By Solange Hertz.
The readers of Time magazine were assured in the summer of 1992 that “within the next hundred years … all states will recognize a single global authority.” The author of the article was Strobe Talbott, member of the CFR, former Rhodes Scholar and President Clinton’s roommate at Oxford. Mr. Talbott, at that time Ambassador-at-Large and Special Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State on the New Independent States and Russia, admitted that “it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government,” made possible by the democratic “idea that all human beings are born equal and should, as citizens, enjoy certain basic liberties and rights, including that of choosing their own leaders.”
As he explains it, “Once there was a universal ideology to govern the conduct of nations towards their own people, it was more reasonable to imagine a compact governing nations’ behavior toward one another.” Setting up the new Utopia should not prove difficult, because, says he, “All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary.” For solutions to incidental problems, he invites global planners to study the United States. As prototype of modern artificial governments, he believes it is still “the best example of a multinational federal state.” To use it as a world model would be little more than “the logical extension of [its] Founding Fathers’ wisdom.”
Every artificial government from Cain’s city to the United Nations exhibits four distinguishing marks: It is one, human, universal, and autonomous. A Catholic has no trouble recognizing these characteristics as mirror-images of the four marks of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Utopia’s unity resides in a manmade ideology imposed on all without distinction. Its holiness is that of man become his own god, whereas its universality is nothing more than the fallen human nature shared by all of us. Its apostolic authority is “the consent of the governed.”
Apostasy of the Nations
In other words, Utopia is the official apostasy of nations. It is an international anti-Church whose components have banded together against God as their common enemy. The spirit of Utopia is perfectly expressed in Psalm 2:
“Why have the nations raged and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth have stood up and the princes met together against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder; and let us cast away their yoke from us” (Ps. 2:12).
Observing developments at the close of the First World War, Benedict XV called Utopia “the erection of atheism into a system,” responsible for “hurling the world into a sea of blood.” Its source of inspiration is not far to seek: the mission which the Church receives from above, Utopia is pleased to receive from below. Because its designers deny the existence of the supernatural, limiting their perspectives to what can be perceived by the senses, like the scientists they have no defenses against the preternatural, which lies just above us between the natural and the supernatural.
Disregarding the Church God established to protect and guide governments as well as individuals. they automatically fall under the spiritual jurisdiction of those echelons of fallen angels above us who “go round about the earth and walk through it” (Job 1:7). By nature far superior to man, these demonic intelligences were identified by St. Paul as “world rulers … the spirits of wickedness in the high places” (Eph. 6:12), who labor to set up their eternal empire on earth before being confined to hell at the end of time.
There can be little doubt that Lucifer, Freemasonry’s “Great Architect of the Universe,” is the father of Utopia. That he is the mastermind behind the false church and state which will challenge the Kingdom of Christ in the latter days is revealed in Scripture, under the symbolism of the Dragon and the two Beasts in Chapter 13 of the Apocalypse. Sr. Lucy of Fatima has confirmed this. St. Bernard believed Utopia was conceived in Lucifer’s mind before he was expelled from heaven and that it contributed to his fall. In apostrophe to the fallen angel the saint argued:
‘Now, you were once very close to God, and in His foreknowledge … you foresaw these reprobate men shining with no ray of wisdom, burning with no flame of love, and of this empty wasteland you chose to be lord, to infuse into them the light of your own cunning, to inflame them with your own evil desires. The Most High God rules over the children of obedience in His love and goodness; and you would be king of the sons of pride … and so be like the Most High. But tell me, for it is this which makes me wonder … did you not also see your downfall? And if you did foresee it, what madness made you choose such wretched dignity, preferring to rule in misery rather than be subject in happiness? … I find it easier to believe that you did not foresee it. Or perhaps … you looked to the goodness of God and said to yourself: ‘He will not take notice.’
Perhaps he was blinded by pride, presuming like some theologians today that God is too merciful to damn anybody. St. Bernard concluded that it is quite possible to foresee the future without foreseeing all the consequences, and that Lucifer in fact did not foresee his downfall.
Ignoring the supernatural on principle, the builders of Utopia are likewise unaware of where they are heading. Their public crimes nevertheless bring down punishment, and as Benedict XV predicted back in 1917, “The present calamities will not cease until the human race has returned to God.”
With so much hell already now on earth, where whole nations are thrown into turmoil and disintegrating before our very eyes, the time has come to ask, “What happens to the family in such a scenario?”
