admit that Cyril Smith confessed to him that he was a child molester in 1979. Steel brazenly described the allegations against Smith as “scurrilous hearsay” only a year ago, Not only did Smith continue as a Liberal MP until 1992 but Steel put him forward for a knighthood. Lord Steel is exposed as a facilitator of child rape as well as murder.


As a spineless Balthasarian worshiper of the Hegelian Kirkengeist it is natural that Ouellet (like his Germanic twin Schönborn) should betray those fighting for the truth of the faith against the corrupt men who have taken possession of the Roman Curia. For them there is no untainted Gospel preached by the apostles from the beginning never to be believed differently, never to be understood in any other way. Instead, there is the self-realisation of “the God who is history” (in Kasper’s words) through the institution of the Church (which, for them, replaces the role played by the Prussian state for Hegel). This allows them to change their beliefs to suit the needs of ecclesiastical advancement without scruple. This allows Ouellet to call the criticism of the pope blasphemy and insinuate that Viganò is not in communion with the See of Rome because he has had the temerity to expose the immoral acts of its bishop.

On the purely tactical level his strategy is to scream insults as Viganò while conceding his central allegation to avoid the difficulty that Viganò is telling the truth.

“In an extraordinary 11-page written testament, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States has accused several senior prelates of complicity in covering up Archbishop Theodore McCarrick’s allegations of sexual abuse, and has claimed that Pope Francis knew about sanctions imposed on then-Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI but chose to repeal them.”



Next Page »