The Catholic King of France, Louis XVI, forbids, in law, his White subjects from contracting marriage with Blacks, Mulattos or other people of color.

The original order in French, published on April 5, 1778, can be seen below.

Q. Can we not say that we are not obliged to accept the decisions of a general Council if they were not conformed to the Word of God?

A. This is a sophism, for it is to suppose that the Church can teach what is opposed to the word of God. However, this is impossible, because God would not then keep His Word. Were His Holy Ghost to not teach, as He promised to His Church, all truth and for ever, the gates of Hell would prevail against her. God did not provide that men would guide themselves with what they judged to conform to Scripture. He sent his ministers that they might teach all nations and He ordained that he who would not believe would be condemned.

- ¿Por qué somos Católicos y no Protestantes?, cap IX, (1937), Fr. Pacifico Albero O.F.M.

Liberals, conceding that Pope Leo XIII was thoroughly anti-liberal in his magisterium, his doctrinal pronouncements, will often attempt to represent the Holy Father as sympathetic to their cause in the practical order. The history recorded below will suffice to dispel any such notion. While it is true that Leo XIII proposed the Ralliement to the French Republic, it was an entirely a strategic maneuver—though a definite failure in hindsight—and was aimed at re-installing authoritarian monarchy as the government of France.

“If you follow my advice, you will have four hundred Catholic deputies in France, and you will establish the monarchy. I am a monarchist myself.”

- Pope Leo XIII

“Authoritarian values and defensiveness against democratic ideals were part of the ideology that Leo XIII and Pius X shared. The Ralliement was not a call for Catholics to support republican democracy; instead it was an appeal for Catholics to defend the interests of the church via the tactic of constitutionality rather than monarchism. Leo’s private letter to Monseigneur de Cabrières indicated the pope's personal preference for royal government. In his public writings, in his charges against Americanism and in his encyclical against Christian Democracy, he showed that his principles were alien to democratic values. Pius X promulgated similar views.”

- Why the French Christian Democrats Were Condemned, Oscar Arnal

In 1569, Pope St. Pius V expelled the Jews from Papal States, warning Christians about their usurious practices, magic and superstition.

The holy saint and pope began with the following declaration, “The Jewish people, the only nation once chosen by the Lord, which was infused with divine utterances to be a partaker of the heavenly mysteries, as much as it excelled all others in grace and dignity, only afterwards, despised and neglected by the merit of its unbelief, deserved to be overthrown, because, when the fullness of time had come, it treacherously and ungratefully condemned its Redeemer to an unworthy and impious death.”

Good back-and-forth on illegal immigration with Ryan Grant.

Pt. I (link)

Pt. II (link)

Pt. III (link)

Ethnic Jews who have converted to Catholicism ought to refrain from speaking publicly on political matters, particularly when it comes to issues like immigration, national identity and economics. As a rule, barring some extraordinary exceptions, this should be enforced by Catholics, gently at first, then vigorously.

This can be proven in several ways, but common sense, practical experience and a working-knowledge of history are sufficient. For one, the unique racial character and disposition of the Jew is not immediately vitiated by his conversion and baptism. For two thousand years he has considered himself apart, certainly distinct from the gentiles and often above them. Assimilation in his host country, for him, means ethnic extinction and a renunciation of his special status, as chosen by God. There is a real tension in his person since he knows that, after the coming of Christ, the faithful Christian nations, no longer the Jews, are the chosen people. Yet it is hard for him to detach from his ethnic baggage, so-to-speak. It is not natural for that to happen immediately, and we ought not to be surprised when it, invariably, does not.

As Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, editor of La Civiltá Cattolica, observed in 1897, “The Jew always continues to be immutably Jewish in every place. His nationality is not in the soil where he was born, it is not in the language he speaks; it is in the seed, in the lineage and in that mixture of Bible, Talmud and Kabbalah, which he calls his history and his religion […] Everywhere he is a stranger to all, except those with whom he shares his origin and curse. Outside of his own interest, he has no other political aim, wherever he lives.”
 
In all of this, Catholics must not lose sight of the truth that we must presume sincerity on the part of the convert, whether he is an ethnic Jew or ethnic gentile. Charity and the Church demand that. However, we must not error into credulity, which is decidedly not a virtue. Presumption must give way to facts, to observable objective intentions, even if they are for ill—no, especially if they are for ill. The common good is at stake. Catholicism informs political thinking—that is, if the convert is sincere—but it takes time, particularly for the true outsider, the ethnic Jew.

