Minds Made Up Wrong Must Be Remade

One of the lessons that a child must learn as he grows older is to make his own bed immediately upon arising after saying his Morning Prayers. A bed, however, that is made up incorrectly must be remade. Many children balk when told to remade a bed.

Well, the same thing is true with a mind as one grows older. A mind that is made up wrong on a matter must be remade in accord with what is true. Many adults balk when told they their minds have been made up wrong, finding all manner of rationalizations not to do so, including to admit the truth when it is put directly, squarely in front of their very eyes.

This is what so many in the “resist while recognize” are doing at this time as they ignore Pope Leo XIII’s Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, and Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888, just as blithely as they ignored all of the multiple offenses that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave to the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013. Most of those in the insanity of the Motu world pretended as though ignoring such things as “Pope Benedict XVI’s” personally esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands and his entering into and calling “sacred” various temples of false worship mattered in the slightest even though they had eviscerated Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for doing the exact same things between October 16, 1978, and April 1/2, 2005 (there is some evidence that Wojtyla/John Paul II died on April 1, 2005, but did not announce his death until the next evening in order to make it appear that he had “appointed” seventeen men to be conciliar “bishops” on Friday, April 1, 2005).

No, the evidence provided by the Novus Ordo Watch Wire about the complete incompatibility of the “resist while recognize” position with Catholic teaching cannot be ignored with impunity. Pope Leo XIII’s words are very clear.

Consider a few excerpts from Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.

And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua,  June 17, 1885.)

The writing that I did during my “conservative” and “indult” years in the 1980s and 1990s stands condemned by the words of Pope Leo XIII. I was wrong to have written an open letter, printed on the editorial page of The Wanderer ten years ago this month, rebuking Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for the permission he gave for the use of girl altar boys. I was wrong to have used the printed pages of Christ or Chaos to point out his religious indifferentism when he was in Jerusalem in March of 2000. Similarly, I was wrong to have written Time for Plain Talk in March of 2002 to explain the soon-to-be “canonized” “Polish Pope’s” enabling of perverted “bishops” and their clergymen.

The work that I did in The Remnant from December of 2002 to May of 2006 and the work that I did in Catholic Family News from early-2004 to May of 2006 that was critical of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II an Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was wrong. So was much of the work on this site prior to coming to accept the fact that the conciliar church is the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church and that its alleged popes and bishops had long ago defected from the Faith and were thus disqualified from holding any ecclesiastical office in the Catholic Church legitimately.

In other words, I had a mind that had to be changed. As noted a few days ago, there are worse things than admitting that one has been wrong on a matter of substance. I simply did not accept the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, summarized by Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum, concerning the fact that no one has the authority from God to criticize a true Sovereign Pontiff publicly. Only those who want to dismiss the binding authority of Pope Leo XIII’s apostolic letters on this subject, which were only reiterations of the truth, because they have appeared on a sedevacantist website can believe otherwise.

There is particular irony in the fact that one “resister” writer rebuked the late Michael Davies for whitewashing the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s many defections from the Faith, accusing Mr. Davies of not answering specific questions that had been opposed to him or seeking to deflect them with sophistries. Yet it is that the one who correctly rebuked and refuted Mr. Davies opposes sedevacantism while refusing even to publicly acknowledge the existence of the evidence that exists on the Novus Ordo Watch site, including Bishop Donald Sanborn’s response to Bishop Richard Williamson on Sedevacantism, and, of course, the latest find involving Pope Leo XIII’s two apostolic letter. Remarkable work if one can get it. Remarkable.

Sadly, the ease with which many of  those in the resist while recognize movement can dismiss the truth when presented to them is very similar to the unwillingness of secuarlists who support all manner of social evils to do the same.

Yesterday’s commentary, We Must Accept This Chalice of Suffering Without Compromise, explained the efforts on the part of homofascists to squelch all discussion of the inherent immorality of perverted acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Those efforts have included, at least in some instances, making sure that various passages from Sacred Scripture, including the following passage from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, are never read aloud in any church or in any kindof public forum:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

Was Saint Paul the Apostle a  “homophobic hater”? Did he belong to a “hate group” while criticizing and condemned the depraved practices extant in Rome in the middle of the First Century, A.D.?