1776. Family Dissolved.
There is no mention of the family in the U.S. Constitution, nor in any others patterned on its principles, and that in itself is ominous. With the onset of democracy, the family’s juridical standing disappeared, along with that of God and His Church. Nor is there any mention of marriage, upon which the family rests as a social institution above all others. From the moment all men were declared equal, the family was legally replaced by the individual as basic cell and archetype of society. In other words, family rights simply disappeared into “the Rights of Man.” Alexis de Tocqueville was among the first to assess the effects of this revolutionary development.
In “The Influence of Democracy on the Family” he wrote, “In countries which are aristocratically constituted the government never makes a direct appeal to the mass of the governed; as men are united together, it is enough to lead the foremost; the rest will follow. This is applicable to the family as well as to all aristocracies that have a head. Among aristocratic nations social institutions recognize, in truth, no one in the family but the father; children are received by society at his hands; society governs him, he governs them. In other words, the family was once a recognized unit of government. Thus the parent not only has a natural right but acquires a political right to command them; he is the author and support of his family, but he is also its constituted ruler.
Paternity Swallowed Up
In democracies … no such intermediate person is required; a father is there, in the eye of the law, only as a member of a community, older and richer than his sons
In other words, paternity has been swallowed up in fraternity, and hierarchy in equivalence. Husband and wife, whom the old laws of Christendom regarded as one moral person in one flesh, were so no longer. They might still disinherit their children or sanction them for misbehavior, but thereafter they did so only as individuals and not as heads of households. They no longer arranged marriages as they once did, when uniting a man and a woman in wedlock was looked upon as a merger of two families, above and beyond that of the bride and groom, an event with future consequences in which society at large had a vested interest.
An institution whose whole purpose was the perpetuation of the race became a strictly private affair. A man’s first duty was no longer to his parents, but to his children. (Scripture points out that Cain named his city after his son.)
To marry without parental approval as Esau did had always been a mark of reprobation, but after the triumph of democracy, parental consent and marriage itself became increasingly optional. Even in local statutes where the family continued to figure, its membership was restricted to parents and the minor children. Abolished was primogeniture, for the children of course became equal along with everyone else.
The Church herself is built on Marriage. To catalogue the destructive forces aimed at the family would be tedious. Suffice it to say that legalized contraception both natural and unnatural, abortion and euthanasia, all ably promoted by deceptive overpopulation propaganda, are releasing both men and women from the very purpose of their existence. The large family is already a rarity, economically penalized as it is by tax laws, housing shortages, educational and medical expenses and severe restrictions on transmitting its property from one generation to the next.
Gone from the books was the old Catholic tribe whose benevolent embrace included the dogs, cats and livestock as well as grandparents, aunts, uncles, godchildren, servants and assorted cognates, all headed by the paterfamilias responsible for everybody! The irreparable loss of family servants alone must not be underestimated, for it contributed heavily to modern class warfare. Insuring a mutual exchange of services and culture running up and down through all ranks in a kind of Jacob’s ladder, servants once provided a stable binding link between all classes who otherwise would enjoy little personal contact or common interests. Day labor may still be hired, but beyond his paycheck, the laborer has little sense of belonging. [Emphasis added]
The connection between what has happened to families and what has happened to nations may not be immediately obvious, but their plight is the same and its cause is the same. The family once enjoyed juridical status as the undisputed principle of political unity and the first school of public life.
Paternity and Kings
Just as the private family bound individuals together, the nation bound families together, and empires bound national families together. Emperors and kings, in other words, were fathers on a larger scale, with prerogatives and duties towards their subjects little different from those of any father towards his family. Until the Revolution it was only natural for Russians to address their Tsar as “Little Father.”
In the new egalitarian economy the family – whose unity depends on inequality – was granulated at all levels, and humans society from top to bottom began losing its natural cohesion.
With family structures politically inoperative, the principle of subsidiarity gradually eroded in the face of ravenous centralization. The mediation which the household normally provided between the citizen and his government was effectively terminated, leaving him to face it on his own. Even history and tradition began losing continuity, for the family supplies the same all-important link between the generations that it supplies between individuals and collectivities.
Presuming to replace social hierarchies by rational arrangements, Utopia is undertaking nothing less than a wholesale repeal of the natural law which underlies all social reality. Needless to say, it cannot succeed, for as Leo XIII pointed out, “Both justice and reason forbid the destruction of that order which Divine Providence has ordained.”