Finally, a warning of St. Thomas, while not directly related to this issue of Jewish converts involving themselves in domestic politics, ought not to go unheeded. This principle, surely, can apply here, “[I]f foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers would occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” (ST I-II, q. 105, a.3)

A new Substack post will be released this week, likely Friday evening, critiquing the theory of separation of powers, fundamental to the American political system. The guide will be Msgr. Louis Taparelli, S.J., a counterrevolutionary philosopher who vigorously helped to revive Thomism in the Catholic Church.

In short, Montesquieu has it all wrong. Stay tuned.

If you have not already, subscribe to The Journal of American Reform

Q. In your view, how do you think we are going to get a true pope? If he’s based, will that be good enough?


A. It’s a good question and certainly worth answering.

For traditional Catholics that hold to The Cassiasiacum Thesis of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers (O.P.), like myself, to explain the crisis in Faith and Authority in the Church since Vatican II, the answer is yes, if the meaning of ‘based’ in the question is the abrogation of the Council and the subsequent reforms. Concretely, this continuation of the revolution of Vatican II was the impediment to Francis having received the form of the papacy, papal power. If this abrogation were to occur, it would be the objective criteria by which this conclave could produce a true pope. In human terms, this is extraordinarily unlikely, though, with God, all things are possible.

What needs to happen, what we are praying for, is a restoration of authority in the Roman See and for the man designated to be pope to intend, in an objective and habitual way, the good end of the Church—namely the Glory of God thorough the salvation of souls. Outside of that, the answer is no, for reasons which can be explained. The violent privation of authority in the Catholic Church needs to end, yet God has permitted this for His greater glory—however mysteriously it may seem.

In theological terms, the problem with Paul VI and his lawful successors, the ‘conciliar popes’, who have occupied the Roman See for the past ~60 years is their universal imposition of the heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, salvation by means of non-Catholic sects, partial communion, Jews are no longer cursed, and other errors, too), which has truly been confirmed by the official doctrinal interpretation of the conciliar hierarchy. Those are the evident facts. This official doctrinal interpretation, rather than any private interpretation of the conciliar doctrines, however favorable (though, still not orthodox), is ultimately what matters. To the legislator, alone, belongs the right to interpret, clarify and implement laws, and this rule is no different when analyzing magisterial texts. The mind of the legislator, his objective intentions, distinct from the subjective ones, are what matter.

The indefectability of the Catholic Church means these errors of Vatican II cannot be ascribed to the Teaching Authority, otherwise the Gates of Hell would—blasphemously—prevail. So, faced with the possibility of the [apparent] Roman Pontiff—who has the assistance of the Holy Ghost and the Divine Promises in his capacity as pope—promulgating error and defection in official teaching, one must conclude he is not, in fact, the pope. In our present crisis, Paul VI and his lawful successors must lack the authority of Christ, despite any outward appearances. This is because they have objectively and habitually failed in situations whereby they should be preserved from teaching harmful error. In this case, promulgating heresy.

If this is the first time you have heard of The Thesis of Cassiasiacum (often called sedeprivationism), I would encourage you to study the position, by those who explain it best, not me. I will include links below to that end. Doubtless, you may initially disagree with the conclusion but it must be studied and properly understood if you want to critique it.

The mind who developed this theological position—as alluded to at the beginning of this post—was Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.. Prior to Vatican II he was a highly-esteemed Dominican theologian, one time confessor to Pius XII and later the author of the critique of the Mass of Paul VI, colloquially known as “The Ottaviani Intervention”. To date, his scholastic thesis of the present Crisis has never been refuted.

‘The New Doctrine of Vatican II’ can be found here: thethesis.us/chapter-ii/

‘The General Overview’ of the position can be found here: thethesis.us

Finally, a very good theological and philosophical interview with GdL can be read here: https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/interview-bishop-guerard/

On a recent program of ‘What Catholics Believe’, a long-running and wonderful show hosted by Fr. William Jenkins (SSPV), a post I had written about the present conclave was brought up, read and further developed. See for yourself.

I never would have expected for my commentary to make it on his show. Gratifying, to say the least and also humorous since he asks, curiously, “Who is this ‘American Reform’ account?”

Thank you to one of my followers for bringing this clip to my attention. The original stream can be found here (29:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJnfG8dZkU

First official speech of Leo XIV calling for a “synodal church”.