The conciliar revolutionaries who planned the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service certainly must have thought so as they, who who boasted of including almost the entirety of Holy Writ in the triennial cycle of Sunday readings and biennial cycle of weekday readings, saw fit to exclude Saint Paul’s condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior contained in Chapter One of his Epistle to the Romans cited just above.

In like manner, the lords of Modernity believe that anyone and everyone who opposes the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, whether by chemical or surgical means, “hates” women and must be considered the equivalent of a “domestic terrorist.”

Behold the face of one who is considered to be such a “terrorist,” sixteen year-old Thirin Short, whose experience on the campus of University of California at Santa Barbara on March 4, 2014, was recounted on this site in Tyrants Who Speak About “Freedom” thirteen days ago now:

feminism

Yes, Thirin Short is considered to a “terrorist” by students circulating a petition on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. A “terrorist.” Such is the violence against language and truth that must prevail absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church:

Dueling petitions involving a pro-life teen and a professor charged with attacking her are circulating at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the student body is backing the teacher.

Students at the University of California at Santa Barbara are circulating the petitions, one in support of feminism Prof. Mireille Miller-Young, and another backing Thrin Short, the 16-year-old pro-lifer whose March 4 demonstration was allegedly broken up by Miller-Young. The one backing the professor, who has been charged with battery and vandalism, has more than 2,000 signatures, while the one in support of Short has 150, according to The College Fix.

The last thing we need are these people invading our community,” UCSB sophomore Katherine Wehler, a theater and feminist studies major, told the site.

She said pro-lifers with graphic images of aborted fetuses such as Short and her sister carried are like “domestic terrorists.”

However, another petition making its way around the student body calls for Miller-Young’s termination.

“This is about someone who violated the law in several ways, disregarded the idea of freedom of speech, and tarnished the image of the UCSB,” it reads, before emphasizing that it is not a petition in support of the pro-life movement, but one advocating freedom of speech.

“They talk about prioritizing the safety of our campus involving activists, yet it’s our professor that attacks somebody,” UCSB student Katie Devlin told The College Fix. “I think it’s just the contrast that she is a feminist professor and stands for protecting women, yet she attacks a young girl.”

Thrin told FoxNews.com that she and her older sister Joan, 21, were holding signs and demonstrating in a free speech zone on the UCSB campus with other pro-life activists when the feminist studies professor — who teaches one course on campus titled “Black Women in Pornography” — approached the group.

“Before she grabbed the sign, she was mocking me and talking over me in front of the students, saying that she was twice as old as me and had three degrees, so they should listen to her and not me,” Thrin Short wrote in an email to FoxNews.com earlier this month. “Then she started the chant with the students about ‘tear down the sign.’ When that died out, she grabbed the sign.”

The professor snatched the sign and then allegedly walked through two campus buildings as Short, her sister and two UCSB students followed her. Short said Miller-Young pushed her at least three times as she tried to stop the elevator door from closing and get back her sign.

Miller-Young was charged last month by the Santa Barbara County district attorney’s office with misdemeanor counts of theft, battery and vandalism. She pleaded not guilty last week. (Pro-life teen called ‘domestic terrorist’ in petition supporting feminism professor.)

Anyone who wonders why someone such as this writer, among so many others, are unemployable as college professors despite excellent letters of professional reference ought to realize that the environment at the University of California at Santa Barbara is not anomalous of what exists on most college campuses today. As I have recounted several times on this site in the past, it was in late-June of 1992 that I had learned that feminists at Morningside College in Sioux City, College, demanded that the institution’s then-president, the late Miles Tomerassen cancel my already signed contract for the upcoming 1992-1993 because they had discovered that I had run for lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. That was enough to make me a non-person in their eyes, effectively being “aborted” for the year that I taught there before returning to New York.

Pro-life Americans are not “terrorists.”

Believing Catholics are not “terrorists.”

Do you want to see the face of a reahttp://meetingthemets.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=875&action=edit&message=10l terrorist?