The Divine Mystery of Home
Man’s home is a divine mystery. Tampering with it is sacrilege, for the home is a figure on earth of the Godhead in heaven. God is one, but He is not one person. God is a Family of three Persons, which is our true home and source of all that is. Composed of persons created in that divine image, the first household in Eden has generated every human being who ever lived, along with every art, science, political system and institution mankind has ever produced. The family was there first. [emphasis added]
Lucifer’s ambition to be made God was unrealizable by the very nature of his angelic constitution. We never speak of families of angels, but only of “choirs,” for there is no filiation between them in the proper sense. Drawn from no other angel, each was created as if he were a species in himself, whereas every man since Adam comes into being as part of a family. In other words God’s image is found not only in man as an individual person, but it is also reflected in his family relations. Because God intended to become Man by assuming a Sacred Humanity, it is not enough to say that He prepared a human nature which was merely congruous with himself. The innocent Adam, as natural progenitor, was actually patterned on Christ as divine Prototype, fashioned in accordance with the Father’s Word by whom all things were created. Our Lady would give her assent to the Incarnation precisely by saying, “Be it done to me according to thy word.” After being transported to the third heaven St. Paul would exclaim with certainty “To which of the angels hath he said at any time, ‘Thou art my Son?’ … To which of the angels said he at any time, ‘Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy foot-stool?’” (Heb. 1:5,13).
Fashioned after the Trinitarian model, the human family generates because the Godhead generates. “Shall not I that make others to bring forth, myself bring forth, saith the Lord? Shall I, that give generation to others, be barren?” (Is. 66:9). In their order of being, the human trinity of father, mother and child represent the three divine Persons who dwell as one in the Most Blessed Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
In the 1800’s England granted divorces by acts of Parliament, but where separation of Church and state prevailed, civil statutes were set up alongside the Church’s Canon Law to dissolve the indissoluble. Strangely enough, polygamy is still illegal, but with divorce the normal remedy for marital problems, there is no limit to the number of spouses, provided they are sequential, enjoyed (or suffered) only one at a time. Because the family rests on marriage as its foundation, to which it owes its status as an institution, divorce strikes a mortal blow at the trinitarian image. For baptized partners the consequences are incalculable, for Christian marriage underlies far more than society. According to St. Paul it is the “Great Sacrament” signifying the indissoluble union of Christ and His Church which produces the Communion of Saints.
So ineffably real is this representation, however, that from the family there actually issued in the fullness of time, by the power of the Holy Ghost, a Holy Family whose Son was identical in Person with the Father’s divine Son in the Godhead. From that time forth, sharing the same Son so to speak, the Family in heaven and man’s family on earth became potentially one, with a mission not only temporal, but eternal.
The marriage of the divine and human natures consummated in the Sacred Humanity of Christ made human marriage a Sacrament which is ordered not primarily to the propagation of the species, but to the generation of the elect. Just as the family of man and all his works poured out of the natural home in Eden, the blessed will pour from the supernatural home in Nazareth, bringing in their wake all the imperishable works of the world to come.
The family is therefore not only the source of the state, but the source of the Church as well, whose Mother is the Virgin Mary and whose Paterfamilias is her husband St. Joseph. Their divine Son is the Mystical Body in all its members. The sacrament of Marriage is unique in that, unlike the other sacraments, it is directly bound to natural law, rooted in man’s nature for every time, place and eventuality. God created all men one when He created Adam, but to make them more perfectly one, He drew Eve from Adam’s side. English folk wisdom, etymologically incorrect, but sound in intuition, thinks of “wo-man” as man’s womb in person, and from the old Latin femella it instinctively derived the “fe-male.” That she is distinct from him does not mean that she can be separated from him, for God distinguished the sexes one from the other only in order to unite them more closely within the one human nature they both share. It is a case of “distinguer pour unir.”
At no time and in no sense was Adam an androgyne. Being as it were man’s womb in her person, however, woman has no place in creation apart from him, for he is always her head and principle of generation.
“For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man,” says St. Paul. “The man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man … but yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Whereas man is “the glory of God,” she is “the glory of man” (1 Cor. 11:7-11).
The theological reasons for her inaptitude for the priesthood obviously lie in this area. In his pristine intelligence, not yet darkened by sin or hampered by pain, Adam saw clearly how Eve was “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man” (Gen. 2:23).
