Initial press reports about the background of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers contained, as it turned out, misleading information.  Miss Miers, who attended Southern Methodist University, is not a Methodist. She “dedicated her life to Jesus Christ” in the 1980s, becoming a member of an “evangelical Christian church” in the Dallas, Texas, area, Valley View Christian Church at the behest of her long-time friend, Nathan Hecht, a Justice of the Texas State Supreme Court, who was interviewed by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Justice Hecht, who does not deny an on-again/off-again romantic relationship with Miss Miers, 60, saying that they talk on the phone “all the time,” was recruited by the Bush Administration to reassure “conservatives” that his friend is indeed personally pro-life. Almost seamlessly, however, Justice Hecht said the following, as quoted in October 5^th edition of The New York Times:

" ‘Yes, she goes to a pro-life church,’ Justice Hecht said, adding, ‘I know Harriet is, too.’ The two attended ‘two or three’ anti-abortion fund-raising dinners in the early 1990's, he said, but added that she had not otherwise been active in the anti-abortion movement. ‘You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe’ to be upheld, he said.”

Reassured now?

In truth, you see, Justice Hecht’s view of the separation of one’s “private views” from one’s public duties is of the essence of Protestantism. Consider the following quote from Martin Luther, found in Father Denis Fahey’s masterful The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

“Assuredly, a prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As a ruler, he is not called a Christian, but a prince. The man is a Christian, but his function does not concern his religion.”

Martin Luther thus provided the blueprint for the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as it was exercised in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church and the rationale for the segregation of personal “beliefs” from one’s public duties. A Catholic can never justify either of these two abiding errors, both of which have are common to Protestantism and Freemasonry.

Pope Leo XIII put it this way in his 1885 encyclical letter, Immortale Dei:

“Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue.”

One of the great tragedies in the case of Harriet Miers, as is becoming evident from the press reporting on her life, is that she should have been familiar with the truths of the Catholic Faith. According to The New York Times, Miss Miers was “born” a Roman Catholic (yes, we know that no one is “born” a Catholic; one is born to the Faith in the baptismal font). Living in the midst of a pluralistic, religiously indifferentist nation, though, Miss Miers evidently had no grounding in the Faith. The Washington Post reported that she had attended Presbyterian and Episcopalian “churches” during her youth. There was an “emptiness” in her life as she approached the age of 40 or so that prompted Nathan Hecht to invite her to the Valley View Christian Church.

Miss Miers “conversion” to the heresies of evangelical Protestantism has resulted in a veritable hodgepodge of “views” that are mutually contradictory to each other. For example, the effort to portray her as a “sincere Christian” to “social conservatives” does not square with the fact that as late as 1999, as Joseph Farah reported on WorldNetDaily.com this week, she had prepared a report for the American Bar Association supporting the “right” of those steeped in unrepentant perversity to adopt children. Her support for women in combat and for the continuation of former President William Jefferson Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies concerning perverts in the military demonstrate that there is no coherency at all to her thought processes, something that is quite typical of those steeped in all of the logical absurdities spawned by the Protestant Revolt, not the least of which is the fact that over 33,000 different so-called “Christian” denominations have arisen since the lustful Augustinian monk named Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the church door in Wittenberg in 1517.

Harriet Miers is every bit a victim of the Protestant Revolution’s rejection of the visible, hierarchical church founded by Our Lord upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and the social confusion engendered in one nation after another as its all–too-logical and inevitable result.

Some will protest, saying that Article VI of the United States Constitution forbids any “religious test” for the holding of public office. What difference does it make that Miss Miers has abandoned the true Faith? She is not required to be Catholic to serve on the United States Supreme Court, right?

Well, you see, Article VI of the United States Constitution is one of the principal problems with the Constitution as it enshrines religious indifferentism by its refusal to require that holders of public office confess the true Faith. Once again, some will say that Article VI was meant to enfranchise Catholics at a time when they were disenfranchised in some states. True enough. Article VI, however, was also meant to enfranchise deists such as Thomas Jefferson, thereby leading directly and inexorably to the enshrinement of Protestant-Masonic notion that men of divergent beliefs could pursue the common good while leaving aside their “denominational” differences.