Take a look at the face of the monstrous convicted serial murderer named Kermit Gosnell (see Barack Hussein Obama, Meet Kermit Gosnell, Legal Baby-Killing Can Never Be Safe or Rare, Blood Stained From The Very Beginning, In League With Racial Engineers and Having Developed An Immunity To Truth):

Modal Trigger

Those who support the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means refuse to have their made-up minds changed by the simple fact that each and every deliberate, intentional attack on an innocent human being is proscribed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Willful murder is one of the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

Most of those who support baby-killing under cover of the civil law boast of their being “sensitive” to “diversity” and to “women’s rights.” Yet it is that they do not want anyone to see the actual effects of child-killing or to realize that butchers like Kermit Gosnell are to be found in each baby-killing center in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world.

Most pro-aborts believe that Gosnell was guilty of maintaining an “unsafe” and “unsanitary” “women’s care facility.” The truth of the matter is that every abortion, whether chemical or surgical, is deadly for the child and unsafe for the mother, both physically and spiritually.

Pro-aborts not only do not want to change their own minds that have been made up wrong. They want do not have anyone to attempt to change the minds of others, especially by use of motion pictures to show how a butcher such as Kermit Gosnell goes about his daily trade of killing the innocent preborn and causing the deaths of their mothers in some instances. This is what an effort to fund a movie about Gosnell’s house of horrors has been so very difficulty, something attested to by a man producing such a film, Phelim McAleer:

I was really, really happy when Kickstarter came on the scene. The crowd-funding Web site offered the opportunity for struggling artists and filmmakers to bypass corporate, union or not-for-profit funders and their agendas and interests.

Kickstarter was set up to allow us to put up a pitch — go directly to the public; if people liked it, they could fund it with small donations.

And it worked like a dream. For my last film, the pro-fracking documentary “FrackNation,” 3,305 people gave $212,000 to make it happen.

But now it seems that Kickstarter is turning into a bad dream for those who want to wander from the orthodox.

Now, Kickstarter has always been dominated by projects with liberal, environmental and even ultra-left-wing leanings. That’s no surprise — the arts are dominated by people with such views.

But Kickstarter promised to be different. Its founder and CEO, Yancey Strickler, was quite clear on this, for example telling viewers of CBS’ “This Morning” that the site is a center for “very diverse ideas.”

So when I had the idea of making a film about the life and crimes of Kermit Gosnell, the now-notorious Philadelphia abortion doctor, my first idea was to go to Kickstarter — since there was no point going to Hollywood or any establishment media outlet.

Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortionist who for decades took babies who’d already been born and stabbed them in the neck and cut their spinal cords. He probably killed thousands of infants during his 40-year killing spree.

In the words of ABC correspondent Terry Moran, Kermit Gosnell was “America’s most successful serial killer.”

I’ve only been in America a few years, but one thing I’ve learned is that Americans are fascinated by killers and serial killers. You see it every night on prime-time TV — “Law & Order,” “Criminal Minds,” “Dexter,” “The Following,” “CSI” and “The Mentalist.” And that’s not including the TV movies — three on Ted Bundy, four apiece for John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, three on Gary Ridgway and five on the Zodiac Killer.

So a film about Gosnell seemed like an obvious idea that Hollywood was neglecting.

Of course, the reason for this neglect was pretty clear: This serial killer was an abortionist who was completely unregulated. His trial threw up ugly realities about abortion that changed the minds of several jurors, a liberal journalist at the trial and even Gosnell’s defense attorney. Hollywood, with its Planned Parenthood fund-raisers, would want to stay away from this case.

But Kickstarter was supposed to change all that. So my colleagues and I put the project up and waited.

And waited and waited.

Then Kickstarter wrote to tell us that it “couldn’t” go ahead with our posting — first, we needed to remove our (utterly factual) descriptions of “thousands of babies murdered” in order to “comply with the spirit” of the site’s “community guidelines.”

This was shocking — and even more so when I looked at which projects don’t violate those standards.

One project about a serial killer had a photograph of a dead body. There were 43 about rape, 28 with the F-word in the title or project description and one with the “C” word.  There was even one called “Fist of Jesus” (don’t ask).

It seems the Kickstarter “community guidelines” don’t respect traditional sentiments — indeed, those are the ones that raise red flags.

Appalled by the double standard, we immediately pulled our project from Kickstarter and put it up on the rival site Indiegogo. The next day, after getting media inquiries about its censorship, the Kickstarter folks sent us a non-acceptance “acceptance” that noted pointedly that they reserved the right to take our project down at any time if our updates upset them. No, thanks.

