Wise words friom Bishop Donald Sanborn on the election

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Jan2021.pdf

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Jan2021.pdf

Newsletter excerpt

January 2021
Published by Most Holy Trinity Seminary,

1000 Spring Lake Highway, Brooksville, Florida 34602.

A catastrophic failure. I will again address the political events of the past month. I do so as a private citizen, and not as representing the Catholic Church in any capacity whatsoever. The only reason why I express my views is that my readers probably want to know what I think.

Nearly every major disaster, whether the sinking of a ship, the crash of a plane, or the breaking of a dam, for example, is the final result of a whole series of interrelated causes, which fall upon one another like a line of dominoes.

The first failure. The major disaster which began on November 3rd was the unconstitutional election of the president. If we, for a moment, set aside all of the vehement suspicion of fraudulent voting, let us look at a more central and more objective problem: the unconstitutionality of the elections in four states. The Constitution declares: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...” (Article II, section 1) It is therefore clear that it is the state legislature which has the sole power to direct how [“manner”] the electors are chosen. Hence the power over the election of the president is entirely in the hands of the state legislature. There is no mention here of the governor or any other state official.

Four states, namely Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, changed the rules of voting without the consent of the state legislatures. These changes were done by governors and secretaries of states. There were some objections raised by the legislatures, but they failed to use their constitutional authority to stop this usurpation of power.

The second failure. It is that of the courts. At every level, from the state lower courts to the state ap-peals courts and supreme courts, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court, nowhere was the case of the contested election heard, investigated, and adjudicated. This is an appalling failure. Does not the President of the United States possess a right to have his lawsuit heard? Do not 74,000,000 voters have a right to have this election adjudicated? Do not seventeen states bringing lawsuit against Pennsylvania for an unconstitutional election have a right to have their case tried in front of the Supreme Court? Is not the express purpose of the Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, to settle controversies between states?

The reason given by the Supreme Court for refusing to hear the case was that these states lacked “standing” to bring suit against another state in a matter of a presidential election. But this reasoning is absurd, for if even one state does not observe the rules of the Constitution in regard to their voting laws, it affects the entire Union. The presidential election is not something which is purely internal to the state, as if electing the Supreme Dog Catcher-in-Chief of Pennsylvania, but an election which regards the Union far more than the state itself. These dissenting states, therefore, absolutely had standing. For Pennsylvania’s voting laws were made without the con-sent of the state legislature, and therefore illegally. The Pennsylvania legislature even brought suit against the Secretary of State complaining of this breach of power, but the suit was dismissed, naturally, by a leftist judge.

Did not the Supreme Court, in 2000, adjudicate the disputed election between Gore and Bush? Why would it not adjudicate this one?

The third failure. The third in this series of failures was the conduct of the feckless and invertebrate Repub-licans in the Congress on January 6th. They, in an absurd protestation that they were being faithful to the Constitu-tion by accepting the electors from the disputed states, actually violated the Constitution in so doing. For how are you “observing the Constitution” if you are accepting electors who were chosen in an unconstitutional manner? If the state legislatures failed to do their jobs by annulling the unconstitutional votes in their states, the obligation of refusing these votes would certainly fall to the Congress. How could any legislator in good con-science not object to electors who were unconstitutionally chosen? The Constitution says that the Congress shall count the votes. How do you count unconstitutional votes, and consider yourself to be a supporter of the Constitution? The argument of these oily and slithery Republicans was “we are just following the Constitution.” It reminds me of the defense proffered by some notable twentieth-century figures that “they were just following orders” when accused of some heinous crimes.

It is in this regard that the greatest failure was that of Mike Pence, who showed himself to be cowardly and obsequious on January 6th. There were many others, however, including Rand Paul, a noted conservative, who “followed the Constitution” by approving of unconstitutional votes.

Common sense. Abraham Lincoln, a god in American history and politics, known for his pithy statements of common sense, understood that the Constitution is a worthless piece of paper if the nation would disintegrate by observing it. For this reason he suspended between Philadelphia and Washington the writ of habeas corpus, which gives to arrested and imprisoned persons the right to appear before a judge and be tried for the crime of which they are accused. He did this because he feared that Maryland would secede, and in so doing leave Washington surrounded by confederate states. So he had con-federate sympathizers arrested and imprisoned without trial.