When man and woman are joined in matrimony, their union is necessarily indissoluble, for mystically and really it reconstitutes and intensifies their original unity in Adam, a unity underlying all society. When man fertilizes woman (his own womb, metaphorically speaking, drawn from his side), and generates a child through her, the unutterable unity of the Most Blessed Trinity is reflected in three persons of human flesh. It follows that marriage by its very nature is no private contract which can be limited to the two individuals involved, for it is a society in itself, possessing the power to coordinate or dislocate the greater society in which it functions as an integral, effective part. As Admiral Michel Berger put it in an interview in the July-August 1994 issue of Renaissance Catholique:
Society can only be a society of families. It is not a society of persons. … A house is not built with sand, but with agglomerates. There must be a society of societies, a society of families; and the stability and continuity which the education of children demands calls for a contract. This contract cannot be private. It must be public, or it has no chance of being respected. Marriage is bound to human nature. If the union of man and wife is indissoluble, so is that union with the rest of society. It is impossible to demolish one without demolishing the other.
Counterfeiting The Real
In a radio broadcast in 1949, Pius XII said:
Counterfeiting God’s designs in social matters has taken place at the very root, by deforming the divine image in man. For his true figure as a creature with an origin and destiny in God, has been substituted the false portrait of a man autonomous in conscience, uncontrolled master of himself, irresponsible towards his neighbor and the social group, with no destiny beyond the earth, with no purpose beyond enjoying finite goods, with no law beyond the ‘fait accompli’ and the undisciplined satisfaction of his desires. Antedating all cultures, social systems, and the Church herself, the family owes its mandate to no secondary authority civil or ecclesiastical, but to God himself, who after differentiating Adam and Eve, blessed them and gave them dominion over His works, commanding them to “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). These rights and duties comprised that first divine dispensation which governed the Patriarchs. They would later be codified under Mosaic law, and eventually super-naturalized by the new law of grace, but never have they been abrogated, nor even derogated from. The state springs from the family, and not the other way round.
The state has no more right to educate the young than it has to limit or control their procreation. It may not perform marriages, and what God has joined together indissolubly it certainly cannot put asunder by divorce. Any subordination of the rights of the family to those of the state is political profanation. When God put Adam in charge here below, He established once and for all the basic pattern of authority for the governance of men by other men. The pyramidal, hierarchical, monarchical rule of the father over mother and child on which the family is structured reflects the order in the Godhead. (Emphasis added)
Inequality the Ontological Basis of Authority
Although consubstantial and co-eternal, the three divine Persons, in their relations with one another, are in fact a hierarchy, a Family, where the Father is the unique and everlasting source of the other Two.
In one form or other the Divine Exemplar has impressed its monarchical image on every empire, nation, tribe or human association the world has ever known. Modern democracy boasts of having provided a better form of government, but close examination shows it to be nothing more than a pathological, inverted mutation of the one laid down in Eden.
Had democracy limited itself to declaring all persons equal, without equalizing them as individuals, it could not have been faulted, but by refusing to recognize inequality as ontological basis of authority, it destroys authority at its root.
Politics is first and foremost a family affair. Patriotism is a family virtue, for our country is what Pius XII called “that greater family given to us by God.” What harms the family is harmful to the nation, for there is an organic relationship between the two, if only because one cannot do without the other. Although politicians all come from families, no family is self-sufficient, for it is an “imperfect” society. To achieve its natural and supernatural ends it requires the help of those two “perfect” societies which are the Church and the state.
To function properly it must therefore maintain close relations with both under one primordial law which governs all mankind. That law is the Fourth Commandment,
“Honor thy father and thy mother,” by which God subjected the whole world to human authority in His name.
It is universally binding and prescribes hierarchical government by its very wording. In its light, to declare all men equal and source of their own authority, is blasphemy. Jesus of Nazareth, to whom all power in heaven and on earth has been given, reduced political science to its simplest terms when He taught us the Our Father.
“Thy kingdom come!” is the ultimate goal of human government, doing the Father’s will on earth, not according to the dictates of human reason, but “as it is in heaven,” where the only pattern for perfect government is to be found. Among the Ten Commandments, which St. Augustine called “a résumé of natural law,” only the Fourth has a specific reward attached to it. We are told to observe it, “that thou mayest live a long time, and it may be well with thee in the land which the Lord thy God will give thee” (Deut. 5:16).
