From Emperor Rockefeller to Emperor Cuomo II: An Empire State of Executing the Innocent

Tuesday, December 1, 2020, represents the first anniversary of what could very well turn out to be the last time I spend a part of a day in my native state, the State of New York. We had returned there in June of last year for the fiftieth anniversary reunion of the Oyster Bay High School graduating class of 1969 (see Only One Reunion Matters) and found ourselves there around this time a year ago en route back to Texas after having a brief trip to Connecticut. Given all that has happened in the eight months as State of New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo, far surpassing the fascistic, self-righteous tendencies of his ever pompous and arrogant father, the late Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo (see It Is Still A Terrible Thing to Fall into the Hands of the Living God), it is very unlikely that we are going to return back to the state where I was born and spent just under three-fifths of my life as it stands now. I have no intention of dealing with “border checks” as though living under the oppressive rule of the Stasi secret police in the so-called German Democratic Republic (GDR, otherwise known as East Germany from 1949-1990).

My native state was in the vanguard of promoting the killing of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law. Although not the first state in the United States of America to have done so, the Empire State of New York quickly became the baby-killing capital of the world after the New York State Legislature passed a bill on April 10, 1970, that repealed an 1830 prohibiting baby-killing and permitted the slaughter of the innocent preborn up through the twenty-fourth week of their development within their mothers’ wombs. This monstrous effort, which was spearheaded by a Democratic Assemblyman named Albert Blumenthal, was made possible by the votes of several Catholic legislators, one of whom, a Republican State Senator Thomas Laverne of Rochester, New York, said that he would not be “dictated” by his church while State Senator Edward Speno of East Meadow, Long Island, New York, and a member of Saint Raphael the Archangel Church there, heralded his “independence” in voting for the bill. Another Catholic, New York State Senate Majority Leader at the time, Earle Brydges, however, openly wept at the baby-killing bill was passed:

ALBANY, April 10—The State Senate, after more than two hours of quiet but emotional debate, voted 31 to 26 today to accept an Assembly bill that strikes the state’s 140‐year‐old abortion law from the books.

Cardinal Cooke issued an appeal on behalf of the Roman Catholic bishops of the state for Governor Rockefeller to veto the bill, but the Governor said in New York that he would sign the bill tomorrow morning.

Today’s vote successfully ended a bitter and tenacious campaign begun in 1966 by a Manhattan Democrat Assemblyman, Albert H. Blumenthal, to reform the law passed in 1830 that permits an abortion only to save a woman’s life.

The new law makes an abortions a matter between a woman and her doctor up to the 24th week of pregnancy. After the 24th week, the new law would allow an abortion only when necessary to save the woman’s life. However, abortions generally are per formed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Today’s vote added New York to a growing list of states caught up in a national wave of abortion reform, beginning with a 1967 Colorado reform law, and is considered a key to possible reform in other states.

Emotions continued to run high in the Senate debate today, but they did not reach the depth and scope of the eight‐ hour session on March 18 when the Senate passed an even more liberal version of the reform bill—one without the 24‐week time limit added in the Assembly. The vote today was identical to that of March 18.

Senate Majority Leader Earl W. Brydges, a Niagara Falls Republican whose opposition to reform in past years prevented consideration of such a bill, openly wept as the bill passed.

Mr. Brydges, whose craggy features and gritty voice gen erally reflect complete control, rose to end debate on the bill by reading from what he de scribed as “The Dairy of an Unborn Child.”

He began to read of a child on the day of conception when—“it is already determ ined even that I will love flowers.” His voice broke and television lights reflected from the tears on his cheeks.

I’m sorry, Mr. President,” he stammered, “I try to keep myself under control…I can not read it all, sir, but I want to read the final entry in this diary, dated Dec. 28 and it says, ‘Today, my parents killed me.’” He dropped to his seat, trembling.

Debate Lacks Conviction

Except for two of the 13 other speeches, debate lacked any of the conviction that words would sway votes.

Fighting to the end, Senator James H. Donovan, Oneida County Republican, pointed an accusing finger at his colleagues and said:

“Your hands will reach into the womb with the doctor and you are going to kill, K‐I‐L‐L, when you pass this law. I urge you in God’s name not to do this … Instead, kill this bill and you will please the people of New York. What’s more, you will please God.”

Senator Thomas Laverne, Rochester Republican, who like Mr. Donovan is a Roman Catholic and has been under pressure from his church not to vote for the bill, responded angrily to the religious tone of Mr. Donovan’s argument.

“How dare anyone say because I believe this way everyone else should believe this way,” Mr. Laverne said. “I have been told I am obviously not a good Catholic … Even that I am a phony … But many do not support the church on this issue, 60 per cent of the Catholics in my district don’t agree with the church on this issue.”

“I don’t think,” he concluded, “I have the right to force my morality on anyone else.”

The new law, which will take effect July 1, has raised a number of hopes and fears, all of which have been expressed during the three major debates during this session.

Primarily, supporters hope the law will end the illegal abortion business that has resulted in the death or mutilation of the women involved. These same sponsors, however, warn against what they call “probably unrealizable” hopes that the new law will cause a major reduction in welfare caseloads—especially in aid to dependent children. (Final Approval of Baby-Killing Law Voted in Albany; Rockefeller to Sign.)

This report from fifty years ago—that’s right, half a century ago—signified the fact that a few Catholic legislators, having been formed and immersed from the cradle in the myth of “majority rule” and the old shibboleth of “imposing morality upon others,” thereby demonstrating that even baptized and confirmed Catholics believed that it was within the provenance of men, whether acting individually or collectively with others in human institutions of civil governance, to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, thus opening up the path to “permitting” every manner of licentiousness, up to and including perversity and the killing of those after birth under the pretexts of a variety of myths that make gods out of mere men and have turned the Hippocratic Oath on its head.

The New York Times report of April 10, 1970, also demonstrated that the lies about large numbers of women being mutilated and/or killed by illegal abortionists in “back alleys” had taken hold in the minds of those who simply wanted to give full expression to the moral anarchy that was let loose in the 1960s four hundred years after the lustful, lecherous, bigamous, adulterous drunkard and glutton named King Henry VIII began the English revolution against the Holy Faith so that he would be able to satisfy his own carnal desires with the “blessing” and support of the bishops who followed him into apostasy.

Alas, the campaign to decriminalize baby-killing in the 1960s was based on a pack of lies and appeals of an emotional and/or utilitarian nature (baby-killing was a “medical” issue, not a moral one; inflating the numbers of women killed by “illegal abortions;” painted the Catholic Church as the “enemy” of women) that a reformed baby-killer, the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, exposed in the 1980s:

In the mid-1960s, with the sexual revolution roaring after Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent but influential “scientific” studies of sex and sexuality in America, Hugh Hefner’s aggressive campaign to legitimize pornography and, perhaps above all, the wide distribution of the anovulant birth control pill, [Bernard] Nathanson became a leader in the movement to overturn laws prohibiting abortion. He co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which later became the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and is now NARAL Pro-Choice America. Its goal was to remove the cultural stigma on abortion, eliminate all meaningful legal restraints on it, and make it as widely available as possible across the nation and, indeed, the globe.

To achieve these goals, Nathanson would later reveal, he and fellow abortion crusaders pursued dubious and in some cases straightforwardly dishonest strategies.

First, they promoted the idea that abortion is a medical issue, not a moral one. This required persuading people of the rather obvious falsehood that a normal pregnancy is a natural and healthy condition if the mother wants her baby, and a disease if she does not. The point of medicine, to maintain and restore health, had to be recast as giving health care consumers what they happen to want; and the Hippocratic Oath’s explicit prohibition of abortion had to be removed. In the end, Nathanson and his collaborators succeeded in selling this propaganda to a small but extraordinarily powerful group of men: in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, seven Supreme Court justices led by Harry Blackmun, former counsel to the American Medical Association, invalidated virtually all state laws providing meaningful protection for unborn children on the ground that abortion is a “private choice” to be made by women and their doctors.

Second, Nathanson and his friends lied—relentlessly and spectacularly—about the number of women who died each year from illegal abortions. Their pitch to voters, lawmakers, and judges was that women are going to seek abortion in roughly equal numbers whether it is lawful or not. The only effect of outlawing it, they claimed, is to limit pregnant women to unqualified and often uncaring practitioners, “back alley butchers.” So, Nathanson and others insisted, laws against abortion are worse than futile: they do not save fetal lives; they only cost women’s lives.

Now some women did die from unlawful abortions, though factors other than legalization, especially the development of antibiotics such as penicillin, are mainly responsible for reducing the rate and number of maternal deaths. And of course, the number of unborn babies whose lives were taken shot up dramatically after Nathanson and his colleagues achieved their goals; and they achieved them, in part, by claiming that the number of illegal abortions was more than ten times higher than it actually was.

Third, the early advocates of abortion deliberately exploited anti-Catholic animus among liberal elites and (in those days) many ordinary Protestants to depict opposition to abortion as a “religious dogma” that the Catholic hierarchy sought to impose on others in violation of their freedom and the separation of church and state. Nathanson and his friends recognized that their movement needed an enemy—a widely suspected institution that they could make the public face of their opposition; a minority, but one large and potent enough for its detractors to fear.

Despite the undeniable historical fact that prohibitions of abortion were rooted in English common law and reinforced and expanded by statutes enacted across the United States by overwhelmingly Protestant majorities in the 19th century, Nathanson and other abortion movement leaders decided that the Catholic Church was perfect for the role of freedom-smothering oppressor. Its male priesthood and authority structure would make it easy for them to depict the Church’s opposition to abortion as misogyny, for which concern to protect unborn babies was a mere pretext. The Church’s real motive, they insisted, was to restrict women’s freedom in order to hold them in positions of subservience.

Fourth, the abortion movement sought to appeal to conservatives and liberals alike by promoting feticide as a way of fighting poverty. Why are so many people poor? It’s because they have more children than they can afford to care for. What’s the solution? Abortion. Why do we have to spend so much money on welfare? It’s because poor, mainly minority, women are burdening the taxpayer with too many babies. The solution? Abortion. Initially, Nathanson himself believed that legal abortion and its public funding would reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and poverty, though (as he later admitted) he continued to promote this falsehood after the sheer weight of evidence forced him to disbelieve it.

Within a year after Roe v. Wade, however, Nathanson began to have moral doubts about the cause to which he had been so single-mindedly devoted. In a widely noticed 1974 essay in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, he revealed his growing doubts about the “pro-choice” dogma that abortion was merely the removal of an “undifferentiated mass of cells,” and not the killing of a developing human being. Referring to abortions that he had supervised or performed, he confessed to an “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Still, he was not ready to abandon support for legal abortion. It was, he continued to insist, necessary to prevent the bad consequences of illegal abortions. But he was moving from viewing abortion itself as a legitimate solution to a woman’s personal problem, to seeing it as an evil that should be discouraged, even if for practical reasons it had to be tolerated. Over the next several years, while continuing to perform abortions for what he regarded as legitimate “health” reasons, Nathanson would be moved still further toward the pro-life position by the emergence of new technologies, especially fetoscopy and ultrasound, that made it increasingly difficult, and finally impossible, to deny that abortion is the deliberate killing of a unique human being—a child in the womb.

By 1980, the weight of evidence in favor of the pro-life position had overwhelmed Nathanson and driven him out of the practice of abortion. He had come to regard the procedure as unjustified homicide and refused to perform it. Soon he was dedicating himself to the fight against abortion and revealing to the world the lies he and his abortion movement colleagues had told to break down public opposition. (The Public Discourse.)

The American Life League had published its own summary of how Nathanson and Lader helped to form the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the lies they told to “reform” existing legislation that criminalized the surgical execution of the innocent preborn:

Historically, every revolution has to have its villain … Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that’s what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people … There’s always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie … the Catholic hierarchy. That’s a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned …

National Abortion Rights Action League co-founder Larry Lader.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

We have been nice, pleasant too long. We can be restrained no longer  Right to Lifers have a total lack of respect for human life. We can no longer move restrainedly, sit on our apathy and hope Rome will burn.                                                       

Early History of the NARAL.

Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups.

Introduction.

The most powerful philosophical push for abortion was generated by an elite cadre during the heady 1960s, when authority was being challenged or ignored everywhere, and when the Neoliberal agenda seemed to be advancing almost everywhere against, at best, scattered and disorganized opposition.

One of the most effective organizations pushing for abortion law reform or repeal was the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), which is now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League.

NARAL: Bigoted to the Core.

Whatever else may be said about them, the leaders of NARAL had their priorities right when the group was first organized. Bernard Nathanson, Bill Baird, Larry Lader, and other pro-abortion activists defined their mission, identified their enemy, and set up a strategic framework within which to operate.

Nathanson summarized the beginnings of NARAL in a 1980 speech;

I want to take you back some twelve years to 1968 at which time I, and later Betty Friedan and Carol Grietzer, organized a political action group known as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. We organized it as a tight, well-structured, and dynamic little cadre. It was the right time. Feminism was on the move, the Vietnam War was raging, authority was being destroyed everywhere and, very important to all of us here, there was no organization of those opposed to abortion.

There was only silence from the opposition. We fed a line of deceit, of dishonesty, of fabrication of statistics and figures; we coddled, caressed, and stroked the press. We cadged money from various sources and we, in one short year, succeeded in striking down the abortion laws of New York State and in one fell swoop established the city of New York as the abortion capital of the world. We were calling ourselves pro-abortionists and pro-choice. In fact what we were were abortifiers; those who like abortion.[4]

The most critical action taken by the early leaders of NARAL was their correct identification of their natural enemies the Catholic and Fundamentalist churches. The utter contempt that the NARAL leaders held for any view other than their own is graphically displayed in Figure 62-1. The members of the NARAL committee agreed that the Pope was “running our country” and that Catholics would “stop at no ends to reach their goals,” even if such actions included outright terrorism.

FANTI-CATHOLIC QUOTES BY LEADERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE REPEAL OF ABORTION LAWS AT THE 1972 NARAL NATIONAL STRATEGY MEETING

NOTE: These summaries are exact quotes transcribed by a secretary for the minutes of the May 12, 1972 meeting of the executive board of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). All quotes below are copied verbatim from the Minutes.

Lawrence Lader, Chairman, NARAL Executive Committee

(1) Stated Billy Graham and the Pope running our country.
(4) Catholics trying to overthrow the most humanitarian legislation of our time.
(7) [Catholic] Priests went into assembly and terrorized [Texas] legislators.
(10) Stressed that he [Lader] uses every opportunity  Television appearances, radio interviews, newspapers to criticize the way the Catholic Church uses its tax free monies, etc.

Hon. Lorraine Beebe, former State Senator, Michigan
(1) Stressed financial strength of the Catholic Church.
(2) We have been nice, pleasant too long. We can be restrained no longer  Right to Lifers have a total lack of respect for human life. “We can no longer move restrainedly, sit on our apathy and hope Rome will burn.”
(3) Catholics waged a smear campaign against me when they learned I had had a therapeutic abortion. They made threatening calls, threw eggs at my house. Had signs  ‘A vote for Beebe is a vote against the Pope.’
(4) The catholics will stop at no ends to reach their goals.

Lawrence Lader— I share Mrs. Beebe’s attitude, “I don’t care if we have a Belfast and Dublin here in the U.S. we must have a direct conflict with the Catholic Church.”

Reverend Robert T. Cobb— Associate Executive Director, N.Y. Council of Churches.
Rev. Cobb made a very dramatic entrance  ripping off his collar and asking “who are you afraid of”  when you thought I was a Catholic Priest you looked stunned. You should not be afraid of a church that condemns but does not forgive. “Protestants have been bought by the Roman Catholic Church.” He proceeded to knock ecumenism and state[d] that if the Churches go to Rome he will go walking on his hands.
(5) A good Roman Catholic Liberal can be valuable.

William Baird, Director, Parent’s Aid Society
(1) Single Greatest Threat to Women  Roman Catholic Church
(3) In attacking Catholic Church  concentrate on separation of church and state.

Summary —
(3) Their [NARAL] attack will be concentrated  even to court cases  against then [sic] Catholic Church and trying to make people believe that Pope is trying to run the country, and that the Catholic Church is trying to take over Protestant Churches.

“At this point we had to leave  It was after 5 … I was getting a bit nervous  the anti-catholic, anti-Right to Life feeling in that room was close to violent.”

The two people who contributed most to the framework of early NARAL strategy were Bernard Nathanson and Larry Lader. In his book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson describes part of a 1969 conversation he had with fellow abortophile Larry Lader; “Historically, every revolution has to have its villain … Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that’s what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people … There’s always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie … the Catholic hierarchy. That’s a small enough group to come down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned … “[1]  (The Formation of the National Abortion Rights Action League.)

Lies once told with emotional appeals and manufactured statistics become embedded in the psyches of large numbers people. This is how the surgical execution of the innocent preborn child was promoted with abandon in the 1960s as illegal baby-killers were lionized for their “heroism” in defending the “women’s rights.” The lies kept being repeated and repeated until jurists, legislators and executives (presidents, governors, mayors, county executives, town supervisors, borough presidents, city/county managers, administrative apparatchiks) began to repeat them on their own without any fear of contradiction. The lies told by the likes of Dr. Nathanson, Lawrence Lader, William Baird, et al. in the 1960s are still invoked whenever some pro-abortion politician or candidate public office tries to win votes and/or attempts to raise funds off of the fears of a return to “back alley” abortionists whenever it is opportune to raise the specter of a reversal of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, decisions that were judicial fiats that built upon and expanded the manufactured myth of “penumbras” emanating from the Bill of Rights that were “discovered” by a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court  of the United States of America in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, which struck down a long-unenforced Connecticut statue banning the sales of contraceptives to married couples.

Obviously, the State of New York is not alone in executing the innocent from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages while prohibiting the execution of those adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the exhaustion of the due process of law. However, the State of New York has had—and continues to have—politicians of both major organized crime families of naturalism who have supported the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” as well as all manner of moral perversity in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. New York State has had six consecutive governors (Hugh Leo CareyMario Matthew CuomoGeorge Elmer PatakiElliot SpitzerDavid Patterson, and Andrew Mario Cuomo—each of these hyperlinks will take readers to articles on this site about these men) who support these evils. And, in truth, there have been eight consecutive governors who have played a role in facilitating the surgical execution of children as the completely pro-abortion, pro-population control, pro-everything bad Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller made sure that he was not in Albany, New York, fifty years ago after the State Legislature passed the baby-killing bill on April 9, 1970, leaving it to his Catholic lieutenant governor, Malcolm Wilson (who became governor in his own right after Rockefeller resigned the governorship on December 17, 1973, to establish a foundation that he hoped to serve as a launching bad for a presidential bid in 1976) to sign a bill that he, Wilson, opposed but dutifully signed out of loyalty to Nelson Rockefeller and not to Christ the King, something that was the nadir of a Wilson’s political life as he was personally devoted to Our Lady and spoke at a dinner in honor of Our Lady of Fatima in Schenectady, New York, October 13, 1974, as he was running for election to a full time against then United States Representative Hugh Leo Carey (D-Brooklyn, New York). Additionally, each Mayor of the City of New in the past fifty years (John Vliet Lindsay, Abraham Beame, Edward Irving Koch, the recently deceased David N. Dinkins, Rudolph William Giuliani—see No Room for Christ at Saint Patrick’sNo One Speaks for Christ the KingCommon Ground for Rudy and BennyA Creature of Their Own MakingWe Must Never Betray the Cause of Christ the KingPublic Scandal Is Never A Private Matter (2009), and March of the Midget Naturalist, Michael Rubens “Nanny State” Bloomberg, and Warren Wilhelm, Jr./Warren de Blasio Wilhelm/Bill de Blasio) has been a rabid supporter of all things evil.