His opponents, the Democrats, screamed in indigna-tion, claiming that it violated the Constitution. But Lin-coln responded in this way: “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”

His point was this: Your Constitution will do you no good if the government is captured by Confederates and the country falls apart. The same may be said to the le-galistic Republican Constitution-worshipers in the Con-gress on January 6th: Your Constitution will do you no good if you ruin the credibility of elections by approving unconstitutional electors. For in so doing, you destroy a country in which the leaders are democratically elected. It becomes a soviet-style one party nation, dictatorial and totalitarian.

When I was a child in the 1950’s, I asked my parents if they had elections in the Soviet Union. They respond-ed, “Oh yes, they have elections. You can go and vote for whatever members of the communist party they put on the ballot.”

Our Lord railed against the legalism of the Phar-isees, who accused Him of breaking the Law on the sab-bath: “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out, on the sabbath day?” (Matthew XXI: 2) And again: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” (Mark II: 27)

So we could say to legalist Republicans like Pence, citing his observance of the Constitution for his craven behavior: The Constitution was made for the nation, and not the nation for the Constitution. In other words, just as the law of the sabbath could be broken to save a man, or even an animal, so can the law of the Constitution be broken to save the nation.

But to ruin the electoral process is to destroy the nation. In my saying this, I would want no one to draw the conclusion that I think that the Constitution is not an important document, or that it should not be observed. It is extremely important that it be observed, since it is the principle of unity which binds all Americans together.

It is, nonetheless, a human law. It is a general principle of human law that it cannot foresee all circumstances, with the result that occasionally, even rarely, it happens that the observance of the law would be harmful to the common good.

A perfect example is the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. Canon Law forbids the consecration of bishops without the permission of the pope, which is called the papal mandate. However, Canon Law did not foresee the horrid nightmare in which we are living, namely that those elected to the papacy and appointed to episcopal sees would abandon the Catholic Faith and embrace the heresy of Modernism. In the process, they would also invalidate the rite of episcopal consecration.

Consequently, to await a papal mandate for bishops who do profess the Catholic Faith would actually harm the very existence of the Catholic Church and of a valid episcopacy. Consequently, it is perfectly reasonable and even necessary to use common sense and conclude that we must consecrate bishops without papal mandate, all the while with the intention of submitting to a future true pope. This is known as the principle of epicheia, or equity. St. Thomas put it a little differently: Necessity knows no law, referring, of course, not to natural law, to which there is no exception, but to human laws.

The gutless Republicans should have used this same reasoning on January 6th.

The reason for the anger. I think that the anger of the crowd on January 6th was due to this collapse of the Republicans, their betrayal of the cause, and their handing over the election to someone who labors under a serious cloud of doubt concerning legitimacy and even mental health. The crowd was not egged on by Trump. The people were enraged, in my opinion, by the failure on every level to adjudicate the controverted election, and finally by the betrayal of their own party.

The fourth failure. The next failure, however, and very surprising to me, was that of President Trump him-self. A day or so after the breach of the Capitol, he spoke of a peaceful transition of power on January 20th. Pow-er? Since November 3rd, he has been telling us that the election was fraudulent. Now he says that there will be a peaceful transition of power. How is power given to someone who “won” an election by fraudulent means?

This one statement made everyone who came to Washington on January 6th look like a fool. They came to protest the fraudulent election, and to make a statement to the Republican members of Congress that they had the obligation to resist the vote. It was the “March to Save America,” as Trump put it.

Then, to add insult to injury, Trump said that it was a time of peace, healing, and reconciliation for the country. Peace, healing, and reconciliation? How do we have peace with the leftists who are trying to destroy this country? What “healing” is possible when the leftists are pursuing their radical socialist agenda with fanatical and uncompromising energy? What reconciliation is possible with the leftists, who are calling any Trump supporter an extremist and a terrorist (when they are not using the F word to describe us) and people that need to be “reprogrammed?” Is not Big Tech, their comrade in arms, expelling from the media any dissenting voices? Is this healing? No. It is not a time for healing, peace, and reconciliation. It is a time for opposition, division, indignation, outrage, and a very justified anger.

The fifth failure. Trump failed to publish the evidence of the fraudulent election. After much boasting, bombast, and braggadocio about “massive evidence” to be unleashed on January 6th, nothing happened. Nothing. He folded his tent.