Official translation from Vatican News: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-05/pope-leo-xvi-peace-be-with-you-first-words.html

On April 18, 2022, then Robert Cardinal Prevost gave an interview to La República where he said, “Not personally, [but] the Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

In the story by the news outlet, the prelate was described as follows, “Following the abuse suffered by a girl in the Lambayeque region, the bishop of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Monsignor Robert Prevost, rejected these violent acts that generated indignation among the population. However, he said that the Church does not accept the death penalty and proposes joint work to avoid similar situations and for justice to prevail.”

At the end of the video he can be heard saying, “But seeking blood for blood, for this is not an answer.”

🔗 on X

This is very much keeping in line with the magisterial teaching of Francis I, as he promulgated in the CCC (no. 2267) the following doctrine, mind you, electing to have it judged against revelation, “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel [sic], that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

In 2017, just one year earlier, he would clarify—preemptively—what was meant by the later official teaching, saying in an papal address, “It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se [sic] contrary to the Gospel [sic], because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.”

In an doctrinal declaration promulgated last year, in 2024, Francis relayed, “Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances. In this regard, we must recognize that ‘the firm rejection [sic] of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe.’” (Dignitatis Infinita, no. 34)

No doubt, the clear and unavoidable implication is that recourse to the death penalty is—in principle—illicit. In other words, the death penalty is intrinsically evil. The State cannot, in any circumstances, inflict death upon a criminal as his punishment. The official interpretation, outlined and witnessed to by the legislator, Francis I, is what must be adhered to.


However, in 1954 Pope Pius XII gave an address to Catholic jurists and said the following, “In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent Ill, Professio fidei Waldensibus prenoscripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4.”

In other words, the universal and ordinary magisterium, equally infallible as the solemn magisterium (Pastor Aeternus), had already taught that that, in principle, the death penalty was lawful. It *was* and *remains* perfectly consistent with justice.

“The whole modern system of finance, upon which modern capitalism pivots, is practically a Jewish creation, and the world of finance is today almost completely dominated by the Jews.”

- Rev. Edward Cahill, S.J.

A timely critique of the now-universal political principle of 'Separation Powers', championed by Montesquieu is now available at The Journal of American Reform.

Fr. Louis Taparelli, S.J., a prominent scholastic thinker and philosopher in the 19th century is the author. To my knowledge, this critique is largely, if not entirely, unknown to the English-speaking world. Taparelli explains why men ought to strive for unity, rather than separation, in political power.

“The division of powers is therefore in itself a social evil, and does not become a good unless it is necessary to prevent greater evils. Therefore all unnecessary division is pure evil, nor should it be admitted in a perfect political order, and if we have just agreed that human society does not exist without some division, this is precisely because the imperfection of humanity will never permit an absolutely perfect political order among men.”

Link to the post: https://open.substack.com/pub/americanreform/p/on-the-division-of-political-power?r=4n45yp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

It’s Mussolini Monday ⚡️

Q. What did Louis Cardinal Billot, brilliant theologian and arch-enemy of the modernists and modernizers, think about resuming Vatican Council 1870?

A. “Finally, here is the most serious reason, the one that seems to me to militate absolutely in favor of the negative. The resumption of the Council [Vatican I, interrupted in 1870] is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is to say by the modernists, who are already preparing, as the most certain indications attest, to take advantage of the general state of the Church to make the revolution, the new 1789, the object of their dreams and their hopes. Needless to say, they will not succeed, but we will see again the very sad days of the end of the pontificate of Leo XIII and the beginning of that of Pius X; we will see even worse, and it would be the annihilation of the happy fruits of the encyclical Pascendi, which had reduced them to silence.”

Prescient, to say the least.

Source in French (link):

Please, if you can spare a moment, pray for a friend who is having a crisis of Faith.

May Our Lord grant him the virtue of fortitude and keep him from despair.

“He [the Jew] aspires to covert, rather than overt, domination; but he does not aspire to it as a pasture for pride, but rather as an instrument of greed. In short, together with his people, wherever he is, he constitutes a nation in every nation, which organically exists nowhere, but sparsely exists everywhere.

Therefore the equalization, in civil rights, of the Jews with the nationals of the countries in which they are established, has sprouted the fruit that was already to be expected and feared: that is, the predominance, due to the two most powerful forces that dominate the world, the press and wealth; that means to this, which is their supreme end. And in fact, little by little, in most of Europe, they have taken it over; therefore they exert an influence on the economic, political and religious progress of today’s society which has now become unbearable.”

- Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, S.J., 1897

Full text, with more analysis, can be found (here)