Things are so bad in the state of birth sixty-nine years, four days ago that legislators in the State Legislature actually stood on their desks while cheering and applauding after they had passed a bill on January 23, 2019, the Feast of Saint Raymond of Pennafort and the Commemoration of Saint Emerentiana, that  “strengthened” New York’s  existing pro-death laws by assuring that baby-killers could continue to kill babies in the later stages of the development in their mothers’ wombs for the “health of the mother” even when the babies are in their mothers’ birth canals and/or are “unable” to survive after an attempted abortion because they are said to suffer from various physical deformities and/or illnesses whose “quality of life” is not deemed by “medical professionals” to be worth living as part of the state’s “health code:

On Tuesday, coincidentally the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the New York State Senate passed the Reproductive Health Act, and it was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The law, which is likely the most expansive abortion bill in the country, allows late-term abortion until the baby’s due date if it meets certain requirements. Not only is this kind of legal protection of late-term abortion an affront to the humanity of the unborn and the dignity of society, but New York celebrated it publicly, as if it had just won the Super Bowl.

When the bill passed, video shows the assembly chamber erupting into cheers, with politicians and audience members applauding the bill as if it were a victorious symbol of strength.

That night, One World Trade Center lit up in the color pink to honor the passage of the bill. Imagine, a beacon of capitalism, shining not to showcase freedom and prosperity but the “liberty” marking the path toward infanticide.

Cuomo says One World Trade Center’s 408-foot spire, the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany will be lit in pink tonight to celebrate passage of Reproductive Health Act https://t.co/TmDEmj18Vy pic.twitter.com/XYdgxPNaoC

— Joseph Spector (@GannettAlbany) January 23, 2019

Of course, Planned Parenthood applauded the passage of the bill with words of affirmation and an emoji.

This. Is. Huge.@NYGovCuomo JUST signed the Reproductive Health Act into law — a big win towards securing safe, legal abortion & access to contraception for all!

Can’t wait to see other states follow New York’s lead to protect our health and rights. 😎 https://t.co/1nH9fnIJDK

— Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) January 23, 2019

Two of the most heinous parts of the bill describe the new parameters of abortion: if “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy” and second, and this is the worst qualifier, “or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” The wording of that second phrase is so comprehensive, even in legal lingo, protecting the patient’s health could mean almost anything.

This new bill ensures that New York remains the most progressive of all the states in pushing forward “reproductive rights” (an absurd term for baby-killing). Per the CDC, about one in three unborn babies are aborted in New York City. Statistics also show more black babies are aborted than born alive in New York City.

Still, New Yorkers not only fail to be discouraged by this news, they also celebrate it.

To be clear, this is not the passage of abortion rights, but the permission to commit infanticide and call it by another name — an eight-pound baby can survive outside the womb with very little medical aid. Late-term abortion procedures are ghoulish and graphic: The Lozier Institute reports that “Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures. These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother.”

Did the State Assembly and Senate know this and still applaud, or are we to assume somehow in the age of information they are willfully ignorant of the procedure?

With thousands of families waiting to adopt, passage of a bill that allows and celebrates abortion of this magnitude is disgusting. The reaction to this bill demonstrates that politicians in New York have overlooked the dignity and sanctity of the least in our society to further their own progressive self-interests. (Disgusting: New York Not Only Legalized Late-Term Abortions but Celebrated it like it won the Super Bowl.)

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEWS10) – The Reproductive Health Act passed in the New York State Senate and Assembly on Tuesday.

When it passed, the gallery erupted into cheers for about 20 seconds. After it died down, some protesters screamed out as well.

The bill protects abortion rights in the state’s health law as opposed to penal codes. It allows for late-term abortions after 24 weeks if the mother’s life is at risk or if the fetus is nonviable.

This has been a goal of the legislature now that the Senate is no longer Republican controlled. Similar bills had failed in the past.

The previous law was passed in 1970, three years before Roe v Wade. NEWS10 ABC has been told this is an update to the outdated law.

Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law Tuesday evening and reaction continues to pour in.

“If we as a New York State don’t value life in the womb does your life matter, does my life matter?” Liz Joy with the Republican Women of Schenectady County says the law will mean more late term abortions.

Emma Corbett with Planned Parenthood says 89-percent of abortions happen before the 12 week mark. The new law maintains abortions are legal up to 24 weeks and after in rare and circumstantial cases.

“Often, when we look at late term abortions, it’s often a very wanted pregnancy, some other health crisis or extenuating health circumstances come up where that care needs to be administered. To kind of look at these isolate incidences as thoughh they’re going to become the norm is really inaccurate and not something that we’re seeing at our health centers,” she said

The New York State Catholic Conference saying, “Let us all pray for the conversion of heart for those who celebrate this tragic moment in the history of our state. And we pray in a special way for the lives that will be lost, and for the women of our state who are made less safe under this law.” (NY Lawmakers Cheer Upon Passing Monstrous Baby-Killing Law.)

Members of the New York State Senate stood up and cheered upon passing a bill crafted by agents of the devil and his demons who dwell in the lowest reaches of hell. They cheered. They applauded.

That’s right. Elected officials, including not a few Catholics who are in “good standing” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, cheered for a bill that permits the vivisection of living human beings in the birth canal up to the moment of birth.

Although each abortion is infanticide, a point lost on many Americans who can themselves “pro-life” as the killing of a preborn child at any stage of his development is the same crime morally as his killing on the day of birth or at any time thereafter, it is nonetheless quite a telling commentary that Catholics in public life have become so shameless as to cheer evil in the name under the slogan of “reproductive rights” that is used to mask the reality that each surgical abortion kills a living human being. After all, why is it necessary to kill an innocent child in the womb if he, a distinct human being with his own rational, immortal soul and a unique DNA, is not alive?

It is not necessary to kill a person who is not alive. The only way to do this is to dehumanize the innocent child and to glorify his execution as an exercise of “women’s rights” and “reproductive health care.” There is no such thing as “potential” life, and the fact of one’s humanity comes from his creation in his mother’s womb, not from the recognition or lack thereof afforded him by the civil law.

It was thus galling to see Andrew Mark Cuomo earlier this year talk about his desire to “save” even one life from the Wuhan/China/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus as he has the blood of the innocent preborn dripping on his corrupt hands, and he is responsible for placing many thousands of nursing home residents at risk by sending patients who had been diagnosed as having the virus into nursing homes even though the elderly and those with underlying conditions are more vulnerable to death from the virus, whose overall survival rate even including the elderly and those with “co-morbidities” is 98.2%. Figlio di Sfachim has even had the unmitigated gall to congratulate himself for his fascistic “leadership” abilities, although a former aide has called him out for the characteristics that have “endeared” the Cuomos to so many for so long: outright thuggery (see This Is Who Andrew Mark Cuomo Really Is).

Another Set of Anti-Life Lies

Well, it was in 1968 that another set of lies began to be propagated to advance the killing of human beings under the myth of “brain death” that was manufactured an “ethics” at Harvard Medical College in 1968 to provide an ex post facto rationalization for the killing of Denise Darvall by Dr. Christian Barnard on December 3, 1967. Here is some background information as provided by Mrs. Randy Engel in an article published ten years ago:

Enter South African surgeon Christian Barnard who had received part of his post graduate medical studies in the United States at the University of Minnesota. It was here that he first met Dr. Norman Shumway, who did much of the pioneering research leading up to the first human heart transplant. Barnard performed the first kidney transplant in South Africa in October 1967, but his primary interest was cardiac surgery. He wanted to do a human heart transplant.

In November 1967, Barnard found a 54-year-old patient by the name of Louis Washkansky who agreed to participate in the medical experiment as a heart recipient.

One month later, on December 3, 1967, the father of Denise Darvall, a young woman who was seriously injured in a car accident that killed her mother, gave his permission to have his daughter’s heart excised and transplanted to Mr. Washkansky. That same day, the world’s first human heart transplant operation took place. Bernard was assisted by his brother, Marius. The operation lasted 9 hours and employed a team of 30 medical personnel.

The immediate problem facing Barnard was that, although Denise’s brain was damaged, her heart was healthy and beating, indicating she was still alive by traditional whole body standards. So what would make her heart stop so that it could be legally excised? Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie. It was not until 40 years later that the public learned the truth.

At Marius’s urging, after his brother had cleaved open the chest cavity, Christian had injected a concentrated dose of potassium to paralyze Denise’s heart, thus rendering her “technically” dead. (2) Everything had already been prepared so Bernard proceeded to quickly cut the major vessels, cool the heart and sew it into the recipient. Denise was alive before her heart was excised. She was truly dead after it was cut out of her body.

Three days after the Barnard murder, not to be outdone by a doctor in South Africa, Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz, a surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn cut a beating heart out of a live 3-day-old baby and transplanted into an 18-day-old baby with heart disease. At the end of the day both babies were dead.

The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School ad hoc Committee to study “brain death” as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criterion for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published “A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death.” (3) No authors were listed. (4)

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing “brain death” as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.”

It should also be noted that the criteria of “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. (Don’t Give Your Vital Organs – Part I.)

Dr. Paul Byrne wrote to me a decade ago with the following comment after I had been denounced as a slanderer because I had written that Devise Darvall was killed by Dr. Christian Barnard and his brother, Dr. Marius Barnard:

The focus on the Doctors Barnard ought to be: 1) Denise Darvall was living when she was taken into the operating room, 2) Denise Darvall became dead (killed) by what the Doctors Barnard did to her.

The doctors in this United States were not going to be outdone by doctors in South Africa. Therefore, three days later the second heart transplantation was done in Brooklyn. New York, famous not only for its baseball team, but also because Dr. Kantrowitz cut the beating heart out of a 3 day old baby (supposedly, mentally retarded), then put the heart into an 18 day old baby (supposedly mentally normal). At the end of all this, both babies were dead. Incidentally, Dr. Kantrowitz never did another heart transplant. Don’t you think he knew what he did?

It was illegal and immoral to take these hearts. So how to make cutting out beating hearts moral and legal? Set up a Committee at a prestigious university. Voila! The Harvard Committee. The report of the Harvard Committee, “A definition of Irreversible Coma” was published in JAMA in 1968. That report has no basic science studies or patient data or references to such; the only reference was to Pope Pius XII, who stated (but not included in JAMA), “But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions—distinguished from the simple life of organs—manifest themselves spontaneously or with the help of artificial processes.”

Vital functions are temperature (not the temperature of the environment that quickly occurs after true death), heart rate, blood pressure (circulation) and respiration.]

Truth will never change. No doctor can make a lie become the truth.

This is correct.

Truth will never change.

No doctor make a lie become the truth, and no court has any standing before God, the Author of  Life, to use a doctor’s lies to declare them to be the truth in a positivistic ipse dixit (legalese for “if we say it is so, it is so; if we say it is wo even without proof or in contravention of facts, it is dogma”).

Just as the lies about abortion told by the troika of Bernard Nathanson, Lawrence Lader, and Bill Baird, the lies invented that “ethics” committee at Harvard Medical  School in 1968 became the foundation of state legislative efforts to permit doctors to declare living human beings “brain dead,” something that would be a boon to the burgeoning, profit-making industry of human vivisection for purposes of stealing vital bodily organs for transplantation in the bodies of others.

In the State of New York, however, which is the focus of this commentary, the judges of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, decided on their own in the case of People v. Eulo, October 30, 1984, to define “brain death” as true death by relying upon the lie invented by that “ethics” committee at Harvard Medical School in 1968.

The New York Times report on the case revolved around two men in different and  unrelated cases who had been convicted on manslaughter charges. The defendants’ lawyers pleaded with the court that “brain death” is not true death, thus their clients could be charged with manslaughter because the victims were killed by the doctors who vivisected their vital bodily organs, not them. The judges on the New York State Court of Appeals rejected that argument, established “brain death” as a legal standard and said that by doing so the way would be paved for more organ “donations” for “live-saving” transplantation surgeries:

New York State’s highest court ruled yesterday that a person may be deemed legally dead when the brain has ceased to function, even if the heartbeat and breathing are being maintained by artificial means.

The decision, by the State Court of Appeals, marks the court’s most extensive attempt to define the moment and mechanism of death in light of recent medical advances. With it, New York joins 37 other states that by statute or court decision have expanded the traditional definition of death – that is, when the heart and lungs stop functioning – to include the functioning of the brain.

The court’s unanimous decision, written by Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke, upheld manslaughter convictions in two shotgun deaths. It was hailed by law enforcement officials, who said it helped clarify the law and would encourage organ transplants.

Two Were Deemed ‘Brain Dead’

Hospital administrators and doctors expressed support for the ruling and said it would permit hospitals to establish clear policies on the use of life-support systems. (Page B28.)

In both of the cases before the court, physicians treating the wounded individuals, both shot in the head, determined they were ”brain dead,” even though their hearts’ continued to beat and they could breathe with the aid of respirators. Once this decision was reached, various organs were removed for transplants and the respirators were disconnected.

Lawyers for the defendants in the cases argued that under the traditional definition of death in New York – a definition made by physicians but never explicitly outlined by the courts or the Legislature – neither victim was technically dead when the organs were removed. The transplants, not the shootings, were the cause of death, they argued, so the defendants could not be convicted of homicide. ”Ordinarily, death will be determined according to the traditional criteria of irreversible cardio-respiratory repose,” Judge Cooke wrote. ”When, however, the respiratory and circulatory functions are maintained by mechanical means, their significance, as signs of life, is at best ambiguous.”

Under such circumstances, he continued, ”death may nevertheless be deemed to occur when, according to accepted medical practice, it is determined that the entire brain’s function has irreversibly ceased.”

The court did not lay out detailed scientific standards for what constitutes brain death, though it repeatedly cited a set of criteria developed in recent years at Harvard Medical School. These include lack of responsiveness to painful stimuli; the absence of spontaneous movement, breathing and reflex action; and the use of electroencephalographs, which chart changes in electric charges in the brain.

The court did not address what role family members could play in decisions to disconnect patients from life- support systems.

The Harvard criteria, Judge Cooke stressed, are objective and scientific. In upholding the notion of brain death, he wrote, the court in no way meant to address the panoply of complicated moral concerns surrounding a patient’s ”right to die.”

”This court will make no judgment as to what is for another an unacceptable quality of life,” he wrote. Decision Is Hailed

District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman of Brooklyn, whose office argued one of the cases involved in yesterday’s ruling, called it a ”landmark decision.”

”By taking into account modern scientific advances,” she said, ”the Court of Appeals has recognized that brain death is death in New York State. The decision makes clear that a killer can be prosecuted for homicide when his victim is declared brain dead and the organs are subsequently removed for transplant, and also clarifies the legality of removing organs in such circumstances.”

To change the legal definition of death in New York, defense lawyers countered, was a matter more appropriate for legislative than judicial action. The New York Legislature has repeatedly considered adopting a brain- death standard, but the matter has never got out of committee.

”The court is not in as good a position to discern the will of the public as is the Legislature,” said David Samel of the New York Legal Aid Society, who represented one of the defendants. ”The Legislature can hold hearings, can find out what leaders of legal, medical, religious communities feel about the issue, and can look to the experience of sister states.” Safeguarding the Patient

District Attorney John J. Santucci of Queens, who has advocated legislative action to define brain death, called the decision ”a major advance” but said it did not go far enough.

”What the top court’s ruling does not address is the question of establishing safeguards to assure the accuracy of the brain-death determination and to preclude any improper influences in reaching that determination,” he said in a statement.

The defendant in the Brooklyn case, Robert Bonilla, confessed to shooting a small-time marijuana dealer, Orlando Miranda, also known as ”The Little Man,” in February 1979, after Mr. Miranda had given him a ”bad look.” The defendant in the other case, John W. Eulo, shot his girlfriend in the head after an argument at a volunteer firemen’s fair in Suffolk County in July 1981.

Both victims quickly fell into comas and were placed on respirators. Shortly thereafter, doctors performed a number of tests on each to ascertain the extent of brain damage. In each case, stimuli were applied and yielded no reaction, and electroencephelograms were flat, indicating no activity in the parts of the brain tested.

Because of these tests, each patient was declared ”brain dead,” although their hearts remained beating. With the approval of their families, organs were removed and the respirators were disconnected. Each defendant was found guilty of manslaughter. ‘Opposite of Life’

While a person’s death has many important legal consequences, notably in family and testamentary law, Judge Cooke noted, the law has never really defined death or the precise moment when it occurs. On one previous occasion, for instance, the Court of Appeals defined death simply as ”the opposite of life.”

The law initially accepted the traditional medical definition of death – that is, the ”irreversible cessation of cardiac and respiratory functions.” But as medical technology changed, Judge Cooke wrote, it has become clear that such vital signs are not always ”independent indicia of life” and can be, when a dead body is attached to a machine, ”demonstrably false.”

In the 1970’s, partly to aid the transplantation of organs, which deteriorate quickly once breathing ceases, many state legislatures began amending their laws to incorporate definitions of brain death. Elsewhere, the change was made by court decision.

The New York State Legislature’s failure to enact a brain-death statute, Judge Cooke wrote, did not preclude the court from stepping in.

”Advances in medical science have caused a focus on the issues of when a jury may find criminal responsibility for homicide, of when physicians may transfer donated organs, and of when a person’s body may be accorded the dignity of final repose,” he declared. ”It is incumbent upon this court to instill certainty and uniformity in these important areas.” (New York’s Highest Court Rules Life Ends when the Brain “Dies.” The text of People v. Eulo, October 30, 1984, can be found at People v. Eulo. A New York State Task Force on Life and the Law endorsed the 1980 model state legislature Uniform Determination of Death Act two years after the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Eulo See New York State Regulations: Task Force Report on Determination of Death.)

One can see in this court decision from thirty-six years ago all the arguments that are still being advanced today, including by fully believing Catholics, about the medical industry’s completely manufactured myth of “brain death” and the “quality of life” standard that “compassionate” “professionals” use in a “team effort” to judge whether a patient is a candidate for “palliative care”/hospice, thus expediting the patient’s death according to a schedule that is agreed upon by patient and/or his family/health care proxies in consultation with and under the emotionally manipulative “guidance” of the “team” of “professionals” who are trained to break down any signs of resistance to the “inevitable.”

The killing of innocent human beings under the pretext of “brain death” in the State of New York has become as much an institutionalized evil under the cover of civil law as the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and is considered as standard a medical “practice” by doctors and hospital administrators as procedures such colonoscopies.

It was thirty years after the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals that the Frederick family attempted to prevent their brother Michael from being declared “brain dead” after he slumped and fell to the floor at the age of sixty while watching television, a case in which Dr. Paul Byrne was involved and about which he wrote as follows:

Michael, 60 years old, had just finished eating. Michael and his family were watching television when Michael suddenly slumped and fell to the floor. His family called 911. The emergency medical team resuscitated Michael. On the way to the hospital, a pulse was detected. Medications to support blood pressure were used during the resuscitation.

A diagnosis of mental illness was made many years earlier. Michael had no known physical illness prior to his collapse. Michael lived with his mother and sisters. They were Catholic and lived in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Michael did not use tobacco or drink alcohol. Michael took 2 medications for his mental illness. Both affect the brain; one of them “increases risk of death.”

On admission to hospital, Michael was breathing, but unresponsive. He was anemic (Hemoglobin 8) and his white blood cells showed many young forms (occurs with infection). On admission, his temperature was normal, but the next morning was elevated to 103 degrees (occurs with infection).