The Catechism of the Council of Trent says this promises “not only the eternal life of the blessed, but also the life which we lead on earth … not only length of days, but also repose, tranquility and security to live well.” In other words, that elusive “common good” sought by every political regime worthy of the name, is guaranteed by obedience to the Fourth Commandment and cannot be found outside it.
Alongside the reward, terrible chastisements for disobedience were incurred under the old law, which Our Lord came not to destroy but to perfect, promising that not one tittle of it would fail (Luke 16:17). Striking or cursing parents was punished by death, and the unruly son could be stoned (Ex. 21:15,17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:21). Proverbs says the offender’s “lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness,” and the mocker’s eyes picked out by ravens (20:20; 30:17).
A national family which presumes to strike down its king can expect to wallow in darkness like anyone else who raises his hand against his father. As Pius XI pointed out in his encyclical Quas primas on Christ the King, there is no “difference in this matter between the individual and the family and the state; for all men, whether individually or collectively are under the dominion of Christ. In Him is the salvation of the individual, in Him is the salvation of society.” Political reform is fueled by faith, not by legislation. Where there are economic problems, our Lord prescribed the same remedy to governments that He prescribed to individuals. Instead of looking to Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes, they should ask their Father for their daily bread, for “your heavenly Father knoweth what is needful for you” (Matt. 5:6-8). “Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice” (Matt. 6:33), and all real needs will be met.
Utopia does not threaten the family so much as the family threatens Utopia, which recognizes the family as its irreducible natural enemy. This is proved by the savagery of the attack against it. When the children of La Salette came upon our Lady sitting and weeping on the mountain, the boy Maximin said later he thought she was a mother who had been beaten by her son. His reaction was symptomatic of how far the assault on the Fourth Commandment had progressed by the year 1846. The dynamic interaction between public policy and the home was well known to the architects of Utopia. [Emphasis added]
Writing from Karl Marx’s notes in 1884, Friedrich Engels said in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State that the home “is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture,” that “it must advance as society advances and change as society changes, even as it has in the past.” The gradual extinction of the individual family was anticipated, with “private housekeeping … turned into a social industry,” and “the care and education of children … a public affair.” The Communist Manifesto foresaw “all family ties among the proletarians … torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.”
Bent on subordinating the family to the state, the satanic forces had begun by dismantling its trinitarian structure. Over the course of the last 200 years, father, mother and child have been systematically torn one from another. The offensive began with the Industrial Revolution, which to all practical purposes drove the father out of the home by shifting his workplace to the factory. With husband and wife parted for most of their waking hours, the home lost its balance. Whereas his role in the education and nurture of the children was reduced to a minimum, hers was amplified to a maximum. The home became almost exclusively a female enterprise. It became “woman’s work,” towards which the husband’s contribution was little more than financial. With the father out of the house, the next step was to drive out the mother. [Emphasis added]
This was accomplished through woman suffrage, which established the same political equality between the sexes as between any other individuals. The movement began in the United States and Great Britain in the 19th century, heavily supported by some Scandinavian nations. A constitutional amendment gave women the vote in the U.S. in 1920, and by 1953, fifty-eight countries had followed suit. Overnight marriage became a partnership, in which authority was shared equally. Men began wearing wedding rings like their wives. The merging of roles which resulted soon made the home a battleground where deadlocks, once quickly resolved by the exercise of the father’s authority, now required third party intervention. [Emphasis added]
The Fourth Commandment no longer applied, for the husband was no longer the wife’s legal superior. Her work at home now reduced to solitary drudgery, she began exercising her skills in the marketplace. The competition between the sexes which inevitably ensued fueled feminism and outright warfare. Homes were fragmented by working mothers who were not only parted from their children, but who now rivaled their fathers as breadwinners.
Once declared equal, those whom God created male and female became increasingly maladjusted, incapable of the complementary cooperation for which they were designed by nature. The sacramentality of marriage had already been undermined by Calvinist reformers like John Milton, who viewed it as a civil contract between partners, to be terminated for just cause like any other agreement. As the strains of married life increased, divorces began proliferating.
It goes without saying that Utopia, which tolerates the family only for its social utility, looks forward in the near future to sterilizing or eliminating any members judged defective, for they have no place in a planned society. Permission to reproduce at all may soon have to be sought from the state. As far back as 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes upheld involuntary sterilization in a Virginia case, Buck vs. Bell.