The sixth and final failure. The final coup de grace to the nation was delivered by Trump on January 20th, when, in his farewell speech, he wished Joe Biden “suc-cess.” Success? Success in transforming our country into a socialist, one-party, totalitarian regime? For if the left-ists, with the help of Big Tech, have destroyed the in-tegrity and credibility of this country’s elections, they have destroyed everything. They have silenced the one means by which 74 million people can make their voices heard. In this they are inviting civil unrest, for in what other way will these people be able to express them-selves?

The indignation of the Left. The Left is calling the breach of the Capitol an insurrection. They gasp for the horror of it. Do they not realize that this country was brought into being by an insurrection against the legiti-mate authority, King George III of England? What is more of an insurrection than, in 1776, to declare your-self independent of the ruling authority since the founding of British North America in 1607? Were not the thirteen colonies peacefully governed for 169 years by royal governors and legislatures? Was this not legitimate authority? And when the citizens of Massachusetts am-bushed from hidden places the British soldiers returning to Boston from Lexington and Concord in 1775, was this not an insurrection? Seventy-three British soldiers were killed. Yet these acts of insurrection are held in great es-teem in American history. Lexington and Concord, it should be remembered, took place long before the Declaration of Independence.

Is this not insurrection? Yet these two battles are iconic in American history, extolled as the right thing to do when a government becomes oppressive. So why is the Left selective about its insurrections? In fact the Left, historically, has been brought into power through insurrections.

In saying these things, I am not condoning insurrection or the breach of the Capitol on January 6th. The Church abhors insurrection and revolution against legitimate authority. However, I would say that the crime that was occurring inside the Capitol chambers, that of ap-proving an unconstitutional election, was far, far, worse than the crime of entering the Capitol unlawfully.

Loss of confidence and of admiration. I have, therefore, completely lost confidence in the Republican Party. As they saw Trump’s ship sinking, they scurried off the deck like a bunch of terror-stricken rats. This very scenario has taken place time and time again. They put on a show of conservatism, and then, after getting elected, they turn into inconsistent leftists. The Republican Party should do everyone a favor and shut itself down.

I have also lost a great deal of admiration for Don-ald Trump. He could have said: “I have exhausted every means of overturning this fraudulent election, but I will never recognize Joe Biden as the winner.” But to tell us to make peace with the very people whom he accused, all during the campaign, of wanting to destroy this country, is to me the ultimate betrayal and the ultimate stab in the back of his loyal supporters.

The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. These are Our Lord’s words in praise of the unjust steward, not praising his injustice, but praising his prudence in preserving his own skin. Similarly, in many ways I admire the party of the leftists, and this for two reasons: (1) they have an ideology, a textbook of political dogmas, from which they never swerve, but which they relentlessly pursue without com-promise; (2) they have a loyalty whereby they never depart from the party line in the voting process. Neither of these is true about the confused and unstable cowards known as the Republicans. There are exceptions, of course, among the Republicans, who showed themselves to be true both to the ideology and the loyalty, but most of them, with Mike Pence in the lead, have sold us down the river.

Sincerely yours in Christ,


Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn Rector

The difference is, the people that were in on the take down and those that sold us out, are irredeemable.
If Trump does have a final act to restore our republic, he will be redeemed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EE_

The difference is, the people that were in on the take down and those that sold us out, are irredeemable.
If Trump does have a final act to restore our republic, he will be redeemed.

---

I am praying for God to act but I do not believe Donald Trump is an indispensable ingredient in the solution.

If we lose our country to the communists there is no more voting and no more congress and no more rule of law and no more anything good for the people.

This is part of the final battle between Good and Evil.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/video...eid=9cccfc88d3

TRANSCRIPT

Church Militant (a 501(c)4 corporation) is responsible for the content of this commentary.

As 2021 gets into gear, what we have learned from the carnage of 2020 is that there are two major worldviews, and they have nothing to do with each other.

But what had managed to remain hidden for the most part prior to 2020 is that they both use the same labels and vocabulary; they each claim to be American or Catholic, but, in reality, they are deeply opposed to each other.

Marxist Democrats do not profess American values. Nor do dissident clergy and laity profess the Catholic faith.