One consultant wrote, “There has apparently been some discussion back-and-forth between the hospitalist team, the intensivist, and the organ donor people as to how to properly manage him.” In less than 24 hours after admission to hospital the neurology consultant wrote, “Limited neurological examination. The patient is unresponsive. Pupils are fixed. Absent corneal reflex bilaterally. Absent doll’s eyes. No purposeful movements of the extremities noted. No movements of extremities to noxious stimuli. Reflexes are absent throughout. Toes are mute. IMPRESSION:… clinically, the patient is brain-dead status post cardiac arrest, likely with severe anoxic damage to the brain. May consider, do not resuscitate.”

EEG showed “intermittently fast background activity of very low amplitude. Anteriorly also record consist of an irregular fast activity of small amplitude. No focal slowing or frank epileptiform features noted throughout the recording.”

Sodium was abnormally elevated to 157 mEq/L; repeat was 162. Two days after admission he was determined to be “brain dead” per neurology. During an apnea test, no breathing was observed.

No blood levels of drugs that were prescribed or any other drugs were obtained. No cause of collapse of Michael was overtly considered other than statements that Michael had suffered from lack of oxygen and that Michael was “brain dead.” It didn’t matter that there was brain wave activity and that his heart was beating 100,000 times per day and that circulation and respiration were occurring with support from the ventilator.

Michael’s relatives were assured that the determination of “brain death” was done in accordance with the hospital policy of certification of death by neurological criteria, which is patterned after, and consistent with, the New York State Department of Health and New York State Task Force on Life & the Law, “Guidelines for Determining Brain Death,” published November 2011. In this document “brain death” is defined as “irreversible loss of all function of the brain. The three essential findings are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes and apnea.” It was determined by a neurologist, an intensivist, and a hospitalist that there were no “confounding clinical circumstances.” Under New York State law, Michael was determined to be “brain-dead” and was legally dead.

A Catholic priest who is Chairman of the Ethics Committee at the hospital volunteered that the hospital operated in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Bishops. This man was legally “brain dead” and ventilator support of the vital activity of respiration would be stopped at a precise hour and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), which was already in place over the objection of the relatives, would be carried out. The ventilator was then taken away at the precise hour, even though Michael’s relatives strongly objected. Prior to removal of the ventilator Michael’s heart was beating; blood pressure was normal. Michael had respiration supported by a ventilator that pushed air in. Michael had to push the air out before the ventilator could push the air in again. A ventilator can push air into a cadaver, also known as a corpse, but quickly after death, the air will not and cannot come out of a cadaver.

Michael was judged to be “brain dead” shortly after arrival at the hospital, which Michael’s relatives and the general public expect to be a healing center. In the hospital Michael was sentenced without a trial to true death. How was true death imposed on Michael? The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) includes “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain.” Note that the word “functions” is plural.

The statute in New York includes “total and irreversible cessation of brain function.” Thus, the statute has reduced the plural “functions” to the singular “function.” The brain has many functions; absence of any function as determined by the three doctors in the New York Hospital meant absence of “all function.” Thus, the statute and Rules do not protect the life of the patient.

The Rules and Regulation call for providing “reasonable accommodation of a Surrogate Decision-maker’s religious or moral objections to use of the brain death standard to determine death.” Michael’s mother and sisters pleaded with the administrator of the hospital not to take away the ventilator, but the judgment had been made; nothing could be done to stop the removal of the ventilator. It was the hospital’s decision that they had provided “reasonable accommodation” to Michael’s family’s religious and moral objections to the “brain death” criteria used by the hospital. They had a Catholic priest, the Ethics Committee, and it was stated that they were operating in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Bishops. It was also stated that they had a judge who agreed with what they were doing and they would give no more time to Michael, not even one more hour or one more day!

Prior to 1968, ventilators were in use but there was no controversy. Patients died on ventilators. So how did all these issues that involve taking organs and stopping ventilators come about? The goal of medical practice used to be that a living person would not be declared dead. Until the advent of mechanical ventilators and other complex life supporting therapies, the mistake of judging a dead person as alive was practically impossible. Prior to these developments and the desire to do vital organ transplantation, medicine made every effort to judge the moment of death in the direction of preserving human life from a death-dealing mistake.

“Brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. “Brain death” began with the appointment of the Harvard Committee to consider the issues. The results of their work were in the “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death.” [1] The first words of this report are as follows: “Our primary purpose is to define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.” Only persons who are alive can be in a coma, whether reversible or not. Was this the hubris of a few academicians or was it simply a surrender to fear of legal chastisement regarding perceived economic and utilitarian needs in 1968, especially the desire to get healthy living vital organs for transplantation? It seems that a predetermined agenda existed from the onset. There were no patient data and no references to basic scientific studies. In fact, there was only one reference, which was to Pope Pius XII. [2] While there was a reference to and a quotation from this Allocution of Pope Pius XII, they neglected to include the following: “But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions – distinguished from the simple life of organs – manifest themselves spontaneously or even with the help of artificial processes.”

The primary purpose of the Committee was not to determine IF irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death but to see to it that IT WAS established as a “new criterion for death.” With an agenda like that at the outset, the data could be made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. There was a serious lack of scientific method in the origination and development of “brain death.”This has continued to the present time where there is no consensus as to which of the myriad of sets of criteria to use and criteria for “brain death” are not evidence based.

“Brain death” is not true death. Rather it is observing cessation of functioning of the brain, which is then translated into “brain death.” The primary reason for the origination and propagation of “brain death” was and is the desire to obtain vital organs for transplantation. It can now be ascertained that a validly applied scientific method, sound reasoning, and available medical technology were not utilized in developing the new way of determination of death called “brain death” for the simple reason that death is the absence of life. Life and true death cannot and do not exist at the same time in the same person.

When a person has a head injury or, as in this case, sudden collapse, explainable or not, quickly the possibility of getting organs for transplantation is entertained. In Michael’s case no attempt was made to get his organs. Why not? No reason was apparent to indicate that Michael’s organs would not be suitable for transplantation. Was it related to mental illness? “Discussion with the organ donor people did occur.” Quickly it was determined that Michael was “brain dead” and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was considered and later carried out over the objection of Michael’s relatives.

Michael’s mother and sisters wanted Michael to be treated. Why wouldn’t they? They took care of Michael during his entire life. When Michael collapsed, they called 911 expecting to get help for Michael. Paramedics responded. During transport the pulse returned. At the hospital Michael was said to be “brain dead” based on absence of brain stem reflexes and no visual observation of breathing. The fact that Michael had electrical activity in his cerebral cortex, the largest part of his brain, meant nothing to the doctors who said all they needed was absence of the brain stem reflexes that they had tested and a positive apnea test (positive meaning that he did not show breathing efforts at that time sufficient for observers to see). I add that for these doctors at this New York hospital, they had all they needed to discontinue care! Yet, these doctors, quick to evaluate for “brain death,” did not do basic diagnostic tests to rule out infection, identify causes of the metabolic derangements of his electrolytes nor did they test for the presence of obvious drugs or toxins as the reason for his sudden collapse. They did not provide basic supportive care more than 48 hours. Once they determined that he was not an organ donor, they seemed not only to want a “do not resuscitate order” in the event of another collapse, they were intent on withdrawing life-sustaining ventilator support making another collapse, anoxic events and death almost inevitable. They refused family wishes to continue to treat the patient and even denied them time to make transfer arrangements so that their loved one might have a chance at life at a different institution with different doctors. Michael, an innocent person, was effectively executed without trial in a New York hospital. (See: www.lifeguardianfoundation.org for information on how to protect and preserve your life.)

One will note the role played by a supposedly Catholic priest in this execution. So much for the conciliarspeak of “solidarity” with the “poor and the suffering,” including the mentally ill. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its “official reconciliation” with each of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, including the “progress” made by the medical industry. A false church based on false premises accepts the very false premises of separation of Church and State and “religious liberty” that the made the triumph of the contemporary Aztec body-snatchers inevitable.

Obviously, insurance companies already pay for the execution of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means and by means of the starvation and dehydration of living human beings and by the vivisection of living human beings for their vital body members and in cases such as Michael’s above that was described so poignantly by Dr. Byrne. These killings have increased under ObamaDeathCare.

The “ethics panels” established by ObamaDeathCare have institutionalized the rationing of healthcare to those over a certain age who are suffering from cancer or who need some kind of major surgery, such as coronary surgery, even more than had been the case prior to its becoming operational on October 1, 2013, as “health maintenance organizations” and  insurers continued to make their own life and death decisions that were shifted to government-authorized “ethics panels.”

A Congressional supporter of ObamaDeathCare admitted that this was so nearly ten years ago despite all of the Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s administration’s false assurances to the public that all discussion of “death panels” was simply an effort of the alarmists within the false opposite of the naturalist “right” to turn back Barack Hussein Obama/ Barack Soetoro’s signature legislative achievement. Acting according  to their standard modus operandi, officials within the administration of the forty-fourth president, a truly lawless Caesar who had no regard for the laws of God nor those of men, including those constitutional provisions that supposedly governed his discharge of executive powers of the office of President of the United States of America and even of the provisions of his own ObamaDeathCare law, which he felt free to suspend or waive without legislative authorization, moved quietly to bring the death panels to life on January 1, 2011 without telling the “people” that they were doing so:

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. (Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.)

Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”

The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.

In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.” (Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.)

Yes, don’t tell the people, right?

Some “patient protection,” huh?

Michael Frederick received no “patient protection” in the Empire State of killing innocent human beings under cover of the civil law, and neither did his sister Sharon, who had tried to save him seven years ago, after she suffered a stroke while praying Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary over the phone with a friend and was declared “brain dead” just four days later, engendering a court battle by her health care proxies before a judge decided that Sharon Frederick’s handwritten declaration of “I believe in life support” did not mean that she had wanted to be on life support. In other words, the judge could not believe that anyone would want to sustain his life after suffering a stroke.

Once again, it was Dr. Paul Byrne who was involved in the case and tried to be of assistance to Sharon as he had tried in the case of her brother Michael seven years previously:

On October 29, 2013, I wrote about an execution in a New York Hospital. Michael (not his name by baptism), suddenly collapsed. His family called 911. The emergency medical team resuscitated Michael. On the way to the hospital, a pulse was detected. Medications to support blood pressure were used during the resuscitation. On admission to hospital, Michael was breathing, but unresponsive, His temperature was normal, but the next morning was elevated to 103 degrees (occurs with infection).

In less than 24 hours after admission to hospital, the neurology consultant wrote, “The patient is unresponsive. Pupils are fixed. Absent corneal reflex bilaterally. Absent doll’s eyes. No purposeful movements of the extremities noted. No movements of extremities to noxious stimuli. Reflexes are absent throughout. Toes are mute. IMPRESSION:… clinically, the patient is brain-dead status post cardiac arrest, likely with severe anoxic damage to the brain. May consider, do not resuscitate.”

EEG showed electrical activity. Two days after admission he was determined to be “brain dead” per neurology. During an apnea test, no breathing was observed.

It didn’t matter that there was brain wave activity and that his heart was beating 100,000 times per day and that circulation and respiration were occurring with support from the ventilator.

Michael’s relatives were assured that the determination of “brain death” was done in accordance with the hospital policy of certification of death by neurological criteria, which is patterned after, and consistent with, the New York State Department of Health and New York State Task Force on Life & the Law “Guidelines for Determining Brain Death,” published November 2011. In this document “brain death” is defined as “irreversible loss of all function of the brain, including the brain stem. The three essential findings are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes and apnea.” It was determined by a neurologist, an intensivist, and a hospitalist that there were no “confounding clinical circumstances.” Under New York State law, Michael was determined to be “brain-dead” and was legally dead.

A Catholic priest, chairman of the Ethics Committee at the hospital, volunteered that the hospital operated in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Catholic Conferences of Bishops. This man was legally “brain dead” and ventilator support of the vital activity of respiration would be stopped at a precise hour and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), which was already in place over the objection of the relatives, would be carried out. The ventilator was then taken away at the precise hour, even though Michael’s relatives strongly objected. Prior to removal of the ventilator, Michael’s heart was beating; blood pressure was normal. Michael had respiration supported by a ventilator that pushed air in. Michael had to exhale the air out before the ventilator could push the air in again. A ventilator can push air into a cadaver, also known as a corpse, but quickly after death, the air will not and cannot come out of a cadaver.

True death was imposed on Michael. The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) includes “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem.” Note that the word “functions” is plural. The Guidelines in New York, however, include “total and irreversible loss of all brain function, including the brainstem.” Thus, in New York the singular “function” is stated, instead of the plural “functions.” The brain has many functions, but what is the single function that is all brain function in New York? There is no single function of the entire brain. (Emphasis mine.)

The NY rules and regulations call for providing “reasonable accommodation of a surrogate decision-maker’s religious or moral objections to use of the brain death standard to determine death.” Michael’s mother and sisters pleaded with the administrator of the hospital not to take away the ventilator, but the judgment had been made; nothing could be done to stop the removal of the ventilator. It was the hospital’s decision that they had provided “reasonable accommodation” to Michael’s family’s religious and moral objections to the “brain death” criteria used by the hospital. They had a Catholic priest, the Ethics Committee, and it was stated that they were operating in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Catholic Conferences of Bishops. It was also stated that they had a judge who agreed with what they were doing and they would give no more time to Michael, not even one more hour or one more day!

Now, to recent events: Sharon, after the experience with her brother, Michael, in her own handwriting wrote this advanced directive: “I am a Pro-Life Traditional Catholic, I opt out of any organ or tissue donation, I believe in life support; request Catholic Priests for Absolution and Sacraments. If permanently incompetent/disabled, Christian home services or Catholic religious sister nursing home. I want the rosary, brown scapular, miraculous medal with me. I do not believe in euthanasia; in the event of my death my proxies can claim my body for Christian burial. (Signature) Sharon, September 3, 2019.”

One year later, on September 17, 2020, Sharon was praying the Rosary on the telephone with her friend, who noticed slurring of Sharon’s speech. Sharon collapsed; 911 was called. Sharon had a brain hemorrhage, commonly known as a stroke.

Soon after admission to hospital she was said to be “brain dead.” Sharon was in coma. EEG twice had electrical activity. Scans of her head showed circulation to part of her brain twice. Her First and Second Powers of Attorney directed that the procedure of the apnea test was not to be done. Nevertheless, it was done anyway. During this procedure the life-supporting ventilator was stopped for 7 minutes. Carbon dioxide increased to 56 (normal is 40); breathing was not observed. There was absence of brainstem reflexes including pupillary and corneal reflexes, no cough, no gag, no eye movement when ice water was put into her ear canal. Sharon was declared “brain dead” by neurological criteria on September 21, 2020.

Sharon designated a First Heath Care Proxy and Second Heath Care Proxy. Both expressed strongly, multiple times that Sharon believed in life support and directed that life support be continued. They petitioned the NY Supreme Court for help. The case was dismissed; the Court noted: “The first is that in her handwritten notes…she was very clear in the breadth and depth of her religious faith, and she very clearly said…I believe in life support. What she didn’t say is that I want life support” . . . [Emphasis mine]The Court continued: “I was more taken by the printed words…I wish to follow the moral teachings of the Catholic church and to receive all the obligatory care my religion teaches we have a duty to accept. However, I also know that death need not be resisted by every means and that I have the right to refuse medical treatment that is excessively burdensome or would only prolong my death and delay my being taken to God. Those are powerful words coming from – although they’re preprinted for her, they’re powerful words coming from a devout Catholic who says that she believes in life support, but, at the same time, she accepts the principles and teachings of her church with regard to the limitations on what is required for her to be mindful of and in compliance with the teachings that she holds so dear. As a result of that, I found it was – I wasn’t able to reach a specific conclusion as to what her intentions were.”

With that, the Court dismissed the petition from the Heath Care Proxies. Then, a petition was made to Federal Court, but there also the petition was dismissed.

After the experience with her brother Sharon in her own handwriting wrote that she believed in life support. She wrote on a preprinted form obtained from the Diocese of Syracuse, with reference to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Catholic Conferences of Bishops and A Catholic Guide to End of Life Decisions, the National Catholic Bioethics Center..

The Health Care Proxies were following the handwritten directions of Sharon who believed in life support. The preprinted words of her directions included, “When patients act with a free and informed consent, they may use advanced medical techniques that are experimental and involve risk—but they are never obligated to do so. Whether to accept such treatments rests entirely within the discretion of the patient or his/her medical proxy.”

The Court chose to use one part of the preprinted pages, but not this part, and the Court stated that Sharon wrote “I believe in life support,” not I want life support. (Emphasis mine.)

First, Sharon’s brother had death imposed, then Sharon wrote in her own words that she believed in life support and designated Health Care Proxies to speak for her. Sharon did what she could; the health Care Proxies did what they could, but the medical and legal systems decided that Sharon was “brain dead” on September 21, 2020 when she was 63 years of age. Sharon’s 64th birthday was October 10, 2020 while she was in the hospital. Then, on November 10, 2020 the life-supporting ventilator was taken away by the doctors after petition by the healthcare proxy to continue life-support was dismissed by the Court.

Sharon became truly dead as manifest by change in color to pale and blue, no exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the tissues, no heartbeat, and no circulation and all vital functions, consequent thereon. Sharon no longer was alive. Her life had ended. The nurse called the proxy to tell her that Sharon had passed at 7:00 pm on November 10, 2020.

What is all this? Sharon witnessed death imposed on her brother as life support was taken away from him. She wrote that she wanted life support. She designated Health Care Proxies to speak for her. But what happened? Life support and Sharon’s life were taken away. The medical and legal systems did not protect the life of Sharon or her brother. How and why?

Prior to 1968 ventilators were in use but there was no controversy. Some patients improved on a ventilator and some died on a ventilator. The goal of medical practice was obvious – to preserve and protect the life and health of the patient and not to declare that a living person is dead when he/she is still alive.

“Brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. “Brain death” began with the appointment of the Harvard Committee to consider the issues. The results of their work were published in the 1968 “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death.” [1] The first words of this report are as follows: “Our primary purpose is to define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death.” The primary purpose of the Committee was not to determine IF irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death but to see to it that IT WAS established as a “new criterion for death.” With an agenda like that at the outset, the data could be made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. There was a serious lack of scientific method in the origination and development of “brain death.”

Only persons who are alive can be in a coma, whether reversible or not. Was this the hubris of a few academicians or was it simply a surrender to fear of legal chastisement regarding perceived economic and utilitarian needs in 1968, especially the desire to get healthy living vital organs for transplantation? It seems that a predetermined agenda existed from the onset. There were no patient data and no references to basic scientific studies. In fact, there was only one reference, which was to Pope Pius XII. [2] While there was a reference to and a quotation from this Allocution of Pope Pius XII, they neglected to include the following: “But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions – distinguished from the simple life of organs – manifest themselves spontaneously or even with the help of artificial processes.”

“Brain death” is not true death. Rather it is observing cessation of functioning of the brain, which is then translated into “brain death.” The primary reason for the origination and propagation of “brain death” was and is the desire to obtain vital organs for transplantation and to stop ventilators and life-supporting treatments and care. A validly applied scientific method, sound reasoning, and available medical technology were not utilized in developing the new way of determination of death called “brain death.” Death is the absence of life. Life and true death cannot and do not exist at the same time in the same person.

When a person has a head injury or, as in Sharon’s case, sudden collapse due to a stroke, the possibility of getting organs for transplantation is entertained. Sharon had opted out of any organ or tissue donation.

First, Michael collapsed and his sister, Sharon, and their mother fought for him to have treatment including the ventilator continued. They lost. The medical and legal system effectively executed Michael and, more recently, his sister.

Second, Sharon, aware of what happened to her brother, Michael, wrote a life-supporting directive, and designated health care proxies. It made no difference as her life-support was cut off and she, too, was effectively executed – both in the same hospital.