The wife having been liberated from her husband, all that remains is to liberate the child from his parents in order to obliterate the family’s trinitarian image completely. No longer part of the domestic work force once directed by his father, the child after the Industrial Revolution had to be protected from exploitation by child labor laws. These served to diminish parental authority even more and ended by contributing to delinquency. [Emphasis added]
With teaching long gone from the home, elementary education had to be supplied by outsiders. A unique new system of compulsory public schools, first developed in the United States as part of the greater secular experiment, and adopted by Napoleon in 1808, proved a potent instrument for imbuing the child with the democratic ideals of freedom and equality. Outside school hours, extracurricular “character training” offered by the Boy Scouts, the YMCA or trained professionals added the finishing touches. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, a foremost feminist, is a successful lawyer who has consistently championed “children’s rights.” Until 1992 she was active in the Children’s Defense Fund, an organization promoting heavily-regulated government programs for children.
In an article for The American Spectator back in 1979 she argued:
“Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents. Children should be permitted to decide their own future if they are competent.”
In 1989 the United Nations’ General Assembly called an international summit conference on “The Rights of the Child.” Inasmuch as children have already been allowed to sue their parents for “divorce,” it would seem that the Fourth Commandment will soon apply no more to children than it does to wives. Even now children by law are withdrawn from parental control when they attain their legal majority, in many nations at age 18.
Whatever rights may be determined for the child, however, it should be noted that unequivocal right to life is not one of them, for at the international level his mother’s right to kill him before birth remains unchallenged. This leads us to suspect that the child the U.N. has in mind is not the one God created to love and serve Him in this world and be happy with Him in the next. As Jean de Viguerie pointed out in an address delivered at the time:
The child used to have a soul and he knew it; a soul which was unique, and he knew it; he was at the center of the universe, and he knew it; there was an invisible world, and he knew it. For this child materialistic anthropology has substituted another child who doesn’t exist, but who we pretend does exist, a child who is only a piece of the “Great All,” a child ruled only by physical laws, a child inert and formless, a child who does not grow in wisdom, but by satisfying his appetites. … Being only a portion of matter, he can be fashioned into anything one likes … the dream of creating man by modifying the child.
The United Nations So-Called
The year of our Lord 1994 the United Nations set aside as “The Year of the Family,” and here again, we have reason to believe that the family in question is not the traditional one, for it was referred to officially as “the smallest democracy at the heart of society.” In the 1930’s socialists like Alva and Gunnar Myrdal became aware of Marx and Engels’ error in attempting to attack the family head on as an institution. They launched a fresh offensive by redefining it as an evolving entity needing to be brought into line with the rest of twentieth century society.
Widespread unemployment was already turning parents into little more than migrant workers, whose mobility destroyed what was left of family stability. At the same time, as a result of increasing emphasis on public aid to unmarried mothers, a kind of “government harem” under state control actually began taking shape. In December of 1993 U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali could declare with little fear of contradiction,
“There is no single definition of the family nor any one model. We celebrate the family under all its social and cultural forms.”
A preparatory document had stated, “The image of the ideal family varies considerably from one country to another, as it does within one country. Family political policies should endeavor to avoid favoring, either implicitly or explicitly, one single ideal image of the family.”
So much for God’s little trinity on earth. In America in 1776 the forces of Utopia proclaimed a new order of the ages, designed to replace God’s government by one of those “social arrangements” Strobe Talbott called “artificial and temporary.” With these now proliferating over the world, why not artificial families? As Leon Trotsky put it, “The family can’t be abolished; it must be replaced.” Soon any transitory association of individuals can be expected to qualify as a family under the law. As one Catholic authority commented, “According to the U.N. document, nothing prevents a homosexual couple from being considered as a family.”
Even now such couples, acting as individuals, are legally permitted to adopt children. According to a pair of sociologists, the time has come to acknowledge that the traditional family is obsolete and can no longer justify its existence. The family was once a state … sometimes a workshop. The family is still a hotel, but it is fast losing this function … as it has already lost its pedagogical function. The family is no longer a school, hardly still a nursery. All the needs it might fulfill being now satisfied by outside society, all its members should leave.
Until now biological necessity protected the family from total extinction, the state having no other way of producing citizens, but with the development of biogenetics, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood and countless other techniques for human engineering, the family is being attacked not only at the theological root it shares with God in heaven, but even at the biological root it shares with the animals on earth. The horrors of artificial contraception are now matched by the horrors of artificial conception. Couples experiencing difficulty with natural procreation may routinely resort to medically assisted conception through implantation, a kind of biological adultery to which the doctor becomes an active third party.