It’s clear that “community guidelines” are just a cover to allow the Kickstarter insiders to censor and ban opinions they don’t like. So much for Strickler’s “very diverse ideas” claim: The first time they actually encountered a truly different viewpoint, their instinct was to censor and threaten.

Over at Indiegogo, our Gosnell movie project is on track to becoming the site’s most successful movie project ever. Kickstarter is missing out on that excitement, and on significant revenue. Worst of all, it’s missing out on bringing its community some challenging ideas. (Gosnell abortion film too much for Kickstarter’s ‘diverse’ censors.)

Yes, there is a common trait to be found amongst those who encounter a “truly different viewpoint, and that is to “censor and threaten” as  first, second and last resort. This is why college and university classrooms are, at least for the most part, preserves of those who have a vested interest in making sure that their moral relativism and legal positivism remain unmolested by any opposition, no matter how reasoned and how well documented, whatsoever.

What applies to the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means applies as well to the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” that was premised from its origins in 1968 as a means to begin the harvesting of vital human body members from living human beings. This manufactured money-making myth is accepted even by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, something that he made clear in Interview Number Five:

Q. Science evolves and redraws the ends of life. Does it make sense to prolong life in a vegetative state?

Bergoglio: I’m not a specialist on bioethical arguments, and I’m afraid of being mistaken in my words. The Church’s traditional doctrine states that no one is obliged to use extraordinary methods when someone is in his terminal phase. Pastorally, in these cases I have always advised palliative care. On more specific cases, should it be necessary, it’s appropriate to seek the advice of specialists. (March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera.)

As I noted at the time over a month ago now, “science” has not redrawn the “end of life.” Modern, money-making body-snatchers have done so. Numerous are the instances of people being declared “brain dead” who have awakened, sometimes just moments before they were to be vivisected alive for their vital body members in the name of “giving the gift of life.” (For a few examples, see Dispensing With The Pretense of “Brain Death”, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Stories That Speak For Themselves, ObamaDeathCare, Comparison of Living Body With Those Declared Brain Dead, No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath.)

Secondly, if Bergoglio has no business to say anything on “bioethical issues” if he is as uninformed as he claims.

The truth is, of course, that he accepts uncritically the misrepresentations made by the medical industry concerning “brain death” and the use of what he believes to be “extraordinary means” to keep human beings alive. It appears pretty clear that Bergoglio would have told the adulterous Michael Schiavo that he was morally justified to petition Judge George Greer to order the removal of the administration of food and water to his brain-damaged wife, Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo (see Five Years Later.)

Palliative care? This means that Bergoglio supports the “killing them softly” industry that is called hospice. For some important links to what goes on inside most hospices, please see To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion. The modern hospice industry has taken a Catholic concept, hospice, which was used to support the life of one suffering from an illness, to “ease” a person into death by the administration of various drugs, including morphine, that are designed to stop the heart within a certain period of time. Indeed, we know of very sad instances in which people have been admitted to a hospice as their relatives were told how many days the person had to live. Hospice officials know this because they know with precision how long it takes for the drugs of death to kill a human being in the name of “ending suffering with dignity.”

Those whose minds are “made up” in favor of “brain death” and who support “vital organ donation” must turn aside the vast mountain of evidence that has proven beyond any doubt that the medical industry seeks to declare patients as “brain dead” as a first, second and last resort in order to feed the demand for vital body members that they created in the first place by inventing the term “brain death.”

Numerous are the cases, some of which have presented on this site in the past,  wherein a person who is brain-damaged but unable to speak has heard physicians planning to declare him “brain dead” in order to harvest his “spare parts,” so to speak. Such is the case of a Swedish man, who was paralyzed by a stroke and thus unable to speak, that has come to light only recently:

A Swedish man who was paralysed by a stroke is filing an official complaint against a Gothenburg hospital after he listened in horror to his doctors telling his girlfriend and relatives he was going to die and discussing transplanting his liver and kidney.

“I heard them tell my girlfriend and my relatives that there was no hope,” Jimi Fritze, 43, told The Telegraph.

 

“I couldn’t do anything. I could only see and hear. I couldn’t move my body.”