The medical and legal systems in this NY hospital did not protect the life of this brother and sister. The issues are not limited to this hospital or the state of NY.

The medical and legal systems have been implemented to get vital unimpaired organs and to turn off ventilators from patients labeled as “brain dead” but who are still alive. (Execution Again in a New York Hospital.)

No one’s life is safe any longer, which is why one should pray for the grace of a good, happy and holy death at home as it is the case that most, although certainly not all, hospitals in the United States of America are staffed by medical personnel who do not view human beings as patients to be treated but as cases to be brought to conclusion as quickly as possible. This is the only logical outcome when physicians are trained in medical schools/colleges by professors who do not view the world through the eyes of the true Faith and thus do not see human beings as made in the image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity and are to be treated with the same compassion, love, and professional competence that they would render unto the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the very flesh.

Similarly, lawyers who are not trained in truly Catholic law schools/colleges by professors who have an abiding commitment to the pursuit of justice (to render unto each that which is his due) according to the mind of Our Divine Judge, Christ the King, and with humble spirit of respect for and submission to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law will come to view the law as a tool to be exploited for ideological ends of one sort or another and to be completely respectful of and submissive to the judgments and “scientific” “truths” invented by the utilitarians in white coats with medical degrees and hospital admitting privileges.

It is thus no wonder that the judge in Sharon Frederick’s case could not believe that she really wanted to have life support continued even though she said that she believed in it and that each of her two health care proxies testified to her clear intentions in this regard. The judge could not seem to understand why anyone would want to have his life sustained after suffering a stroke because he had absolutely no understanding of the theology of redemptive suffering nor of the simple fact that one who is disabled, no matter how long the duration of the disability, is a source of grace to others so that they can repay a part of the debt they owe to God for their own sins by going out of themselves to serve those who cannot serve themselves, to give the compassion of the Divine Redeemer Who had taught us the parable of the Good Samaritan for precisely this purpose.

Although longtime readers of this website may find it redundant, I think that it is useful once again to review the prophetic words of Bishop Clemens von Galen that were denunciations of the Nazi eugenics program but apply very much to our situation today, especially since both Michael and Sharon were victims of death panels of the sort that existed in Nazi Germany:

We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate self-defence to meet violence with violence. In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.

No: these unfortunate patients are to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”.

The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow?

I will not pursue the comparison to the end, so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.

But we are not here concerned with pieces of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this function.

No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?

If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients ” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!

Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.

Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man’s conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished! (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

These words were spoken at the height of the Nazi regime’s enforcement of Adolf Hitler’s 1935 Nuremburg Laws, which institutionalized the sort of eugenic social engineering that had been envisioned—and was in use on a de facto basis—in Germany’s Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1933 and in which, interestingly enough, Jewish eugenicists played an active role:

Support for eugenics came from a remarkable array of the ruling elite and the walls of the exhibition are lined with quotes in support of the movement. President Coolidge stated that “racial considerations” were “too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons.” Squiers notes, “The people who saw themselves as uniquely fit to exert control wanted to exert it.”

The second half of Squiers’ exhibition heads to Germany, where Galton’s ideas fed a centuries-old notion of the purity and virtue of the German “Volk.” In the aftermath of World War I, the Weimar Republic employed a number of German and Jewish eugenicists to create a genetic blueprint for rebuilding a devastated Germany. Copies of slides used in a lecture identify degenerates: “Three Idiots,” “Paranoid Alcoholic” and a young woman labeled “Good-natured manic state.” (Eugenics in the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany: A Photographic Exhibit.)

There is no safe refuge. One is not even safe when one has explicit advance care directives as did Sharon Frederick but were not “good enough” for a judge who could not believe that she wanted what she said she believed in, namely life support, and thus sentenced her to an unjust death. This happens many times during a day here in the United States of America and elsewhere in the “civilized” world, and most of cases such as Sharon’s never make the news because there is no one tell our medical emperors that they have no clothes. A system based on the lie that men can know social order and authentic justice without Christ the King and His true Church results in everyone’s life being put a risk to the arbitrary whims of civil potentates who are, whether or not they realize it, playing God, Whom they meet when they die at their Particular Judgment and have to render an account to Him for the innocents they consigned to cruel and unjust deaths under the pretext of a life, “brain death, invented out of whole cloth.

One lie begets other lies. “Brain death” is a lie from beginning to end.

The lie of the Protestant Revolution has resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects numbering as many as thirty-three thousand, producing irreligion in its wake as a logical consequence.

The lie of “civil liberty” without the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church, the Catholic Church has resulted in the lie of the monster civil state of Modernity that is now being used by God as a chastisement upon us for refusing to take seriously Holy Mother Church’s Social Teaching.

The lie of “religious liberty” has led people to believe that the path to social order and personal salvation can be found in any religion or in no religion at all.

The lie of “public education” has led to a taxpayer-subsidized machine to program their captives to be steeped in one ideologically-laden slogan after another to make them willing servants of the monster civil state and to participate merrily in neo-barbaric practices that were eradicated in Europe in during the First Millennium and in most parts of the Americas in the second half of the Second Millennium by the missionary work of the Catholic Church.

The lie of contraception and “family planning” led to increases in the rates of marital infidelity, the abandonment of spouses and children, the proliferation children with stepmothers and stepfathers and step-siblings, leaving many children rootless and without any sense of being loved unto eternity that each person craves for whether or not he realizes it.

The lie of contraception led steadily to the acceptance of eugenic sterilization and then sterilization for any reasons and, ultimately, to the acceptance of surgical baby-killing on demand.

The lies of contraception and explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments broke down the natural psychological resistance of children to matters that are age inappropriate, robbing them of their innocence and purity, turning them into hedonists as they have grown older, leading eventually to the widespread acceptance of the sins that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone.

The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s gave us unprecedented and most radical changes in the Holy Week ceremonies that started to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change as an ordinary feature of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church, climaxing in the Trojan Horse that was the Protestant and Judeo Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination that, no matter how many times the conciliarists to “fix it,” will always be an instrument of innovation and experimentation as it was designed to be precisely that from the moment Bugnini and Antonelli began their plans for the “Mass of the Future.”

Thus it is that the lie of “brain death” has accustomed most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into accepting uncritically the representations made by a medical industry that endorses the violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and of the violation of the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn and that is in league with the pharmaceutical industry to use us a walking guinea pigs for drugs designed to keep us dependent on them as the “high priests and priestesses” of “modern medicine.”

When did the lie of “brain death” originate? At the beginning:

[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3: 1-5.)

It is very easy to be deceived.

It is very easy to be deceived by the lie of how “special” we are, of how we are “not like others.”

It is very easy to be deceived by others and to let human respect get in the way of a firm defense of the truth when necessity compels such a defense lest souls be imperiled.

It is very easy to be deceived by the prevailing trends in what passes for popular culture, to give unto the “high priests and high priestesses” of banking, commerce, industry, education, law, entertainment, social science, politics, law, government, news and information and medicine the status of near-infallibility as even Catholics have been convinced to live as naturalists without regard for anything supernatural whatsoever.

Do not believe the false prophets. Do not follow the priests and presbyters who have swallowed the falsehoods of the false prophets of the medical industry hook, line and sinkers. Suffer for the truth without compromise as consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen, no matter what you might have to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

Never sign up to be an “organ donor.”

Tell your family members that they must never sign up to be “organ donors”–or, if they have, to rescind the “permission” that they have given to be unwitting accomplices and accessories in their own execution by means of being dissected alive.

Do not delay. Do not follow their false prophets in the world or the priests/presbyters who proselytize in their behalf.

Relying Upon Our Lady, Her Miraculous Medal and Her Most Holy Rosary

Although we are at the nonexistent “mercy” of the merciless, we must remember that we are in the loving hands of Our Lady, who has given us her Miraculous Medal to protect us from the scourge of contagion and to fortify our faith in times such as these.

Father Jean-Marie Aladel (1800-1865) was the confessor of Saint Catherine Laboure, whose feast is commemorated today, the anticipated Vigil of Saint Andrew the Apostle, and was specifically chosen by Our Lady to promote the Miraculous Medal of Grace that she had given to Sant Catherine Laboure. Father Aladel published a book that provided of summary of the facts about the story of the Miraculous Medal, including some true, documented Miraculous Medal stories based upon letters that were sent to him. These stories attest to the power of Our Lady’s Miraculous Medal, which would display publicly to let one and all know of our trust in Mary Immaculate and her loving care.

Here are a few stories, mostly from France and one, the cure of a Naples jurist, from the Papal States:

“I have mentioned to you the cure wrought by the Miraculous Medal upon a person aged fifty years; the fact is incontestable. Rosalie Morvilliers, the recipient of this favor, had never been free from suffering since her seventh year; an affection of the nerves caused almost constant palpitations of the heart and severe headaches, which, however, did not hinder her performing some slight work without aggravating the malady. But about five years ago, she was afflicted by an unmistakable attack of epilepsy, which threw her family into the greatest consternation. Henceforth, she was obliged to keep her bed, and saw no one but her most intimate friends; the very sight of a face that was not familiar was sufficient to throw her into dreadful convulsions for several hours.

Independent of any external cause, these paroxysms usually came on three times a day, and so violent were they, that it was with great difficulty she could be kept in her room; she uttered most rightful cries, her features were horribly distorted, her mouth covered with foam, and, indeed, according to the testimony of those who usually witnessed the attacks, it was some time before she regained consciousness.

“Such was her condition when some one gave her a Miraculous Medal, he received it with the greatest confidence, and immediately applied it to that part of her head where the pain was most acute; the pain disappeared immediately. From that moment she felt urged to make a novena in honor of the Immaculate Conception for the cure of her epilepsy. But diffidence in mentioning the matter to her director made her defer the execution of this pious design six weeks. At length, she yielded to her desires, saying she felt fully persuaded that this novena would ensure her recovery through the Blessed Virgin s intercession, and her confidence was not misplaced. The cure immediately began the novena, engaging in it the sodality of the Holy Family. Whilst at Mass on the morning of the last day, the 17th of Mary’s month, the patient was seized with the most violent attack possible, the worst she had ever had, although during the novena, the paroxysms had increased in intensity. Suddenly it ceases. A number of persons begin to pray and recite the chaplet; the patient, regarding them with a smile, gently falls asleep. A few minutes after, she opens her eyes and exclaims: I am cured! I am cured! The Blessed Virgin has just cured me of epilepsy! Oh! how good she is, how powerful! It seems to me as if there had just been a general revolution throughout my body. I feel confident, my friends, that this disease has been banished from my system for ever.

“It was very easy for the assistants to believe that some extraordinary change had really been wrought in her, for her countenance presented not the slightest vestige of the attack. She now desired to communicate, arid oh! with what transports of faith, gratitude and love she received the good God!

“The noise of this cure soon reached the neighboring villages. How beautiful yet, Monsieur, is the simplicity of the faith in these rural districts! Henceforth, every one wished to wear the medal.

“This event took place on the 17th of May, at nine o clock in the morning. Since that time the patient has not felt the slightest symptom of epilepsy. She leaves her room, walks about the garden, and receives visitors indiscriminately, without experiencing any ill effects. However, the Blessed Virgin did not cure all her infirmities; she still has the nervous affection that existed before, the epileptic attacks, but I should observe that as the novena was made solely for the cure of epilepsy, the Blessed Virgin has obtained all that was asked of her.

“This, Monsieur, is the exact statement. Some, no doubt, would attribute the cure to natural causes; as for ourselves, we, like the patient, feel convinced that it was owing to Mary s powerful intercession. The cure agrees with us, and so do all who glory in the truths of religion.

Honored, then, be the power and goodness of Mary conceived without sin! ”

This account was sent me by the cure of Boulogne, February 8, 1836.

Another cure:

“In my parish, a young man named Gaetan U, aged twenty-seven years, was leading a life of criminal intimacy with a woman. Several years after abandoning his mother and brother, that he might be under no restraint in his shameless course, he was prostrated by a serious pulmonary attack. M. Jean Pulioli, an excellent physician, undertook the case; but the violence the disease overcame his skill, and the patient (still in the house of the bad character with whom he lived,) was reduced to such a deplorable state of exhaustion, that he could not move himself. From the beginning of his sickness he had insisted that he would not be worried by a priest. But the disease making very rapid progress, the doctor believed it his duty to warn a priest of his condition. My chaplain went immediately to see him, and earnestly entreated him to put an end to this scandalous state of affairs by marrying the woman, but all in vain. I then paid him a visit, and besides remarking in him neither any intention of marrying her nor of separating from her, I perceived from the excuses he gave, that his soul was enshrouded in impenetrable indifference. Having uselessly exhausted all efforts to effect a change, I concluded it would be better to leave him awhile to quiet and serious reflection, and return later to know his decision. I urged him to seek the mediation of that refuge of sinners, the Blessed Virgin, and slipping the Miraculous Medal under his pillow, I left. There was no necessity for my returning to learn his decision, he sent his mother for me, with whom he had become reconciled in the meantime; after informing me of the very just reasons he had for not marrying the woman, he asked me if I would not request her to leave, a commission I willingly accepted. She consented, and immediately abandoned the house. The sick man s peace and joy at this were indescribable; when I showed him the medal, he kissed it most fervently and impulsively, notwithstanding his state of exhaustion. Then, with every mark of sincere repentance, he confessed, received the Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction, for we expected each moment he would breathe his last. This occurred January 19, 1836. Interiorly, he enjoyed unspeakable peace, a favor he always attributed to the Blessed Virgin. From this time he began to improve, and in a few days his health was completely re-established. He continues to persevere in his good resolutions, and full of the tenderest affection for his celestial Benefactress, he still reverently wears the medal I gave him, often kissing it with truly filial love.

“Monsieur, I was a witness of the above-mentioned fact; I send it to you, not only with the permission of the newly converted and cured, but at his request, and I hope that the knowledge will redound to the honor and glory of the Omnipotent God, who, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, has wrought this double miracle.

” I subjoin the certificate of the physician who attests the disease and its cure.”

The cure of man near death

” There are still in existence here some families who, persistently recognizing in the present clergy only a purely civil power, hold themselves utterly aloof, live in a state of schism, and comply with none of the duties of religion.

“One of these miserable creatures was afflicted with a virulent cancer on the side of his face, which for a Jong time had been eating away the flesh. The malady increasing, I believed it my duty to visit him and offer the consolations of my ministry. I saw him several times, he was suffering greatly; the esophagus was exposed, the right side of his emaciated face presented only a deep sore, the eye, starting from its socket, hung suspended over a terrible disfigured mouth; his tongue caused him acute pain; his condition was pitiable indeed, especially as he seemed determined to die impenitent.

He was a rough, blunt man, who wanted to hear nothing about priests or Sacraments. In vain was he reminded of our Lord’s bountiful kindness and the rigors of His justice, nothing touched him; to all expostulations his invariable reply was: “ God’s mercy is great, I will confess to God, the Blessed Virgin, to St. Barbara and the good Saints. He was the counterpart of those men to whom Jesus Christ said: in peccato vestro moriemini -you shall die in your sin.

“His relations and numerous friends endeavored both by prayers and entreaties to snatch him from perdition, but on the other side visited daily and sustained by his old associates in impiety, he persisted in dying as he had lived, in schism.

In the meantime, I was obliged to be absent several days. This period was for him one of Divine mercy.

A lady of the parish made a last attempt to recall him to God, by bringing him one of those medals of the Immaculate Conception called miraculous. She sent it to him with the request to wear it and put all his confidence in the Blessed Virgin. The sick man took the medal, kissed it respectfully, and put it under his pillow.

In giving it to him, his daughter had taken care to acquaint him with its origin and advantages, at the same time urging him, as usual, to make his confession.

“Leave me in peace,” was the wretched father’s reply, and she could say no more. Next day, a neighboring priest was sent for to administer Extreme Unction to another person in the parish. He and l came, and forgetting, as it were, the one for whom he had been sent, he thought only of the cancerous patient. “”I felt, he afterwards told me, an inexplicable and irresistible desire to visit him, I could not have returned without seeing him. He asks some one to announce his arrival to the sick man; this person speaks to the latter, and urges him to confess. The priest of P. is here, she adds, and would like to see you, if you have no objection, Well, yes, let him come. The priest went to him immediately; at first there was a slight air of resistance about the patient, but it vanished, the hour of grace had come, he confessed with every indication of true repentance, and received Extreme Unction with an indescribable peace and joy, that never faltered during the four remaining days of his life. The Holy Viaticum could not be administered because he was not able to swallow.

At noon, on the 18th of last May, the month consecrated to Mary, he died, aged seventy-eight.

“Except his former companions in irreligion, this conversion was a subject of rejoicing to the parish, and doubtless it will rejoice all the servants of Mary who hear of it. May this example, among thousands, inspire sinners with great confidence in the Blessed Virgin, propagate devotion to her, and multiply the medal styled miraculous!

I have thought it a duty to give these few details, for the purpose of making known the truly visible effects of the protection of the Mother of God, and the ever impenetrable springs of grace in regard to man.

“I have the honor to be, Monsieur, with great esteem, &c.”

The Cure of a Civil Judge in Naples

The judge of the civil tribunal of Naples, M. Joseph Cocchia, seriously debilitated by a chronic disease of the bowels, was afflicted with most violent pains, accompanied by a spasmodic sensation that, continually increasing, banished sleep and appetite, and perceptibly diminished his frame. This was followed by a bilious gastric fever, long and obstinate, of fifty days duration.

When freed from the fever, the sick man found himself in a frightful state of emaciation and exhaustion; signs of inflammation in the bowels, and such extreme irritation that the least jolt induced fever, made skillful physicians fear lest these were the symptoms of an incurable malady still more deplorable. Whilst in this pitiable condition, there reached the sick man’s ears accounts of the prodigies Divine mercy had wrought in favor of those who wore the medal; he eagerly asked for one, and received it with faith ; henceforth, he had no longer any need of medical assistance, for he recovered the strength and perfect health he now enjoys.

Here are some remarkable stories that were related to Father Aladel in letters he received from those of the Congregation of the Mission working in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Saint Louis, Missouri. These stories of Protestant and Freemasonic conversions are quite inspirational:

CONVERSION OF A PROMINENT FREE MASON.

New Orleans (United States), 1865.

Among the patients at the great Charity hospital, New Orleans, was a very prominent Free Mason. His hatred of religion was displayed in a thousand ways; not only did he interdict the Sister who nursed him any allusion to his salvation, but he even habitually repaid by harsh and injurious words her kindness and attention to his physical sufferings. If others ventured to mention the subject of religion to him, they were received with jeers and banters. Several times was he at the point of death, and yet, sad to relate, his dispositions remained the same. At last, when the Sister saw that he had but a few hours to live, she stealthily slipped a Miraculous Medal under his bolster, and said interiorly to the Blessed Virgin: “My dear Mother, you know I have spared no effort to touch this poor man’s heart, but in vain; now I abandon him to you, it is you who must save him; I leave him entirely in your hands, and shall try to divest myself of all anxiety concerning him.”

That evening, in making her rounds, she glances at him and learns from the infirmarian that ever since her (the Sister’s) last visit, he had been very cairn and apparently absorbed in thought. On inquiring of the patient himself how he felt, she was astonished at his polite answer, but remembering that she had entrusted him entirely to the Blessed Virgin’s care, she did not venture a word about his soul, and bidding him good night, she left the room.

About nine o clock, he called the infirmarian, and asked for a priest; knowing his former bitterness, the infirmarian thought it a joke and treated it accordingly; the patient repeated his request, but with no better success. Then he began to weep and cry aloud for a priest; all the other patients were mute with astonishment, and the infirmarian unable to resist such entreaties went for the chaplain and the Sister. The dying man requested Baptism, which was administered immediately, as well as Extreme Unction, and before morning he had rendered his account to the Sovereign Judge. His body was interred with Masonic rites, but his soul, thanks to the powerful protection of Mary Immaculate, had been carried by angels to the bosom of its God.