Pope Leo XIII put the lie to this in Immortale Dei.

“To hold therefore that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points, cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”

Attempts to portray Harriet Miers, an evidently well-meaning but terribly confused product of Americanism, as a friend of Our Lord are thus pathetically founded in the essential premises of the Protestant Revolt.

Furthermore, it really does matter that Miss Miers has abandoned the true Faith. While we pray for her return to the true Church, there is almost nothing that pleases the devil more than snatching a baptized Catholic out of the true Faith, thereby robbing that soul of contact with the sacraments and a willingness to subordinate everything in his or her life to the entirety of the Deposit of Faith entrusted by Our Lord solely to the Catholic Church.

It is bad enough that allegedly practicing Catholics support the prevailing evils of the day while maintaining their “good standing” within the Church. It is worse yet that a soul leaves the true Church and is considered thus fit for public service and/or civic leadership. No one–and I mean no one–who has abandoned the true Faith (or who dissents from the articles contained in the Deposit of Faith) is entitled to our support as a holder of public office, whether elected or appointed. No such person has anything to offer public debate as his or her “ideas” are not founded in an acceptance of the immutable Social Teaching of the Catholic Church and thus the product of the individualism and absurd contradictions that characterize contemporary social “thought” and political praxis. This applies not only to Miss Miers. This applies to those who have abandoned the Faith to embrace the false religion known as Mormonism, founded by a Masonic confidence man, Joseph Smith. This applies also to presidential aspirants of third parties who have placed their souls in the grip of the devil by abandoning the sacramental life of the true Church into which they were baptized.

Harriet Miers is thus a case study in all of the principal errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the Church. An evidently earnest woman, searching for the “meaning of life,” has been deceived by a well-meaning friend to seek out Our Lord in “churches” that actually belong to the devil himself. How much of the “emptiness” she felt in her life as she approached thirty in 1975 was due to the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council is unknown. What can be stated with certainty, however, is the fact that the very errors of the Founding of this nation that had been embraced by the likes of Archbishop John Carroll and many of his successors helped to make baptized Catholics more and more susceptible to having their Faith undermined in a culture of pluralism and religious indifferentism. Orestes Brownson saw this so very clearly in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Harriet Miers is thus a case study of how a baptized Catholic can wind up to be in her adult life a veritable mass of mutually contradictory ideas and beliefs.

No one as seriously confused and conflicted as Harriet Miers is qualified to hold any public office, certainly not to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Finally, President George W. Bush’s efforts to defend Miss Miers in his press conference earlier this week were nothing short of laughable. His proclamation of himself as being a “pro-life” president demonstrates that he lives in a world of delusion, being reaffirmed in his delusions by his enablers, including a lot of prominent Catholics.

Mr. President, no one who supports one abortion under cover of law is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, no one who supports and funds the chemical abortions of preborn babies is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, no one who appoints those who support baby killing in all instances to governmental positions is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, no one who appoints such pro-abortion individuals as Michael Chertoff to a seat on a United States Circuit Court of Appeals (and then as Homeland Security Secretary), is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, no one who campaigns for pro-aborts in his own political party is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, no one who funds “limited” embryonic stem cell research is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, no president whose administration sends its Solicitor General to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States that a pro-life hero, Joseph Scheidler, is a “bandit” under the Hobbs Act for “interfering” with a “legitimate business,” baby-killing, is “pro-life.”

Mr. President, you are a pro-life fraud. You have been enabled by Catholic sycophants interested in their own access to the corridors of power and “places at the table.”

Once again, the only hope for this nation is for believing Catholics to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King without fear of the consequences and to make endless sacrifices for the proper consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a pope with all of the world’s bishops. The faithful fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message will bring about the end of the spreading of the errors of Russia, including all of the anti-Incarnational errors of all modern states, including the United States of America.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas, pray for us.