 

The former supermarket manager from Örebro suffered a stroke nearly two years ago as he and his girlfriend were dining on smoked fish and fine wine at a restaurant on the Gothenburg archipelago.

 

As it was too windy for a helicopter to land on the island, it took one and a half hours to get him by boat to hospital.

By that time, he was completely paralysed.

 

“They looked at an x-ray of my brain, and when they had done that, they told my girlfriend that it wasn’t good and that I wouldn’t live,” Mr Fritze said.

 

“I could hear her crying the whole time, but I couldn’t do anything.”

 

He drifted into unconsciousness, waking later to hear the doctors discussing his case.

 

“I heard them talking about donation, they wanted to do some tests on my liver and my kidney, so they could give them to some people,” he said.

 

Still, he could do nothing to alert anyone to the fact that he was fully conscious.

 

“I was scared because I thought that I was going to die then, and a hard death,” he said. “I remember I thought, what will happen if they cremate me, will I see the fire and feel the fire?”.

 

When his family came in to say their final farewell, the doctors discussed organ donation with them, even though Mr Fritze had yet to be declared officially brain dead, something he believes violated official guidelines.

 

If a more experienced doctor had not returned from holiday three days after his accident, he is in little doubt that he would not be here today.

 

“I think I would have been stuck in bed until my body didn’t work any more, so they could take the parts from me,” Mr Fritze said.

 

As it happened, when the new doctor took another look at the x-ray, she immediately realised that there was a good chance that Mr Fritze might recover. Within days, he was able to communicate by nodding his head.

 

After nearly two years, and constant rehabilitation therapy, Mr Fritze can now speak and move, although he remains confined to a wheelchair and reliant on an assistant.

 

Last month, he filed an official complaint to Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska Hospital, where he was treated, hoping that it will help prevent the same thing happening to others.

 

Stefan Sarajärvi, a spokesman for the hospital, said that the hospital had begun an inquiry into Mr Fritze’s complaint, and would respond later this month.

 

“We take all the complaints we receive very seriously, and do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen in future,” he said. (Swedish stroke patient hears doctors discuss removing his body members.)

This is no anomaly. This happens all the time throughout the so-called “civilized world.”

Those who minds are “made up” wrong on the issue of the daily vivisection of living human beings ought to realize that Jimi Fritze’s experience is far, far from isolated.

As has been noted in other articles on this site, Miss Mary Therese Helmueller, R.N., wrote an article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review concerning her own personal experiences of dealing with physicians eager to declare living human beings as dead and/or to take measures to “expedite” their demise in the name of “mercy” and “compassion.”

Here is an excerpt from Miss Helmueller’s article:

I am a registered nurse in the St. Paul/ Minneapolis area with 15 years experience in emergency and critical care. My knowledge of euthanasia not only comes from my experience working in the critical care units throughout the Twin Cities, but also comes from a personal tragedy and loss in 1995. This is my true story. My hope is that you will educate others and protect yourselves and loved ones.

On Monday, February 20th, my grandmother was admitted to a local Catholic hospital with a fracture above the left knee. She was alert and orientated upon admission but became unresponsive after 48 hours and was transferred to hospice on the fourth day and died upon arrival.

I was in Mexico City conducting a pilgrimage and unable to be at her side so there were many questions upon my return. The doctors could not tell me the cause of her death so I began to search for the answers and was fortunate to obtain the hospital chart. It then became very clear that my grandmother had been targeted for euthanasia!

Carefully tracing the events it was evident that my grandmother became lethargic and unresponsive after each pain medication. She would awaken between times saying “I don’t want to die, I want to live to see Johnny ordained”; “I want to see Greta walk.” Johnny was her grandson studying in Rome to be a priest and Greta was her new great-grandchild. Even though over-sedation is one of the most common problems with the elderly she was immediately diagnosed as having a stroke. When she became comatose a completely hopeless picture of recovery was portrayed by the nurses and doctors who reported that she had a stroke, was having seizures, going in and out of a coma, and was in renal failure.

The truth however can be found in the hospital chart which indicates that everything was normal! The CAT scan was negative for stroke or obstruction, the EEG states “no seizure activity” and all blood work was normal indicating that she was not in renal failure! How were we to know that the coma was drug induced and that all the tests were normal? Why would they lie?