CONVERSION OF A SICK PROTESTANT.

New Orleans (United States).

At the same hospital in New Orleans, a Sister for a long time had vainly endeavored to convince a Protestant of the most essential truths of religion, that he might receive Baptism, but he was deaf to all her persuasions. One day she showed him a Miraculous Medal, and related its origin. He appeared to listen somewhat attentively, but when she offered it to him, ” Take it away,” said he, in a tone of great contempt, ” this Virgin is no more than any other woman.” “1 am going to leave it on your table,” was the Sister’s reply, “I am sure you will reflect on my words.” He said nothing, but to put it out of sight, placed his bible over it.

Every day, under the pretext of arranging and dusting his room, the Sister assured herself that the medal was still there. Several days elapsed, during which the patient grew worse; one night, whilst lying awake racked with suffering, he perceived a brilliant light around his bed, though the rest of the room was enveloped in darkness. Greatly astonished, he succeeded, in spite of his weakness, in rising and turning up the gas, to discover if possible, the cause of this mysterious light. Finding none, he returned to bed, and a few minutes after, he perceived that the luminous rays escaped from the medal. He then took it in his hands, and kept it there the remainder of the night.

As soon as the Sisters rising bell rang (which was four o clock), he called the infirmarian, and begged him to tell the Sister he desired Baptism. The chaplain was immediately informed. ” Impossible! ” he exclaimed, for having had frequent conversations with the sick man, he was well aware of his sentiments, and could scarcely believe him in earnest. Nevertheless, he obeyed the summons, and finding the patient really disposed to profit by his ministry, he administered the Last Sacraments, and shortly after receiving which the poor man died, blessing God and the Blessed Virgin for the graces bestowed upon him.

CONVERSION OF A PROTESTANT GIRL.

New Orleans, (United States).

A poor young Protestant girl, brought to our hospital to be treated for a grave malady, had so great a horror of our holy religion, that at the very sight of a Catholic near her, she acted like one possessed. The presence of a Sister was especially irritating, and one day she even went so far as to spit in the Sister’s face, but the latter, nothing dismayed, and ever hoping that the God of all mercy would change this wolf into a lamb, continued her kind attentions, the more disrespectful her patient, the more gentle and considerate the Sister. The latter was at last inspired with the thought of slipping a Miraculous Medal between the two mattresses; she acted upon the inspiration, and the following night the Immaculate Mary’s image became an instrument of salvation and happiness to a guilty soul. Pitching and tossing upon her bed by reason of a high fever, the patient, in some unaccountable manner, found the medal, and the Sister’s astonishment next morning at seeing her clasping it in her hands, and covering it with kisses, was second only to that she experienced on perceiving the wonderful transformation grace had wrought in this poor creature’s soul. A supernatural light had revealed to her the sad state of her conscience; her criminal life filled her with horror, and, penetrated with regret for the past, she sighed only for holy Baptism. After the necessary instruction, she was baptized; and, during the remainder of her sickness, which was long and tedious, her patience and fervor never faltered. She persevered in these edifying sentiments, until a happy death placed the seal upon the graces she had received through the intercession of Mary Immaculate.

CONVERSION OF A PROTESTANT.

New Orleans (United States).

A Protestant gentleman had spent four years at the hospital, sometimes in one hall, sometimes another. As his malady had not been very serious, no one had considered it necessary to speak to him concerning his soul.

However, when his condition became more aggravated, the Sister, after invoking the Blessed Virgin s assistance, told him the physician considered his case dangerous, and she thought he ought to receive Baptism, without which no one could be saved. He listened attentively, then turning to her, said: “Sister, if I were to ask you to become a Protestant, would you comply with my request?” “No,” was the decided answer. “Well, then,” he continued, “rest assured that it is just as useless for you to attempt persuading me to become a Catholic.”

In spite of this positive refusal, she let no occasion pass without enlightening him, were it ever so little, upon some of the truths of religion. One day, showing him a Miraculous Medal, she told him he would confer a great favor on her by reciting the little invocation: “O Mary! conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!” “What, Sister! a Catholic prayer! that is impossible, I cannot! ” She said no more, but slipped the medal under his pillow, and there it remained untouched for several days, during which time she redoubled her attentions to the physical necessities of the poor patient, who gradually grew weaker. At last, one evening she said to him: “Well, Henry, are you not going to do what I asked you?” “Yes, Sister, I most earnestly desire to become a Catholic.” The chaplain was called immediately; he had barely time to administer Baptism and Extreme Unction, before the dying man’s regenerated soul was carried by angels to the abode of the blessed.

CONVERSION OF A YOUNG METHODIST.

St. Louis (United States), 1865.

A young man, a Methodist, arrived at the hospital in an extremely weak condition. The physician at once pronounced his case hopeless, and said he had but a few days to live. Consequently, the Sister s first care was for his soul. Questioning him, she soon learned that he believed neither in the efficacy nor necessity of Baptism, and all her efforts to induce him to receive this Sacrament were unavailing. He had no desire for any conversation on the subject, and his invariable reply to all her arguments was: “I believe in Jesus, that suffices; I am sure of being saved.” The Sister redoubled her prayers, for in them lay her only hope, and time was precious. A good priest visited him every day; once, after a much longer visit than usual, he told the Sister on leaving the room it was impossible to do anything with that man, unless God wrought a miracle in his favor, and they must entreat Him to do so.

The poor man persisted, indeed, in refusing all spiritual succor, though receiving gratefully the attentions bestowed upon his body. His strength diminished day by day, and he calmly awaited death; one thought alone disquieted him, that of never seeing his mother and dying afar from her. Perceiving himself on the brink of the grave, he called one of his companions whom he begged to be with him at that fearful moment, and write the particulars of it to his mother. Whilst he made this request, the Sister slipped a Miraculous Medal under his pillow, confidently believing that Mary would not let this soul entrusted to her perish; yet he was already in his agony. Two Sisters watched beside his bed till midnight, when obliged to retire, they left him in charge of an infirmarian and the young man who had promised to be with him at the hour of death. Apparently he had not more than half an hour to live, so next morning when the infirmarian came to meet the Sister, she was prepared for news of the patient s death, but to her astonishment the infirmarian exclaimed: “Come Sister, come see him, he is restored to life!”

He then told her that the patient, to all appearances, had been dead an hour; that the friend and himself had rendered all the last duties to the body, having washed and dressed and prepared it for the grave; then the young man went to bed, and he alone remained with the corpse. After watching near it some time, he approached to bandage the jaws, but what was his fright whilst thus engaged, to see the dead man open his eyes!

The Sister heard no more, but eagerly hastened to the spot, and found the man still breathing. With a great effort he said: “Oh! what a blessing that you have come! ” In reply, she exhorted him to receive Baptism, and told him that he was indebted to the Blessed Virgin for this prolongation of his life. ” I wish to be baptized,” said he, and when the Sister replied that the priest would come, ” Ob! that will be too late! ” was his pitiful answer. The other patients now joined their entreaties to his, and the Sister, after reciting aloud the acts of faith, hope, charity and contrition, which the dying man endeavored to repeat, with hands clasped and eyes raised to Heaven, baptized him. Whilst the regenerating waters flowed upon his soul, transports of love and thanksgiving escaped his lips. Half an hour later, he closed his eyes, never to open them here below. All that the infirmarian related of his first death, was confirmed in the most positive manner, by the Protestant friend who had assisted in preparing him for the grave.

CURE OF F. P. DE MAGISTRIS.

M. F. Paul de Magistris, aged seven years, was attacked about the middle of November, 1835, by a bilious gastric fever, which, by reason of accompanying circumstances, threatened to shorten his life. After three weeks illness, his nervous system was also attacked, and he became a prey to a state of profound drowsiness that resulted in the loss of reason and speech. His afflicted parents, seeing the obstinacy of the disease, notwithstanding all efforts of medical skill to the contrary, considered the case hopeless, and their child lost to them. On the evening of January 9th, the cure administered Extreme Unction, believing, as did all the assistants, that the little sufferer had but a few hours to live. A young person, who came to the house, having mentioned the Miraculous Medal brought from France by the priests of the Congregation of the Mission, it was immediately procured, and, with confidence in its healing powers, applied to the child, whilst all present knelt around his bed and recited the Ave Maris Stella. Scarcely had they finished, ere he was considered out of danger.

With renewed confidence in the medal, it was resolved to begin a novena in honor of the Blessed Virgin. During its progress, the disease diminished perceptibly, and the child has now entirely recovered. His parents, as well as other persons of credit and veracity, among them the attendant physician, attest that, having witnessed his deplorable condition, they feel convinced his recovery was a miracle, resulting from the application of the medal. February 22, 1836.  (Father Jean-Marie Aladael, The Miraculous Medal, published in the United States of America in 1880.­)

One will note in these stories quite a contrast between how the Sisters of Charity sought the good of souls as well as the bodies of the hospitalized as to opposed to the utilitarian “quality of life” standard employed by the merchants of death in white coats and black robes today who dispense with innocent life from conception through all subsequent stages as they see fit and with perfect legal impunity.

One will also that great confidence the Sisters placed in Our Lady’s Miraculous Medal, which is why we must pray to Our Lady to renew our own confidence in it and to pledge to distribute blessed Miraculous Medals to those we meet while offering them words of consolation and as we seek to inspire them to trust fully in Our Lady and the power of the Miraculous Medal.

We must pray to Our Lady to keep us from being deceived by the myths of modern medicine, which is why we must be assiduous in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must always raise the standard of Christ the King as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Our Lady, she who is our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Divine Revelation.

May each Rosary we pray this day and every day, especially during this season of Advent as the new liturgical year has begun, help to plant seeds for this as we seek to serve Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as His consecrated slave through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for the day when men are united by the truths of the Catholic Faith and shape public life in accord with that which redounds to the good  of souls, not to the arbitrary whims of “professionals” who have dispensed with immutable truth and are ready to make short work of us all.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.Our Lady of the Rosary,

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Saturninus, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, pray for us.

July 14, 2014, Special Announcement

July 14, 2014, Feast of Saint Bonaventure:

The work of Christ or Chaos has gone “home” to www.Christorchaos.com!

A reader with vast computer, software and web design and maintenance knowledge contacted me on Thursday, July 10, 2014, the Feast of the Seven Holy Brothers with Saints Rufina and Secunda, and was able to offer me exactly what I wanted to do with the old site. Although the older articles created on the original site are stored as they were created with the Adobe Contribute program, the new front page, which retains much, although not quite all, of the look of the original home page, and all future articles will be written on a system called Drupal, which I like more than the Word Press that has been used on this site, which was converted from being a little used means to promote a little-read book to become the temporary home of my new articles after the Contribute program lost its functionality and denied me the ability to edit older articles or to create new pages. I thank the reader for doing this hard work and for walking this “tech” nincompoop through the process of creating new pages and posting articles.

There is still some work to be done on my part. The rest is explained in the preface to today’s article,

Finally, I noticed over the weekend that the July 11, 2014, Article and Prayer Request post that had been filed under “About Today’s New Article” (something I no longer need to do with Drupal) has disappeared without my doing anything about it. I did not take that post down. I have the text and will restore it in due course after inquiring of the Catholic gentleman whose company hosts this site whether access to its editing functions has been compromised or whether this is simply an unexplained quirk of one sort or another.

To sleep!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

 

July 12 Republished Reflection

July 12, 2014, Feast of Saint John Gualbert and the Commemoration of Saints Nabor and Felix:

A brief and revised reflection on the life of Saint John Gualbert is offered to the readers of this site today: Reconciling Enemies One Unto the Other.

Yesterday was given over to inserting more corrections into the text of volume one of Converse in Reverse. Time will be taken today, though, to prepare a brief original article for tomorrow, the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Anacletus on the ninety-seventh anniversary of Our Lady showing Hell to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos as she revealed to them that this is the time of her Immaculate Heart. Indeed it is!

Finally, word reached me late last night of the death of Bishop Oliver Oravec. I did not know Bishop Oravec, who worked in Slovakia most recently. I will, though, certainly pray for the repose of his immortal soul and ask that the readers of this site do so as well.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and all of the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint John Gualbert, pray for us.

Saints Nabor and Felix, pray for us.

Reconciling Enemies One Unto the Other

Forgiveness of one’s enemies is a necessity if we want to save our immortal souls. There is, as I have noted so frequently on this site, no place in the heart of a Catholic for holding or nursing grudges or wishing ill for those we believe have injured us in some way or another. We must forgive as we are forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, and we must seek to do good to those who have injured us, recognizing that there is nothing we can suffer from others that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and caused His Most Blessed Mother to suffer as those Seven Swords of Sorrow were plunged through and through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

The Gospel reading for today’s Mass on the Feast of Saint John Gualbert (and a Commemoration of Saints Nabor and Felix) reminds us that the very Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of Mary by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Annunciation, Christ the King Himself, taught us to forgive our enemies and to do good to those who persecute us:

You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: that you may be the children of your Father Who is in Heaven, Who maketh His sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have; do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5: 43-48.)

We must be perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect. We must forgive others. We cannot go about exacting vengeance or engaging in petty acts of vindictiveness against others. We must forgive as we are forgiven. It is that simple. Each of us deserves to be chastised for our sins. We should be grateful to the ever merciful God that He sends us others to calumniate us and to speak ill of us just moments after they may have spoken feigned words of greetings to us through gritted teeth and pretended smiles that betrayed a spirit of inner contempt.

So what?

So what?

Our sins deserve far, far worse than anything we are asked to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears. None of us or our supposed “reputations,” which exist more in our own imaginations than they do in the objective order of things, are so important as to become arrogant and full of self-righteous sanctimony when our “pride” is wounded and especially when things we would rather not hear about ourselves become more widely known in this life as a preparation for the revelation of each of our private thoughts, words and actions on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead. It will only be on that Last Day that the totality of our lives will be seen by others as we saw it at the Particular Judgment, which is ratified and made known to all at the General Judgment to manifest both the justice and mercy of God.

So many people plot and scheme and whisper behind closed doors (or endlessly on their cellular phones) to “protect” their nonexistent “reputations,” fearful that some ill word, whether true or not, will be spoken against them. Meetings are held where tales full of half-truth and lots of positivism are spun to seek reaffirmation from others for a “plan of action” to proactively attack those who know the truth about them and their constant self-seeking. To what end? To what good end? Doesn’t everything get revealed on the Last Day? Why all of the efforts to avoid a little chastisement in this life?

Indeed, much of the chastisement that comes our way could be avoided entirely if we only had more humility to say, “You know what? Boy, I’ve messed up a whole lot. I’ve done some very bad things. I’ve treated people badly. I’ve attempted to make others look guilty in a given situation when I’m the one at fault. You know what? I’m a stinker. Please forgive me.”

Saint John Gualbert, whose feast we celebrate today, was confronted with a plea for forgiveness from the murderer of his own brother. The reading from the Divine Office for this day, as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, tells of this plea and how it changed our Saint’s life:

Saint John Gualbert was born at Florence of a noble family. While, in compliance with his father’s wishes, he was following the career of arms, it happened that his only brother Hugh was slain by a kinsman. On Good Friday, John, at the head of an armed band, met the murderer alone and unarmed, in a spot where they could not avoid each other. Seeing death imminent, the murderer, with arms outstretched in the form of a cross, begged for mercy, and John, through reverence for the sacred sign, graciously spared him. Having thus changed his enemy into a brother, he went to pray in the church of San Miniato, which was near at hand; and as he was adoring the image of Christ crucified, he saw it bend its head towards him. John was deeply touched by this miracle, and determined thereafter to fight for God alone, even against his father’s wish; so on the spot he cut off his own hair and put on the monastic habit. Very soon his pious and religious manner of life shed abroad so great a lustre that he became to many a living rule and pattern of perfection. Hence on the death of the Abbot of the place he was unanimously chosen superior. But the servant of God, preferring obedience to superiority, and moreover being reserved by the divine will for greater things, bestook himself to Romuald, who was then living in the desert of Camaldoli, and who, inspired by heaven, announced to him that the institute he was to form; whereupon he laid the foundations of his Order under the Rule of St. Benedict of Vallombrosa. (The Roman Breviary, as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 79-80.)

Saint John Gualbert’s entire life was changed by extending forgiveness to the man who had killed his brother because he had seen his brother’s murderer plead for his life with a sign of the Holy Cross. He forgave. He laid down his arms of battle to take up arms for Christ the King.

Saint John Gualbert’s show of mercy to his brother’s murderer, however, did not mean that he was, to quote the words used so frequently by the late John Joseph Jackie Boy or “Sully” Sullivan, a “wimp, a fairy, a pansy.” Not at all. Saint John Gualbert hated what God hated, and he was as fierce as a soldier in the Army of Christ the King as he had been as a soldier with the arms of this world. Although he wanted to show mercy to all others, he was fearless in opposing the abuse of ecclesiastical power as he exposed the plots and schemes of clergymen who were interested in their own money and power and privileges rather than serving the souls for whom Christ the King had shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

If we think we have problems today in traditional circles, consider the hatred directed at Saint John Gualbert as he opposed the simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical offices and privileges) that was so very widespread in his day and as he showed himself to be a tireless foe of heresy:

Soon afterwards, many attracted by the renown of his sanctity, flocked to him from all sides. He received them into his society, and together with them he zealously devoted himself to rooting out heresy and simony and promoting the apostolic faith; on account of which devotedness both he and his disciples suffered innumerable injuries. Thus, his enemies in their eagerness to destroy him and his brethren, suddenly attacked the monastery of San Salvi by night, burned the church, demolished the buildings, and morally wounded all the monks. The man of God, however, restored them all forthwith to health by a single sign of the cross. Peter, one of his monks, miraculously walked unhurt through a huge blazing fire, and thus John obtained for himself and his sons the peace they so much desired. From that time forward every stain of simony disappeared from Tuscany: and faith, throughout all Italy, was restored to its former purity.

John built many entirely new monasteries, and restored many others both as to their material buildings and as to regular observance, strengthening them all with the bulwark of holy regulations. In order to feed the poor he sold the sacred vessels of the altar. The elements were obedient to his will when he sought to check evil-doers; and the sign of the cross was the sword he used whereby to conquer the devils. (The Roman Breviary, as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 80-81.)

Saint John Gualbert, man of mercy but also of justice, was dauntless in his effort to expose treachery and to unmask evildoers in shepherds’ clothing, living at the same time as that foe of the pestilence of sodomy then extant in ecclesiastical circles, Saint Peter Damian. Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the holy zeal for truth that consumed Saint John Gualbert, so much so that he had come into conflict with Saint Peter Damian, who had thought that Saint John Gualbert was wrong to have deposed a local bishop because of the latter’s self-seeking and practice of simony:

Never, from the day when Simon Magus was baptized at Samaria, had hell seemed so near to conquering the Church as at the period brought before us by to-day’s feast. Rejected and anathematized by Peter, the new Simon had said to the princes, as the former had said to the apostles: ‘Sell me this power, that upon whomsoever I shall lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.’ And the princes, ready enough to supplant Peter and fill their coffers at the same time, had taken upon themselves to invest men of their own choice with the government of the churches; the bishops in their turn had sold to the highest bidders the various orders of the hierarchy; and sensuality, ever in the wake of covetousness, had filled the sanctuary with defilement.

