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became the baby-killing capital of the world after the New York State Legislature passed a bill on April 10, 1970, that repealed an 1830 prohibiting baby-killing and permitted the slaughter of the innocent preborn up through the twenty-fourth week of their development within their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.
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.
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.
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.
(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 … “ (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 Carey, Mario Matthew Cuomo, George Elmer Pataki, Elliot Spitzer, David 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’s, No One Speaks for Christ the King, Common Ground for Rudy and Benny, A Creature of Their Own Making, We Must Never Betray the Cause of Christ the King, Public 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 pi
— 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/
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.”  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.  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.”  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.  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:
 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?  And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat:  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.  And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.  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.
“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.