As for those free and equal individuals eager to produce offspring “born … of blood, the will of the flesh and the will of man” (John 1:13), the laboratory promises “designer children” hatched from genetically modified, frozen embryos to suit every taste. In an economy of artificial nations and artificial families, why not artificial people? Is the alchemist’s age-old dream of the man made homunculus about to come true?
A curious detail occurs in St. Hildegarde of Bingen’s prophecies of the Antichrist. She says that his mother will be “an impious woman who from her infancy will have been initiated in profane sciences and all the artifices of the devil,” and that “she will conceive this son of perdition without knowing who is his father.” Is it possible the Antichrist will originate as an embryo produced with the help of Lucifer in the laboratory? Could godless genetic research actually be ordered to some satanic pseudo-Incarnation? Whatever God permits, the family has little to fear from anarchy or chaos, in the course of which natural structures reassert themselves automatically with a vengeance. What is reducing the family to its present straits is not confusion, but the calculated cunning of those who will not acknowledge Jesus Christ. They can reduce it to near extinction, but the gates of hell will never prevail against it, for like the Church, the family is of divine institution.
Due proportion kept, even in the natural order it is one, holy, universal and apostolic. By the very nature of God’s creation, the family poses the ultimate political threat to Utopia. As Benedict XV said, “As the family constitutes the foundation of the human race,” to revitalize it would result not only in the correction of private morals, but in “the restoration of public and civil institutions.” The diabolic trinity composed of the Dragon and his two Beasts know full well that the Christian family is the human trinity which will finally rise in opposition to theirs and destroy it. As thousands of spectators began falling to their knees in terror during the great miracle of the sun on that memorable October 13, 1917, the child seers Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta were simultaneously graced by another vision, whose effects were radically different. While the sun danced and careened towards the earth in a threatening display of color, they beheld the Holy Family:
“Next to the sun we saw St. Joseph holding the Child Jesus, and our Lady dressed in white with a blue mantle. St. Joseph and the Child seemed to be blessing the world, making the sign of the Cross.” Our Lady had promised them the previous August and September that “St. Joseph would come with the Child Jesus to bring peace to the world,” and the vision seems to have been a confirmation of that promise. Its import reaching beyond Fatima’s warnings, it would seem to presage nothing less than the restoration of society on a global scale, beginning with its basic cell. According to the Capuchin Fr. Christopher Rengers:
The silent blessing at a great height seems to be a portent of a future blessing when Joseph and the Child will in some way come down to the earth and enter intimately the life of families. Mary’s silent presence with Joseph and Jesus makes certain that it will be a family blessing brought by father and child, but with the mother strongly involved. … Our present exaggerated ideas on freedom and equality have undermined the rightful position of the father as head of the family. … St. Joseph and the Child could well bring the blessing of a clearer understanding of a father’s role in shaping the minds and hearts of children. … In Mary’s submission to Joseph, least of, but still head of the Holy Family, Jesus had the model of obedience his human nature needed, and the concept of authority He needed to keep looking up to the heavenly Father, source of all authority.
Taking place during the more spectacular phenomena at Fatima, the homely manifestation of the Family of Nazareth was never witnessed by the crowd, but the message it left behind is unmistakable: The man still heads the family, the nation and the Church. As St. Paul taught, “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife just as Christ is head of the Church” (Eph. 5:22-3).
St. Joseph, the virginal Paterfamilias Ecclesiae, is even now coming forward to recall the world to God’s irrevocable natural law. We may take heart, for the primordial Fourth Commandment remains in force. As for those deadly “errors of Russia,” once the divine Trinitarian image shines again in the families of men and nations, such aberrations can only wither away.
—-@ Amazon. Solange Hertz, Beyond Politics, published in 2012, R.I.P. [Emphasis added throughout]
Note: In days of old only those could inherit property who were capable of defending it; in general, men. There was a reason for it. Today’s aristocrats by contrast, the mega-rich corporations by contrast, promote free wild sex and rainbow gender ideology and surgeries, even to children, in exchange for their monied Class privileges. And they radically restrict dissent. Real Communists by contrast will just confiscate all private property and kill off all serious dissent. I suppose I’d rather be the subject of attempts at mere lies and informational manipulation than killed outright or put in ghastly Gulags as Solzhenitsyn was.