The tenth century had witnessed the humiliation of the supreme pontificate itself; early in the eleventh, simony was rife among the clergy. The work of salvation was going on in the silence of the cloister; but Peter Damian had not yet come forth from the desert; nor had Hugh of Cluny, Leo IX, and Hildebrand [Pope Gregory VII] brought their united efforts to bear upon the evil. A single voice was heard to utter the cry of alarm and rouse the people from their lethargy; it was the voice of a monk, who had once been a valiant soldier, and to whom the crucifix had bowed its head in recognition of his generous forgiveness of an enemy. John Gualbert, seeing simony introduced into his own monastery of San Miniato, left it and entered Florence, only to find the pastoral staff in the hands of a hireling. The zeal of God’s House was devouring his heart; and going into the public squares, he denounced the bishop and his own abbot, that thus he might, at least, deliver his own soul.

At the sight of this monk confronting single-handed the universal corruption, the multitude was for a moment seized with stupefaction; but soon surprise was turned into rage, and John with difficulty escaped death. From this day John his special vocation was determined: the just, who had never despaired, hailed him as an avenger of Israel, and their hope was not to be confounded. But like all who are chosen for a divine work, he was to spend a long time under training of the Holy Spirit. The athlete had challenged the powers of this world; the holy war was declared: one would naturally have expected it to wage without ceasing until the enemy was entirely defeated. And yet, the chosen soldier of Christ hastened into solitude to ‘amend his life,’ according to the truly Christian expression used in the foundation-charter of Vallombrosa. The promoters of the disorder, startled at the suddenness of the attack, and then seeing the aggressor as suddenly disappear, would laugh at the false alarm; but cost what it might to the once brilliant soldier, he knew how to be abide, in humility and submission, the hour of God’s good pleasure.

Little by little other souls, disgusted with the state of society, came to join him; and soon the army of prayer and penance spread throughout Tuscany. It was destined to extend all over Italy, and even to cross the mountains. Settimo, seven miles from Florence, and San Salvi, at the gates of the city, were the strongholds whence the hold war was to recommence in 1063. Another simoniac, Peter of Pavia, had purchased the succession to the episcopal see. John, with all his monks, was resolved rather to die than to witness in silence this new insult offered to the Church of God. His reception this time was to be very different from the former, for the fame of his sanctity and miracles had caused him to be looked upon by the people as an oracle. No sooner was his voice heard once more in Florence that the whole flock was so stirred that the unworthy pastor, seeing he could no longer dissemble, cast off his disguise and showed what he really was: a thief who had come only to rob and kill and destroy. By his orders a body of armed men descended upon San Salvi, set fire to the monastery, fell upon the brethren in the midst of the Night Office, and put them all to the sword; each monk continuing to chant till he received the final stroke. John Gualbert, hearing at Vallambrosa of the martyrdom of his sons, intoned a canticle of triumph. Florence was seized with horror, and refused to communicate with the assassin bishop. Nevertheless, four years had yet to elapse before deliverance could come; and the trials of St. John had scarcely begun.

St. Peter Damian, invested with full authority by the Sovereign Pontiff, had just arrived from the Eternal City. All expected that no quarter would be given to simony by its sworn enemy, and that peace would be restored to the afflicted Church. The very contrary took place. The greatest saints may be mistaken, and so become to one another the cause of sufferings by so much the bitter as their will, less subject to caprice than that of other men, remains more firmly set upon the course they have adopted for the interests of God and His Church. Perhaps the great bishop of Ostia [Saint Peter Damian] did not take into consideration the exceptional position in which the Florentines were placed by the notorious simony of Peter of Pavia, and the violent manner in which he put to death, without form of trial, all who dared to withstand him. Starting from the indisputable principle that inferiors have no right to depose their superiors, the legate reprehended the conduct of the monks, and of all who had separated themselves from the bishop. There was but one refuge for them, the Apostolic See, to which they fearlessly appealed, a proceeding which no one could call uncanonical. But there, says the historian,. many who feared for themselves, rose up against them, declaring that these monks were worthy of death for having dared to attack the prelates of the Church; while Peter Damian severely reproached them before the whole Roman Council. The holy and glorious Pope Alexander II took the monks under his own protection, and praised the uprightness of their intention. Yet he dared not comply with their request and proceed further, because the greater number of the bishops sided with Peter of Pavia; the archdeacon Hildebrand [the future Pope Gregory VII] alone was entirely in favour of the Abbot of Vallambrosa [Saint John Gualbert].

Nevertheless, the hour was at hand when God Himself would pronounce the judgment refused them by men. While overwhelmed with threats and treated as lambs amongst wolves, John Gualbert and his sons cried to heaven with the Psalmist: ‘Arise, O Lord, and help us; arise, why dost Thou sleep, O Lord? Arise, O God, and judge our cause.’ At Florence the storm continued to rage. St. Saviour’s at Settimo became the refuge of such of the clergy as were banished from the town by the persecution; the holy founder, who was then residing in the monastery, multiplied in their behalf the resources of his charity. At length the situation became so critical that one day in Lent of the year 1067 the rest of the clergy and whole population left the simoniac alone in his deserted palace and fled to Settimo. Neither the length of the road, deep in mud from the rain, nor the rigorous fast observed by all, says the narrative written at that very time to the Sovereign Pontiff by the clergy of the people of Florence, could stay the most delicate matrons, women about to become mothers, or even children. Evidently the Holy Ghost was actuating the crowd; they called for the judgment of God. John Gualbert, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, gave his consent to the trial; and in testimony of the truth of the accusation brought by him against the Bishop of Florence, Peter, one of his monks, since known as Peter Igneus, walked slowly before the eyes of the multitude through an immense fire, without receiving the smallest injury. Heaven had spoken: the bishop was deposed by Rome, and ended his days, a happy penitent, in that very monastery of Settimo.

In 1073, the year in which his friend Hildebrand was raised to the Apostolic See, John was called to God. His influence against simony had reached far beyond Tuscany. The Republic of Florence ordered his feast to be kept as a holiday, and the following words were engraved upon his tombstone: To John Gualbert, Citizen of Florence, Deliverer of Italy. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 75-79.)

Yes, there are precedents for a priest to denounce self-seekers. There are precedents for such a priest to be hated by many for his doing so as the self-seekers wrap themselves up in sanctimony and claim that they are the victims, not those whom they have abused or whose abuse they have suborned time and time again. There are precedents for a priest to be misunderstood and calumniated and abandoned by those who should be supporting him because they prefer not to see the truth of a given matter as this would mean upsetting an established order that has not been in the interest of the sanctification and salvation of souls or, obviously, to the honor and glory of God. 

Truth comes out sooner or later despite all efforts to hide it, to deny it, to misrepresent it, to attack those who speak out in its holy defense. Truth comes out sooner or later.

Saint John Gualbert forgave the man who murdered his brother.

He forgave the simoniac bishop, Peter of Pavia, whose reconciliation to Christ the King was so near and dear to his own deeply pastoral heart, which was conformed to that of the Most Sacred Heart of the Good Shepherd Himself.

There can be no compromise on any matter of Faith. There can be no compromise on any matter of Morals. There can be no compromise in any situation when souls are being abused by those who believe that they are to be served by the sheep rather than to minister unto the sheep who are in such need of succor and encouragement from their shepherds.

This is a point that Dom Prosper Gueranger made in his closing prayer in honor of Saint John Gualbert:

O true disciple of the New Law, who didst know how to spare an enemy for the love of the Holy Cross! teach us to practise, as thou didst, the lessons conveyed by the instrument of our salvation, which will then become to us, as to thee, a weapon ever victorious over the powers of hell. Could we look upon the Cross, and then refuse to forgive our brother an injury, when God Himself not only forgets our heinous offenses against His sovereign Majesty, but even died upon the Tree to expiate them? The most generous pardon a creature can grant is but a feeble shadow of the pardon we daily obtain from our Father in heaven. Still, the Gospel which the Church sings in thy honour may well teach us that the love of our enemies is the nearest resemblance we can have to our heavenly Father, and the sign that we are truly His children.

Thou hadst, O John, this grand trait of resemblance. He, who in virtue of His eternal generation is the true Son of God by nature, recognized in thee the mark of nobility which made thee His brother. When He bowed His sacred Head to thee, He saluted in thee the character of a child of God, which thou hadst just so beautifully maintained: a title a thousand times more glorious than those of noble ancestry. What a powerful germ was the Holy Ghost planting at that moment in thy heart! And how richly does God recompense a single generous act! Thy sanctification, the glorious share thou didst take in the Church’s victory, the fecundity whereby thou livest still in the Order sprung up from thee: all these choice graces for thy own soul and for so many others hung upon that critical moment. Fate, or the justice of God, as they contemporaries would have said, had brought thy enemy within thy power: how wouldst thou treat him? he was deserving of death; and in those days every man was his own avenger. Hadst thou then inflicted due punishment upon him, thy reputation would have rather increased than diminished. Thou wouldst have obtained the esteem of thy comrades; but only the glory which is of any worth before God, indeed the only glory which lasts long even in the sight of men, would never have been thine. Who would have known thee at the present day? Who would have felt the admiration and gratitude with which thy very name now inspires the children of the Church?

The Son of God, seeing that thy dispositions were conformable to those of His Sacred Heart, filled thee with His own jealous love of the holy City for whose redemption He shed His Blood. O thou that wert zealous for the beauty of the Bride, watch over her still; deliver her from hirelings who would fain receive from men the right of holding the place of the Bridegroom. In our days venality is less to be feared than compromise. Simony would take another form; there is not so much danger of bribery as of fawning, paying homage, making advances, entering into implicit contracts; all which proceedings are as contrary to the holy canons as are pecuniary transactions. And after all, is the evil any less for taking a milder form, if it enables princes to bind the Church again in fetters such as thou didst labour to break? Suffer not, O John Gualbert, such a misfortune, which would be the forerunner of terrible disasters. Continue to support with thy powerful arm the common Mother of men. Save thy fatherland a second time, seven in spite of itself. Protect, in these sad times, the Order of which thou art the glory and the father; give it strength to outlive the confiscations and the cruelties it has suffered from that same Italy which once hailed thee as its deliverer. Obtain for Christians of every condition the courage required for the warfare in which are all bound to engage. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 75-79.)

We live at a time when so many men who know better, including priests and presbyters within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, make one compromise after another with their own consciences, violating their very integrity as they do so, to fawn over and pay homage to a false “pope” who is a blasphemer and thus a murderer of souls. They are always ready to play The Let’s Pretend Game, proving themselves to be self-seeking hirelings afraid to speak out in defense of the truths of the Sacred Faith.

Truth be told, of course, we really don’t deserve a better situation than this, especially if we consider how our sins have helped to bring on and to perpetuate the chastisements that are now upon us. We are very responsible for the state of the world-at-large and for the state of the Church Militant on earth, which is why we must plead with the Mother of God to help us to be reconciled unto her Divine Son, Christ the King, in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance by making a good, sincere, integral Confession on a regular basis, if at all possible in these times, and to cooperate with the graces received therein to amend our lives and to do penance for our sins, living more and more penitentially as we withdraw from the world, assist more regularly at Holy Mass, spend time before Our King’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Let us keep close to the Divine Redeemer’s Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother in this month of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus that was shed for our sanctification and salvation. If Our Lord shed His Most Precious Blood to atone for our sins, we had better be ready to forgive each other even in the midst of circumstances that find us on opposing sides of those with whom we should desire to spend all eternity in Heaven.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint John Gualbert, pray for us.

Saints Nabor and Felix, pray for us.

Dialogue, Anyone?

This will be a very brief commentary as the demands of my preparing Conversion in Reverse as print-on-demand book free of all typographical errors are pretty all-consuming right now, to say nothing of my daily duties of state.

Additionally, although great effort was put into the completion of Arguing Over the Inarguable three day ago, the article has been accessed a total of thirty-eight times. I account for three of those. Another was the result of a fine Catholic attorney, one who does not agree with my position on the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, who called it “excellent,” a compliment I take to heart as this attorney takes no prisoners in behalf of the Social Reign of Christ the King. There is thus really no need to rush to post these articles given the dramatic decrease in the readership of this site.

This is all within the Providence of God. Articles will still appear on this site from time to time. However, the decreased readership comes at a propitious time as I try to complete volumes two and three of my study of Americanism and put volume one and a several anthologies of these articles into a print-on-demand format.

The subject of this brief commentary is simple: the escalating level of violence in the Middle East that is the result of the adherents of two different false religions, Talmudism and Mohammedanism, having souls that are captive to the devil by means Original Sin. Those whose souls are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin are more inclined to hate those they deem responsible for acts of injustice and to visit all manner of violent vengeance in the name of “justice.” No amount of the madness of “dialogue” can soothe the savagery of a land that is suffering from the rejection of Christ the King by the Abrahamic Jews during the thirty-seven year period of mercy that He extended to them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the pagan Romans as a chastisement for their infidelity and hardness of heart. Peace in the Middle East and everywhere else in the world will be the result of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

The mad hatters of conciliarism, apostates that they are, do not recognize this as they are so bereft of even a modicum of Catholicism and even any true understanding of the facts of history as they must be understood through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith that the only thing they can do is to show themselves to be shallow ideologues who are incapable of breaking free from their own enslavement to the doctrines and praxis of a false religion, conciliarism.

Consider, for example, just two passages from a statement released by something called the Justice and Peace Commission of the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in the Holy Land:

We need radical change. Israelis and Palestinians together need to shake off the negative attitudes of mutual mistrust and hatred. We are called to educate the younger generation in a new spirit that challenges the existing mentalities of oppression and discrimination. We need to shake off any leadership that feeds on the cycle of violence. We must find and support leaders who are determined to work for justice and peace, recognizing that God has planted here three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and two peoples: Palestinian and Israeli. We must find leaders who are clear-sighted and courageous enough to face the urgency of the present situation and to take the difficult decisions that are needed, leaders who, if necessary, are ready to sacrifice their political careers for the sake of a just and lasting peace. Such leaders have the vocation to be healers, peace makers, seekers of justice and visionaries of the alternatives to the cycle of violence.

We remember the recent visit of Pope Francis to our region and his incessant call for justice and peace. In his meeting with the Palestinian leadership he said: “In expressing my closeness to those who suffer most from this conflict, I wish to state my heartfelt conviction that the time has come to put an end to this situation which has become increasingly unacceptable. For the good of all, there is a need to intensify efforts and initiatives aimed at creating the conditions for a stable peace based on justice, on the recognition of the rights of every individual, and on mutual security. The time has come for everyone to find the courage to be generous and creative in the service of the common good” (May 25, 2014). Likewise, in his meeting with the Israeli leadership, he said “Here I renew my plea that all parties avoid initiatives and actions which contradict their stated determination to reach a true agreement and that they tirelessly work for peace, with decisiveness and tenacity. There is likewise need for a firm rejection of all that is opposed to the cultivation of peace and respectful relations between Jews, Christians and Muslims” (May 26, 2014). (Holy Land: A call for courageous change.)

Two brief comments, please.

First, the true God of Divine Revelation did not  “plant” “three religions” in the Holy Land.

Repeat after me, you alleged ordinaries of the Holy Land: God used the pagan Romans to disperse most of the Abrahamic Jews out of the Holy Land in 70 A.D. Contrary to what is taught by the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Old Covenant that God made with Moses ended when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ took His last breath on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, thereby causing the earth to quake and the curtain in the Temple to be torn in two from top to bottom. The definitive public pronouncement to the effect of the invalidity of the Old Covenant was made by Christ the King Himself when the Jews were expelled from the Holy Land, and the Zionists, who comprise most, although not all, of the Talmudists in Israel, returned in defiance of this dispersal.

God did not “plant” any Judaism in the Holy Land, no less intend it to be recognized as a religion that is pleasing to Him by men who believe themselves to be officials of the Catholic Church.

Repeat after me, you blasphemers of the Most Blessed Trinity who make insane statements about how to break the cycle of violence in the Holy Land: Mohammedanism is a false religion that was born in a violent hatred of the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity. It spread through North Africa and into the Holy Land itself as a result of violent conquest.

Indeed, even though the leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are seen by all Shiites and even some Sunnis as the Mohammedan version of the iconoclasts who were fought by Saint John Damascene in behalf of the true Faith, their commitment to abject violence, which has included blowing up Christian churches in Syria and blowing up Shiite mosques and even Sunni mosques in Iraq that have been deemed to belong to idolaters (see ISIS destroys shrines and mosques, may be targeting Mecca.)

Dialogue, anyone?

We are not going to stop the tide of the threats posed by Mohammedanism and the bloodthirsty, vengeful nature of the Zionists and other false religions with any form of dialogue or with any kind of naturalism. We must avoid all contact with these agents of error and indifferentism.

Who says so?

Look again for yourselves:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

As noted just above, the souls of the Talmudists and the Zionists are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin. The souls of the conciliar apostates, starting with Jorge himself, are steeped in the blindness of what are, objectively speaking, their Mortal Sins against the Holy Faith. As is the case with the Talmudists and Zionists, the officials of the false religion known as conciliarism are thus incapable of serving as instruments of a true peace, that of Christ the King Himself, something that has been pointed out on this site scores upon scores of times by citing the following passage from Pope Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23 1922:

49. It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ — “the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ’s kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

What can we do?

Pray the Rosary in fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message, do penance for our sins, make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners and for the conversion of non-Catholics, including the conciliar apostates. Spend time, if at all possible where you live, in prayer before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

There are worse chastisements to come. We must be prepared to suffer them with joy, gratitude and love as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius I, pray for us.

July 8, 2014, Article and Update

July 8, 2014, Feast of Saint Elizabeth of Portugal:

Arguing Over the Inarguable is a much-delayed commentary on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America last week. The writing of the commentary was delayed by the handiwork of the hacker (whose last hacking took place from the vicinity of Alameda, California, confirming my beliefs about the person who is ultimately responsible for directing this activity) and was delayed further last night as I neared the completion of my work by the malfunctioning of my horrific, terrible, fake, phone, fraud Acer notebook computer’s keyboard. This forced me to drive some distance to an office store to purchase a keyboard, which sits precariously on the arm of a chair as look at the computer screen on a folding table to my right. Not the most optimal conditions, especially considering the computer’s tendency to eat text as one is writing, something I have discovered from an online search is a common but completely unadvertised feature of the Acer notebook computer. All to thee, Blessed Mother. All to thy Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.  Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you. Save souls. Penance is better than ever in 2014. (I know better than to make a public appeal for non-tax-deductible gifts to help fund the purchase of a new computer!)

Every effort was made to duplicate parts of the article that got erased last night as I was typing. I will, though, do a follow-up commentary in a day or two to elaborate on a few points and to provide something of a thumbnail history of the Federal government’s funding of the anti-family agenda and how even true bishops, including Francis Cardinal Spellman and Archbishop Richard Cushing (who has made a “cardinal” by “Saint John XXIII), and the phony “bishops” who succeeded them have served as water boys for this agenda at almost every turn.

As I have been noting, I do have other work to complete that will make the posting of articles on this site less frequent. Again, there will be commentaries from time to time, and I might find it a better and more efficient use of my time to record video commentaries (that would be recorded via audio means as well) on occasion. Thank you for your patience.

Finally, please do join us in praying for Bishop Robert F. McKenna, O.P., on his eighty-seventh birthday today, July 8, 2014.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.

Arguing Over That Which Is Inarguable

One of the nicest things about having a little-read website is that that there are fewer and fewer people to agitate with commentaries such as this one.

Although made in an effort at self-effacing humor, it has my experience over the past thirty-three years, dating back to then President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s nomination of Sanda Day O’Connor to succeed retiring Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Potter Stewart, a Freemason was an appointee of President Dwight David Eisenhower and one of the seven justices who voted in the majority in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, on July 7, 1981, that any effort to point out stark truths during times of celebrations of alleged “victories” for “constitutionalism” is not very welcome at all.