Looking over the chart it is clear that obtaining a “no code” status was the next essential step in executing her death. This is an order denying medical intervention in emergency situations. The “no code” was aggressively sought by the medical profession from the moment of her admission but was not granted by my family until it appeared that she was dying and there was no hope. Minutes after obtaining the “no code” a lethal dose of Dilantin (an anti-seizure medication) was administered intravenously over an 18-hour period. It put her into a deeper coma, slowing the respiratory rate and compromising the cardiovascular system leading to severe hemodynamic instability. The following day she was transferred to hospice and died upon arrival. The death certificate reads “Death by natural causes.”

My grandmother had no terminal diagnosis but the hospice admitting record indicates two doctors signed their name stating that she was terminally ill and would die within six months. How was this determined? The first doctor, who was the director of hospice, never came to evaluate her or even read the chart. More interesting is the fact that the second doctor was on vacation and returned three days after her death! Obviously these signatures were not obtained before or even upon her admission to hospice. How can this be professionally, morally or even legally acceptable? Can anyone therefore be admitted to hospice to die? It certainly seems possible especially if sedated or unresponsive. In fact, this hospice has recently been under investigation for accepting hundreds of patients who had no terminal illness.

It could happen to you

How can this happen? A serious problem lies in the definition and interpretation of “terminal illness” which permits the inclusion of chronic illnesses and disabilities. Terminal illness is defined as “an incurable or irreversible illness which produces death within six months.” The fact is that many chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure are incurable and irreversible and without medical treatment such as insulin and other medications these illnesses would also produce death within six months. Therefore, those with chronic illnesses or disabilities can be conveniently denied medical treatment and even food and water to make them terminal. Typically it is the elderly who arrive in the hospital that are at the greatest risk. But it could be ANYONE! Especially those whose life and suffering is viewed as useless and burdensome.

Difficult to believe? Well it was for our prolife lawyer until his mother-in-law was admitted to a hospital several months later for a stroke. She became “unresponsive” and “comatose” a few days after her admission. The neurologist wrote an order to transfer her to hospice refusing an I.V. and tube feeding stating “this is the most compassionate treatment.” Remembering my story, our lawyer requested the removal of all narcotics and demanded an I.V. and tube feeding. This infuriated the neurologist. He began to accuse the family of being uncompassionate and inhumane. To prove his point he began a neurological assessment on the patient. Just then she opened her eyes and pulling the physician’s neck tie, forced his face to hers and said very clearly “Give me some water!” It was obvious that she was awake, alert and orientated. He angrily cancelled the transfer to hospice and ordered a tube feeding and intravenous. Several weeks later she was discharged and was exercising on the treadmill! She escaped the death sentence. Unfortunately many others like my grandmother have not. A stroke does not make you terminal but not receiving food and water does! (Life Matters: Are You Being Targeted for Euthanasia?).

Leaving aside the article’s reliance on the “authority” of the soon-to-be-“canonized” Karol Wotyla/John Paul II, the cases documented therein should  give those who minds are made up wrong in support of “brain death” and “organ donation” some pause for reflection before taking the word of men and women who are committed to killing before birth and who engage in deceits of all kind before before and after birth:

Yes, minds made up wrong must be remade. This is matter not only of physical life death. No, it is also a profound matter of eternal life and death.

We must make sure our own minds are made up right, made up to follow Christ the King where He is to be found in the Catholic catacombs during this time of apostasy and betrayal as we make no concessions to the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar revolutionaries while refusing to worship at the altar of political correctness and the alleged “expertise” of professionals in the world-at-large.

Chastisements abound in the world today. Indeed, chastisements must abound in a world awash in sin and error, a world awash in the blood of the innocent, a world where all that is indecent, impure, untrue and opposed to the temporal and eternal good of men is considered as beyond question, a world where those who oppose the prevailing evils of the day are termed as “terrorists” and “haters.”

Worse chastisements are to come. Far worse.

We must be prepared for these far worse chastisements  by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and by seeking to be in a state of Sanctifying Grace at all times.

We need Our Lady’s help in these perilous times. She, the Mediatrix of All Graces, will help us to conform to the tender mercies of the Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if we only offer up to Him through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart all of the sufferings and calamities of the present moment.

What are we waiting for?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.