“You’re just letting the perfect be the enemy of the good,”  I was told in 1981 when I pointed out that Arizona State Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Day O’Connor was completely pro-abortion. “Reagan wouldn’t do that,” I was told. “You gotta trust Reagan. He knows what he is doing.”

Ronald Reagan did know what he was doing. He did know that Sandra Day O’Connor was pro-abortion. This not matter to him as he wanted to keep his campaign promise of a year before, 1980, to nominate a woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States of America and to narrow the “gender gap” for the Republican Party. Reagan knew that O’Connor was pro-abortion, which is why he refused to answer any questions after he made a brief statement in the Rose Garden of the White House, deferring all questions to then Attorney General William French Smith.

Here is a transcript of what happened following Reagan’s brief statement announcing the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor:

Reporter. Do you agree with her position on abortion, Mr. President?

The President. I said that I was going to turn over all questions to the Attorney General here and let him answer the questions.

Q. But the right-to-life people object, and we just wonder if—

The President. All those questions the Attorney General is prepared to answer.

Q. But, Mr. President, you have such a firm position on that. Can you give us your feelings about her position on that?

The President. I am completely satisfied.

Q. On her right-to-life position?

The President. Yes.

Q. And did you interview her personally?

The President. Yes. (Remarks Announces the Intention To Nominate Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.)

President Reagan, who supported the slicing and dicing of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs in the so-called “hard cases,” would not hear of any objections to Sandra Day’ Connor, who served only on an intermediate level appeals court in the State of Arizona (Arizona’s Court of Appeals is the equivalent of what is the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, which is a trial court, believe it or not; judicial nomenclature within the fifty states make as much sense as many of the decisions rendered by those courts) and who had a completely pro-abortion record when she served as the Majority Leader of the Arizona State Senate.

The late Mr. Howard Phillips, who was the founder and chairman of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, gave testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate against the nominations of both the O’Connor and David Souter nominations, as he explained in an interview in 2005. Although I disagreed with Mr. Phillips’s support for the philosophy of the founders of the United States of America, his work exposing the fraudulent nature of various “pro-life” Republican administrations was truly admirable and stands of its well-documented merits.The interview in 2005 was conducted after then President George Walker Bush, the man who was the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush, who gave us David H. Souter, had nominated United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge John G. Roberts to replace O’Connor on the Supreme Court:

Let me put this into context. People say you can’t tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it” very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor because it was very clear that she had a pro-abortion record in the Arizona state senate and as a judge in Arizona. She was also allied with Planned Parenthood. I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard in which he said he was a legal positivist and one of his heroes was Oliver Wendell Holmes and that he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence. In addition, he was a trustee of two hospitals: Dartmouth Hitchcock and Concord Memorial. He successfully changed the policy of those two hospitals from ‘zero abortion’ to ‘convenience abortion.‘ I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg because her record was clear. She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature. She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts, I’m in the midst of an extensive and intensive study of his record. Several things become clear, although I’m not ready to reach a final conclusion. It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream. (Flynn Files – Howard Phillips Interview Part I)

The documentation provided by Howard Phillips and Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, about Sandra Day O’Connor’s pro-abortion record was ignored by the partly pro-life and partly pro-abortion members of the United States Senate, who confirmed her by a vote of 99-0 on September 21, 1981. Here is an an excerpt from Phillips’s actual testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which was then chaired by United States Senator Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina):

As an Arizona State Senator, she voted twice for abortion on demand through the ninth month of pregnancy; she co-sponsored a proposal to permit abortion without parental consent; she promoted ERA; she opposed the Human Life Amendment; and she failed to oppose abortions at a taxpayer-funded facility. (The Supreme Court Watch – A Public Service of The Conservative Caucus.)

Judie Brown, the founder and President of the American Life League, similarly testified against Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination in 1981, also documenting O’Connor’s solid pro-abortion record as the majority leader of the Arizona State Senate. Anyone who claims that they were “surprised” by O’Connor’s opinions, summarized below by a pro-abortion organization, is dealing in a world of fanciful delusions. Howard Phillips and Judie Brown documented Sandra Day O’Connor’s pro-abortion record openly and publicly.

Sandra Day O’Connor proved herself to be a reliably firm vote in support of the chemical and surgical execution of innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs under the cover of the civil law. Among other cases, Sandra Day O’Connor joined Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed by President Ronald Wilson Reagan on November 30, 1987, and sworn in on February 18, 1988, in his now infamous opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992:

Although Roe has engendered opposition, it has in no sense proven unworkable, representing as it does a simple limitation beyond which a state law is unenforceable. P. 835.

(e) The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856. (Text of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.)

The warfare upon the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, a warfare that had been waged with particular fury by Margaret Sanger from the time after the First World War until her death on September 6, 1966, and endorsed “theologically” by the Lambeth Conference of the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect in 1930 and established as a constitutional “right” in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, had become so ingrained by the 1990s that this evil was considered a “necessity” in the social and economic life of the entire United States of America. That this is indeed an established fact in the actual order of things does not vitiate the inherent evil of contraception and how it has served as the pathway, both socially and legally, to the establishment and institutionalization of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers’ wombs.

This is all a very important prelude to commenting on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Connestoga Wood Specialities v Burwell, June 30, 2014, as the majority in these jointly decided cases was cobbled together on the following premises: (a) that all contraceptives, including those that are unquestionably abortifacient in nature, are thoroughly legal to manufacture, sell and use; (b) that the government of the United States of America has the right to mandate that employers provide health insurance coverage for all forms of contraceptives and “voluntary” sterilization; and (c) that Affordable Care and Health Protection Act is beyond any constitutional review (see Here To Stay).

Let me explain the premises before proceeding to comment on the case.

There are only three justices (Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas) who believe that Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a nonexistent “right” for married couples to purchase contraceptives (the right was extended to the unmarried in the case of Eisentadt v. Baird, March 22, 1972), was decided incorrectly and thus established a nonexistent constitutional “right to privacy” based on what were said to be “penumbras” emanating from the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Any assault in the Hobby Lobby and Connestoga Wood cases on the “right” to manufacture, sell and use contraceptives would not have passed muster with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (see Planned Parenthood v. Robert Casey above), a Catholic, or with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who did, after all, switch his vote in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 28, 2012, to bestow upon us the “gift” of the “constitutionality” ObamaDeathCare. John Roberts, a Catholic who is associated with Opus Dei, cares too much for “precedent” and actually said during his confirmation hearings in 2005 that Roe v. Wade was “settled law.” The decision in the Hobby Lobby and Connestoga Wood Specialties combined cases could not have attracted a five vote majority without extolling the availability of contraceptives, including abortifacients, to the employees of both firms, albeit not paid for by the firms themselves. And it could not have been rendered without an acknowledgment of the “right” of the government of the United States of America to mandate that employers afford health insurance coverage for “family planning” programs.

That which is inarguable, the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, must be denied as arguments based in an acceptance of legal positivism and moral relativism are used to protect that which is ultimately responsible for this madness, religious liberty, for the owners of for-profit corporations that are “tightly-held” by private families. Even those owners, as well-meaning and courageous as they were to incur the possibility of monstrous fines that might result in the closure of their firms and the loss of thousands upon thousands of jobs, had no objections to contraception in se, only to those that work without question as abortifacients.

Moreover, as will be seen from the excerpt from the decision of the court, which was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the entire framework of the legal reasoning of the five justice majority was that the contraceptive mandate imposed an unreasonable burden on the exercise of “religious freedom” as defined in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as there are other ways for employees to obtain health insurance coverage for “family planning” programs, including the four abortifiacient contraceptives to which the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Connestoga Wood Specialities objected. Justice Alito went to great lengths to explain that no female employees of either firm were at risk to losing access to the four baby-killing contraceptives.

While this may be a victory for the consciences of the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Connestoga Wood Specialites, it is no kind of a victory at all for moral truth as every form of contraceptive is evil and as the Supreme Court conceded the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate in and of itself, deciding that “religious freedom” and the undue burden placed on its exercise took precedence over the mandate in the cases before it.

Here is the essential reasoning of Justice Alito in the combined cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Connestoga Wood Specialities v Burwell, June 30, 2014:

We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies for-feited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.

Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.

Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contracep-tives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.

Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.

As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 1 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “disadvantages . . . on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 1–2. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on . . . thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.” Post, at 2. The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.)

To decide that the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration to owners of closely-held companies does not cause an “undue burden” on women to realize the benefits mandated by  Department of Health and Human Service’s contraceptive mandate, which was, if you recall, written personally by the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a nefarious pro-abort Catholic who was closely allied and took blood money from the murdered late-term baby-killer George Tiller (see Reichstag II) and remains a Catholic in good standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is to use the exact same reasoning that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy employed in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.

To wit, Justice Kennedy argued that the Federal government’s ban on the the killing of babies by means of “partial-birth abortion,” known in the baby-killing trade as “dilation and extraction,” in cases except where it is alleged that a mother’s life is endangered represented no undue burden on women who wanted to kill their babies in the later stages of their development because other methods of late-term baby-killing (hysterotomy, dilation and evacuation, saline solution poisoning) remained perfectly legal:

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

     Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. See Carhart, supra, at 866, 869. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. App. in No. 05-1382, at 408-409. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Id., at 409; see also Carhart, supra, at 862, 878. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.” App. in No. 05-380, at 94; see Carhart, supra, at 858.

     D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions. Nat. Abortion Federation, 330 F. Supp. 2d, at 467; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962-963. (Gonzales v. Carhart, April 19, 2007.)

In other words, Justice Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy both reasoned their way to conclusions that well-meaning pro-life Americans believe will save babies by pointing out quite explicit that those who felt “burdened” by the laws in question had other means available to kill their babies and, in the present instance, to obtain health insurance coverage for the abortifacients to do so.

While taking nothing away from the personal victory of the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the fact remains that the baby-killing potions they refuse, correctly, of course, to provide coverage for directly will still be available to their employees by the alternatives provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. And while not seeking for one moment to castigate these courageous individuals who have suffered much at the hands of the anti-life anti-family, anti-Theistic statists, it is nevertheless true that their blithe acceptance of contraception in se and their willingness to provide it is offensive to God in the objective order of things and is detrimental to the eternal and temporal good of their employees and that of society-at-large.

Then again, Protestantism long ago made its “official reconciliation” with family planning. It was shortly after the Lambeth Conference met in England in 1930 that a federation of Protestant sects gathered to endorse the use of contraceptives in “limited” cases as being perfectly in accord with the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This caused The Washington Post, of all newspapers, to issue the following editorial on March 22, 1931:

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on “marriage and the home,” which has now submitted a report favoring a “careful and restrained” use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for “regulating the size of families” is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and ‘scientific’ propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. (“Forgetting Religion,” Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1932. I have given you part of this quote in the past. This is the full editorial. I had to purchase the editorial in order to do so. No expense is spared, good and few readers, to bring you these articles.)

Several objections might be raised to this commentary, starting with the belief that the decision in the combined Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Burwell v. Connestoga Wood Specialities cases has dealt a severe blow to ObamaDeathCare’s “one size fits all” mandates, some of which have received “waivers,”  whose authorization is not to be found in the Affordable Care and Health Protection Act, from President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, That this might be the case is conceded. However, it does not change the underlying reasons why what is, for all intents and purposes, government-mandated free contraception for everyone, is here to stay.

Yes, it is important at all times to recognize the limitations of the concrete circumstances in which we live, meaning that, as noted earlier in this commentary, concessions were made by Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas to the government’s “right” to mandate health insurance for contraceptive services in order to make it possible to apply the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The legal groundwork is being laid for the five justices to provide protection to religiously-affiliated institutions, such as Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, and the Little Sisters of the Poor in Denver, Colorado, from the Obama-Sebelius contraception coverage mandate. Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, that Holy Mother Church will make use of the legal means available to her children to protect themselves without ever conceding anything to the falsehoods of “protections” that would be part of rightly-formed state that flow naturally from the Social Reign of Christ the King. All well and good.

My point remains, however, that the very fact that we find ourselves in this situation of arguing over the inarguable is the precise, inevitable result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that institutionalized theological relativism as a normal part of social life. Indeed, the revolution begun by Father Martin Luther before spreading all over the kingdoms of western Europe was founded on a rejection of the inviolability  of a ratified and consummated marriage in complete defiance of the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. [12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11.)

The forces of naturalism that can be termed as Judeo-Masony exploited Protestantism’s theological relativism to make it possible for the triumph of moral relativism in every nook and cranny of everyday existence. Attacking the the inviolability and the sanctity and fecundity of marriage has been a goal of Judeo-Masonry from its very inception.

Writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, Pope Leo XIII explained how the theological relativism of Protestantism made possible the rise and the triumph of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry:

23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Pope Leo XIII also explained the attacks on the integrity of the family by Freemasons, first in Arcanum, February 10, 1890:

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous, because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be true — namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls, but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore, show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they do not change their views, not only private families, but all public society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)

The assault on the inviolability of marriage by the forces of Judeo-Masonry made possible the triumph of contraception and the contraceptive mentality in the second, third and fourth decades of the Twentieth Century. Pope Pius XI prophetically warned the suppression of the primary end of marriage, the propagation and education of children as God sees fit to send them, in favor of lustful desires would result in the rise of all manner of new species of “unions” that would one day enjoy the cover of the civil law:

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony — hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label “temporary,” “experimental,” and “companionate.” These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern “culture” in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

We have arrived at that time when these new species of civil unions and worse yet have been endorsed under cover of the civil law and/or mandated by judicial fiat.

Remember, it was the aforementioned Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who issued the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2014, that has opened the floodgates to the judicial imposition of “gay marriage” all over the country. (See Irreversible By Means Merely Human.) This is why four justices could not be found to grant certiorari to docket a case presented by plaintiffs who sought overturn a ban on naturalistic therapy designed to convert minors steeped in perversity from their sinful ways (see Supreme Court Declines Case Contesting Ban on Gay Conversion Therapy.)

As I noted a year ago and have emphasized repeatedly since that time, it it impossible for sentimentality and emotionalism to be retarded absent the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

One of the reasons our problems are so intractable is that the Americanist bisops of yore in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries saw in the false, naturalistic, semi-Pelagian, religiously indifferentist and anti-Incarnational principles of the American founding the means by which the Holy Faith could be protected. Most, although not all, especially those of German ancestry, of these bishops encouraged Catholic immigrants to become imbued with the ethos of the country, oblivious to the fact that Catholics were being converted slowly over time into viewing Holy Mother Church through the eyes of naturalism (democracy, egalitarianism, religious indifferentism, materialism) rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the Holy Faith. It is no accident at all that the revolutionaries who serve as “bishops” of the counterfeit church of America have enabled the statists at almost every turn, leaving it to well meaning members of Protestant sects to fight, albeit upon principles that are objectively false, the battles that should be fought by the Catholic Church without making any concessions at all to erroneous principles and certainly without celebrating the very false premises that are responsible for spreading all manner of social evils under cover of the civil law and throughout the midst of our popular culture much to the great delight of most Catholics.

That the lords of conciliarism in the United States of America do not fight upon the foundation of Christ the King leads them to exalt the very thing that has given us Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetro and his regime of utter statism and wanton disregard for the laws of God and man (see Taking Refuge in Racism to Break the Laws of God and Man), religious liberty.

Permit me to elaborate upon this in order to demonstrate why efforts to fight the prevailing moral evils of the day will in spite of occasional court victories that caesar will ignore just as surely as he is ignoring the just laws of the land concerning the protection of the integrity and security of this nation’s borders.

1. Barack Hussein Obama is the quintessential end product of “religious liberty.” The heresy of “religious liberty” championed by the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America is what produced the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and made it possible for Catholics in the United States of America to view the Catholic Church and their solemn duties to her through the eyes of the Americanist concepts of “democracy,” “equality,” “freedom” and “individualism.”

Pope Leo XIII explained what the future holds for men who do believe that civil society can know social order over the course of the long term when the state gives “equal rights” to all religions, an absurdity that leads to the triumph of practical atheism, of which Barack Hussein Obama is a prime example:

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. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

To think that one is going to fight the assaults of Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Company against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law with the very poison, religious liberty, that made their rise to public prominence possible is insanity.

2. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has insisted on protecting the “liberty” of its institutions while failing to protect the rights of individual Catholic employers.

3. The conciliar hierarchy of the United States of America has thus far refused to assert that the Obama-Biden-Sebelius “contraception mandate” is evil in se and is offensive to Christ the King and to the good ordering of the domestic cell of the Church and the fundamental building block of society, the family.

4. Most of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America, noting very few exceptions here and there, support ObamaCare as a matter of principle.  Most of the members of the conciliar “hierarchy” and their chancery factotums subscribe to some variation of the “leftist” brand of naturalism.  These unfortunate men, who offend God every day as they stage the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that is sacramentally barren and that falsifies Catholic doctrine (the sacerdotal nature of  the priesthood, the expiatory nature of the Holy Mass, the very Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) and who propagate one condemned proposition after another, really believe that there is something short of Catholicism that can serve as the foundation of personal and social order. They are apostates.

5. Many of the conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America have suborned the use of contraceptives by those who bother to darken the doors of their formerly Catholic church buildings. Some have gone so far as to invite “theologians” who openly dissent from the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to speak in parishes and/or have done nothing to prevent such speakers from speaking at universities or colleges.

6. Moreover, apart from their complete support for each of conciliarism’s multiple defections from the Holy Faith (the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, condemned interpretation of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, episcopal collegiality, separation of Church and States) while embracing in a full-throated manner many aspects of a culture that glorifies evil, particularly by means of indecent attire and amusements that are in and of themselves incentives to sin, they have enabled and suborned Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn.

7. The American “bishops” support the vivisection of living human beings in the name of “organ donation” for purposes of “giving the gift of life.”

8. The American “bishops” undermine the innocence and purity of programs by providing programs of explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

9. Many of the American “bishops” have promoted tolerated the promotion of –a “gay friendly” agenda in their schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, parish, religious education programs, conferences and “workshops” for purposes of “theological updating.”

10. Many of the American “bishops” and their chancery factotums still continue to recruit, protect and promote effeminate men to the conciliar presbyterate and then browbeat, intimidate and harass the victims of those among these effeminate ranks who have abused children or others for their own immoral purposes. These criminals, some of whom are still hiding information that protects men who are threats to souls and whose lack of veracity on key points could be attested to if conciliar officials had the desire to protect souls rather than the “club,” have had to be dragged yelling and screaming into court so that civil justice could be done in behalf of the victims. Is it not more than a little ironic that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has more a sense of justice in behalf of the brutality known as “college football” than the conciliar officials (and some traditionally-minded Catholics who have been just as determined to protect friends despite the clear evidence of the “grooming” of victims, who are then blamed in a vicious campaign of character assassination, a tactic taken straight from the “playbook” of the American “bishops” and their attorneys to victimize the victims and thus to indemnify threats to souls without the slightest regard for the souls who might in jeopardy in the future as it is all about “winning” and protecting “one’s own,” you understand) have had to defend the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and who have looked to them, the conciliar officials, for pastoral care? (Yes, that was one sentence.)

Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is unconcerned about the fact that immoral practices have become institutionalized as something “good” accepted by large segments of society, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. He believes that he must mitigate doctrinal and moral principles in the name of “mercy.” This might be the path of the “new evangelization” that is simply part of a “new ecclesiology” and its “new orientation” to the world and to truth itself, both supernatural and natural. It is not the path of Christ the King and His Catholic Church.

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII issued prophetic warnings to the American bishops in the 1890s to remind them that the American constitutional regime, although it had provided the framework of a what appeared to be the framework of a well-ordered republic up to that point (an order that had been maintained because of the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world by means of the universal offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), was not in all of its specifics the model for the rest of the world and that if left unchecked its influence would lead to a church in American different from that which was in the rest of the world:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

But if this [the term Americanism] is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

Yes, as I noted in volume one of Conversion in Reverse, which should be in a print-on-demand format in a few weeks, if not sooner, and in so many articles on this site, the worldwide church of apostasy that is the counterfeit church of conciliarism is but a manifestation of the Americanist spirit concerning Church-State relations, which is why even Catholics on the Supreme Court of the United States of America who might be inclined to advert to transcendent truths must instead be prisoners of the written words of a document that nowhere acknowledges the fact that the common civil good must be pursued in light of man’s Last End as those in public life respect, observe and apply the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the concrete deci

The spirit of concilairism is the spirit of Modernity, which is the spirit of the diabolical admixture of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. No nation can be truly “one” unless that is a true brotherhood among its citizens effected by the bonds of the Holy Faith, bonds that unite them to other Catholics worldwide in fealty to a true and legitimate Roman Pontiff, bonds that make them defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. We are merely seeing the universal manifestation of Americanism as predicted in glowing terms by Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s biographer, Abbot Klein. Behold the wretched results as the conciliar “popes” help to reinforce the very falsehoods have dethroned Christ the King enshrined men as sovereign “kings” over their own affairs, both personally and socially.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

The spirit of concilairism is the spirit of Modernity, which is the spirit of the diabolical admixture of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. No nation can be truly “one” unless that is a true brotherhood among its citizens effected by the bonds of the Holy Faith, bonds that unite them to other Catholics worldwide in fealty to a true and legitimate Roman Pontiff, bonds that make them defenders of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. We are merely seeing the universal manifestation of Americanism as predicted in glowing terms by Father Isaac Thomas Hecker’s biographer, Abbot Klein. Behold the wretched results as the conciliar “popes” help to reinforce the very falsehoods have dethroned Christ the King enshrined men as sovereign “kings” over their own affairs, both personally and socially.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation of social order. You have heard this before? You will keep hearing until the day I die or the day that I am unable to continue work on this site as a result of physical and/or mental infirmity, whichever shall first occur (and I realize that some of you believe that the latter condition obtains at the present time). Catholicism is the only and only foundation of personal and social order. Period.

You continue to doubt this?

Well, consider once again these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.

We must enfold ourselves into the love of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we make reparation for our own many sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of the Church Militant on earth and of the world-at-large, as we seek to restore all things in Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen.

The Rosary, the Rosary, the Rosary. Use it well. The enemies of Christ the King within in our souls and in the world-at-large will be defeated by Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

Our Lady of  the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.

July 6, 2014, Article

July 6, 2014, Fourth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of the Octave Day of Saints Peter and Paul:

Although not exactly by popular demand, a brief new article has been posted.

Jorge Just Won’t Go Away is a relatively brief commentary that focuses on two of the false “pontiff’s” answers in Interview Number Nine that was published by Il Messagero in Italy. Also given a mention are the comments of Lorenzo “Cardinal” Baldisseri, the secretary-general of the conciliar “novelty” known as the “Synod of Bishops,” concerning an Italian presbyter who had called cohabitation by its proper name: sin.

The much-anticipated commentary (I am poking fun at myself, please) on the decisions last week of the Supreme Court of the United States of America will be published on Tuesday, presuming this site says up that long! Although I am in the midst of other work now that will occupy me for most of this month and next, there will be commentaries such as the current one on occasion.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Jorge Just Won’t Go Away

What a tormentor is this Argentine Apostate named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is just seven days away from completing his sixteenth month of his masquerade as the world’s beloved “Pope Francis.” Jorge seems to delight in tormenting believing Catholics with nonstop and seemingly marathon interviews and “homilies,” which wind up surprising us during those periods when he is supposed to be “resting” and has ceased giving his daily “homilies” at the Casa Santa Marta during his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy.

As time is at a premium after a day of running errands for the family, I am going to make this commentary very short. This, I am sure, will please most of the twelve of you who view these articles regularly, presuming that our hacker friend does not prevent you from doing so.

Jorge gave a “homily” yesterday, Saturday, July 5, 2014, the Feast of Saint Anthony Mary Zaccaria within the Octave of Saints Peter and Paul, wherein he repeated the old line from Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick (three months, thirteen days until this wretched Modernist is “beatified) concerning the service of “man” as being the first priority of what is alleged to be the Catholic Church. Here is but a very brief excerpt:

“It is necessary to place the dignity of the human person at the centre of every prospect and every action. Other interests, even if legitimate, are secondary,” he said to applause. “At the centre is the dignity of the human person. Why? Because the human person is in the image of God, he was created in the image of God and we are all in the image of God!” (Serve and live in the freedom of God.)

The human person is at the “centre of every prospect and every action. Other interests, even if legitimate, are secondary.”

No, Jorge, God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church is the center of all. Every one of our actions must be pleasing to God. It is worthless to serve the “dignity of the human person” while suborning those things that are repugnant to the greater honor and glory of God and the sanctification and salvation of the souls redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of Jesus.

Yet it is that the “human dignity” mantra has been repeated endlessly by the conciliar “popes.”

The soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” said the following at the United Masonic Nations Organization on October 4, 1965, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi:

Our message is meant to be, first of all, a moral and solemn ratification of this lofty institution. This message comes from Our historical experience. It is as an “expert in humanity” that We bring to this Organization the suffrage of Our recent Predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and Our own, convinced as We are that this Organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace.

In saying this, We feel We are speaking with the voice of the dead as well as of the living: of the dead who have fallen in the terrible wars of the past, dreaming of concord and world peace; of the living who have survived those wars, bearing in their hearts a condemnation of those who seek to renew them; and of those rightful expectation of a better humanity. And We also make Our own, the voice of the poor, the disinherited, the suffering; of those who long for justice for the dignity of life, for freedom, for well being and for progress. The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace. We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute to honour and of hope. That is why this moment is a great one for you also. We know that you are fully aware of this. Now for the continuation of Our message. It looks entirely towards the future. The edifice which you have constructed must never collapse; it must be continually perfected and adapted to the needs which the history of the world will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind; from now on retreat is impossible; you must go forward. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI’s Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965.)

No room for Social Reign of Christ the King in such an apostate celebration of the “ability” of a Judeo-Masonic organization that sucks billions of dollars into its behemoth bureaucracy to advance an agenda of unbridled moral and social evils all throughout the world. No room for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity or for the sanctification and salvation of souls.

As is well known, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was forever discoursing about the “dignity of the human person.” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI spoke of this very frequently as well.

Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of The Sillon, whose false theology and philosophy provided important building blocks for the edifice of the One World Ecumenical Church of conciliarism, put the lie to this very simply and directly:

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can.” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Papa Giuseppe Melchior Sarto was a Catholic.

Antipapa Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate.

Pope Saint Pius X worked for the honor and glory of God and the salvation of souls.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio works for “mankind. Excuse, “humankind.”

Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants us to believe the the true role of a pope is to be Bishop of Rome and to then to act “synodally” (collegially) on a universal basis:

–Q: Why, since the beginning, have you wished to stress so much the role of the Bishop of Rome?

–Pope Francis: Francis’ first service is this: to be the Bishop of Rome. He has all the Pope’s titles, universal Shepherd, Vicar of Christ, etc., in fact, because he is Bishop of Rome. It’s the first choice,  the consequence of Peter’s primacy. If tomorrow the Pope wished to be the Bishop of Tivoli, clearly they would throw me out. . . .

Q: Where is Bergoglio’s Church heading?

–Pope Francis: Thank God I have no Church; I follow Christ. I didn’t found anything. From the point of view of style, I haven’t changed from the way I was at Buenos Aires. Yes, perhaps some little thing, because one must, but to change at my age would be ridiculous. In regard to the plan, instead, I follow what the Cardinals have requested during the General Congregations before the Conclave. I go in that direction. The Council of Eight Cardinals, an external body, was born from that. It was requested to help reform the Curia. Something, moreover, that isn’t easy because a step is taken, but then it emerges that this or that must be done, and if before there was one dicastery, it then becomes four. My decisions are the fruit of the pre Conclave meetings. I haven’t done anything on my own.

–Q: A democratic approach?

–Pope Francis: They were decisions of the Cardinals. I don’t know it it’s a democratic approach. I would say it is more Synodal, even if the word is not appropriate for cardinals. (Jorge Babbles On Yet Againw With ‘Il Messagero.”)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants to make everyone believe that he has no agenda of his own.

Guess what?

He has an agenda of his own, and it is one of complete and total revolution against anything and everything that is recognizably Catholic. Jorge has bulldozed, belittled and persecuted many of those “restortationists” who have sought to oppose his schemes that have been denounced by our true popes, whether acting on their own or as they have promulgated decrees of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils, each of which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

Although Jorge likes to emphasize his role as a putative Bishop of Rome, this is yet another mask of his disdain for Papal Primacy. While Senor Bergoglio will mouth lip service platitudes about the primacy of the Chair of Peter, his visible signs of disgust with almost the entirety of papal protocol, including living in the Apostolic Palace as he holds forth in his quarters in the Casa Santa Marta, indicates that he speaks with a forked tongue.

Contrary to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s words and actions have conveyed to the word, a true pope is indeed the Visible Head of the true Church on earth. Pope Pius IX issued Pastor Aeternus at the [First] Vatican Council to define Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility and the true governing powers of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Intent on finding a “new way” for what is called the “Petrine Ministry” can be exercised to the satisfaction of the heretical and schismatic Orthodox and the Protestant sects, the conciliar “pontiffs,” starting most notably with “Saint John Paul II” in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995 (look for a big celebration of that heretical document’s twentieth anniversary next year), have done everything imaginable to extol their “collegial” or “synodal” relationship with the world’s conciliar “bishops.”

Even Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is reported to have said to Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, in their infamous meeting at Castel Gandolfo on August 29, 2005, the Feast of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, that “My authority stops at that door” as the old German Modernist pointed to the door leading out of the room where the meeting was taking place. In other words, the “bishops” are the true “governors.” “Rome” is merely a “clearinghouse” to provide a bit of direction now and again.

Most of the conciliar “bishops,” of course, are every bit as revolutionary as have been the conciliar “popes,” including the visceral revolutionary named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The Italian “cardinal” who serves as the secretary-general of the conciliar institution called the “Synod of Bishops,” Lorenzo “Cardinal” Badisseri, has denounced as “crazy” the words of a conciliar presbyter in Italy who had dared to state that men and women who cohabit together without the benefit of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are leading sinful lives.

Yes, one must be denounced as “crazy” for simply professing a basic fact of the Catholic moral theology.

Here is the story as provide by a “conservative” blogger, who appears to be “mystified” how this can be the case even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his pals Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and Reinhard “Cardinal” Marx and Oscar Andres Maradiaga “Cardinal” Rodriguez each has stated that a “new” “pastoral approach” along the lines use by the Orthodox in the cases of divorced and civilly “remarried” couples must be “considered” at the upcoming synod:

In exalted ecclesiastical circles in Italy, there seems to be a new orthodoxy emerging with regard to the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. So strict is it that a parish priest gets a guided missile from the heart of the curia for his dissent.

Many readers follow Sandro Magister’s English language blog, Chiesa, for its well-informed and incisive comment on Vatican affairs. Magister also writes an Italian language blog for L’Espresso, called Settimo Cielo which often has additional material of great interest.

A few days ago, in his article Cose da pazzi. Il cardinale Collins e il curato di campagna (“Crazy things. Collins and the country priest”) Magister told of the reaction to Fr Tarcisio Vicario, a parish priest of the diocese of Novara in Italy who recently spoke about the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, saying:

“For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”

The Bishop of Novara made it clear that an appeal to logic or the proper understanding of rehtorical analogy, would fall on deaf ears, characterising the priest’s expression as:

“an unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”

In fact Fr Vicario did not “equate” irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different – one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.

The wrath descending upon poor Fr Vicario did not end with a rebuke from his Ordinary. Cardinal Baldisseri, the Secretary General of the forthcoming Synod, said that the words of Fr Vicario were “crazy, a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” (“una pazzia, un’opinione strettamente personale di un parroco che non rappresenta nessuno, neanche se stesso.“)

Leaving aside the tortuous hyperbole (as Sir Bernard Wooley might interject, his opinion cannot be personal yet not represent himself) it must be asked why such a mainstream and orthodox opinion, expressed with clarity, should be the object of such vehement condemnation. (Crazy Man, Just Crazy.)

No, there is no reason to be mystified about how “Cardinal” Lorenzo Baldisseri can call a conciliar presbyter, who had been reprimanded by his own conciliar “ordinary,” “crazy” for stating Catholic moral truth plainly.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has provided us with the answer:

Q: Wojtyla learned to say volemose bene, damose da fa’ [Roman dialect phrases meaningLet’s love another, let’s get to work!”]. Have you learned any sayings of you own?

–Pope Francis: For now little. Campa e fa’ campa [live and let live]. [Naturally, he laughs]. (Jorge Babbles On Yet Againw With ‘Il Messagero.”)

Sure, just “live and let live.”

The martyr who gave up his life for Papal Primacy and for the inviolability of a ratified, consummated marriage, Saint Thomas More, on July 6, 1535 (his feast day, which is celebrated along with that of the Bishop of Rochester, Saint John Fisher, who was martyred on June 22, 1534, is July 9 in England and Wales), refused to let King Henry VIII’s heretical and schismatic actions and his personal immorality to just “live and let live”:

For as much as, my Lords, this Indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament, directly repugnant, to the Laws of God and his Holy Church, the Supreme Government of which, or of any part thereof, no Temporal Person may by any Law presume to take upon him, being what right belongs to the See of Rome, which by special Prerogative was granted by the Mouth of our Savior Christ himself to St. Peter, and the Bishops of Rome his Successors only, whilst he lived, and was personally present here on Earth: it is therefore, amongst Catholic Christians, insufficient in Law, to charge any Christian to obey it. And in order to the proof of his Assertion, he declared among other things, that whereas this Kingdom alone being but one Member, and a small part of the Church, was not to make a particular Law disagreeing with the general Law of Christ’s universal Catholic Church, no more than the City of London, being but one Member in respect to the whole Kingdom, might enact a Law against an Act of Parliament, to be binding to the whole Realm: so he shewed farther, That Law was, even contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom yet unrepealed, as might evidently be seen by Magna Charta, wherein are these Words; Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, & habet omnia jura integra, & libertates suas illcesas: And it is contrary also to that sacred Oath which the King’s Majesty himself, and every other Christian Prince, always take with great Solemnity, at their Coronations. So great was Sir Thomas’s Zeal, that he further alleged, that it was worse in the Kingdom of England to resist Obedience to the See of Rome, than for any Child to do to his natural Parent: for, as St. Paul said to the Corinthians, I have regenerated you, my Children, in Christ; so might that worthy Pope of Rome, St. Gregory the Great, say of us Englishmen, Ye are my Children, because I have given you everlasting Salvation: for by St. Augustine and his followers, his immediate Messengers, England first received the Christian faith, which is a far higher and better Inheritance than any carnal Father can leave to his Children; for a. Son is only by generation, we are by Regeneration made the spiritual Children of Christ and the Pope. (The Trial and Execution of Sir Thomas More.)

Live and let live?

The more Jorge babbles, my good and vanishing readers, the more he demonstrates how he, a self-professed child of the “Second” Vatican Council as proclaimed and implemented initially by Giovanni Montini Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick. Bergoglio professes a false religion that has false doctrines on Faith and Morals and false liturgical rites. Those who believe that this apostate is a Catholic in good standing and is thus a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are badly mistaken.

All the more reason to beg Our Lady to send us the graces won for us by the shedding of her Divine Son’s Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the woo of the Holy Cross so that we can save our souls as we seek to make reparation for our own many sins that have worsened both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

The final triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and to this end we need to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

July 5, 2014, Evening Hacker Update

July 5, 2014, Feast of Saint Anthony Mary Zaccaria within the Octave of Saints and Paul:

Word reached me this afternoon from the owner of the company that hosts this website that it was available for public viewing once again. I do not know how long this will last as someone is really determined to attack this site. Although it would be most imprudent to identify the likely culprit, suffice it to say that there are some who are opposed to sedevacantism who believe that all evidence in its support should be eradicated from public viewing.

This is all within the Providence of God. As noted two days ago now, a time frame that seems like an eternity to me as I have been unable to access this site myself in order to complete the article on the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America that were rendered five days ago now, everything that happens to us occurs within the Providence of God. Each situation unfolds as God has known from all eternity that it would.

It is always important to keep uppermost in our minds, which must be conformed to the mind of the Divine Redeemer, that nothing anyone does to us, says about us, thinks about us or causes us to suffer is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross as those Swords of Sorrow were plunged through and through Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. He forgave us and made excuses for us as He hung on the gibbet of the Holy Cross. It is thus that each of us must forgive others even when we have suffered from an injustice, whether real or perceived. The Pater Noster teaches us that we must forgive others as we are forgiven by God Himself.

Writing in In The Likeness of Christ, Father Edward Leen, S.J., wrote some words that should sober us up every time we think “we have it bad” or feel any kind of resentment, hatred or bitterness over that which has happened to us:

Under the reign of Satan men were hard and unfeeling, without pity or tenderness. The one thing they looked up to was the physical power to dominate, and the one thing they feared was the helplessness of poverty. Their life was divided between pleasure and cruelty. Pride and haughtiness instead of being regarded as defects were regarded as manly virtues. Weakness was almost synonymous with vice, and all this tended to fashion hearts imperverious to the grace of God and to every human feeling. Conversion of heart was for them extremely difficult. What God required on the part of man as a necessary condition of their friendship with Him was to them abhorrent, for the practice of the Christian virtues of submission, humility, and patience would be regarded by them as degrading. They had to learn that what was not degrading to God–since nothing could degrade Him in reality–could not be degrading to them. Turning to God postulated on their part not only a change of heart, but also a change of mentality. Their human values were almost all wrong. In the terse words of St. Ignatius describing the pagan world” “They smite, they slay and they go down to Hell“.

In other words, it is the law of things as they actually are that we must continually suffer from others; it is the condition of our being that we shall be the victims of others’ abuse of their free wills; it belongs to our position that our desires and inclinations should be continually thwarted and that we should be at the mercy of circumstances. And it is our duty to bear that without resentment and without rebellion. To rebel is to assert practically that such things are not our due, that they do not belong to our position. It is to refuse to recognize that we are fallen members of a fallen race. The moment we feel resentment at anything painful that happens to us through the activity of men or things, at that moment we are resentful against God’s Providence.

We are in this really protesting against His eternal determination to create free beings; for these sufferings which we endure are a consequence of the carrying into effect of that free determination. If we expect or look for a mode of existence in which we shall not endure harshness, unkindness, misunderstanding, and injustice, we are actually rebelling against God’s Providence, we are claiming a position that does not belong to us as creatures. This is to sin against humility. It is pride. (Father Edward Leen, In The Likeness of Christ, Sheed and Ward, 1936, pp, 17-18; 182-183.)

Thus it is, of course, that I express my forgiveness to the culprit responsible for hacking this site. Everything we suffer is an occasion for us to make reparation for our own sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering every suffering has been ordained for us by the loving hand of God from all eternity.

Who are we to complain or to utter a word of protest?

While I do hope that the hacking will stop as measures have been taken to make this less likely, I hold nothing against the individual or individuals responsible for the hacking.

Now, I hope to have a new article tomorrow, assuming that I can complete it before the hacker gets back to work!

Thank you for your patience. I have had to be patient through all of this as well.