The Amorality Industrial Complex, part one

There are few dissatisfied members of the peanut gallery who are upset with my criticism of President-elect Donald John Trump’s nomination of Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., to be the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (which, by the way, should not even exist as most of what it does is a statist replacement for the stable two-parent family unit) because he is an unreconstructed supporter of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn.

Although I have tried to stipulate that Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., has done superb work in exposing the likes of Anthony Fauci and along with such published experts as Drs. Peter McCullough, Robert Malone and many others, has consistently opposed the depopulation bombs called the “Covid vaccines” that continue to maim and kill untold thousands upon thousands of people. Kennedy has also done great work in documenting the ways in which Big Agriculture uses additives to addict consumers to the consuming of salty and/or sweet foods, thereby contributing to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular, renal, and adrenal problems, thus creating what is rightly called the illness industrial complex.

Obviously, Big Pharma plays its own central, if not leading, role in sickening Americans by the development and manufacture of drugs, most of which are made under substandard conditions in Red China by underpaid workers, even though the scientists in the employ of various pharmaceutical companies know full well that much of what they produce not only fails to treat or alleviate diseases but actually causes people to be chronically ill, a phenomenon that is “solved” by producing more drugs to counteract the effects of the one prescribed in the first place. This is not to say that all pharmaceuticals are bad or that they do help people suffering from various infections or conditions. Of course not, but it is to say that most modern medicine is so over-reliant on Big Pharma that physicians and other health professionals do not know how to advance true bodily health by focusing on nutrition and exercise.

Thus, I hereby stipulated once again that Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., has done admirable work on these matters, but I also reiterate the fact that, if confirmed by the Senate of the United States of America, Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., will have overall responsibility for administering Title X “family planning services.” No one who supports the destruction of innocent human life in the womb should be in such a position and no government at any level should be in the business of “family planning” or so-called “reproductive health” services.” I do not like being the ant at the picnic, but truth is what it is. The defense of innocent human life is the paramount duty of those who serve in public office, whether elected or appointed. One must be concerned about the life of the innocent preborn as well as the health of human beings after birth. It is that simple.

Several people have commented to me, in effect, “Forget about it. Trump has said that abortion is a ‘small issue.’ We just have to live with it. We can’t let one issue get in the way of lower gasoline prices.”

First, the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life, no matter a genocide of the innocent that nearly six decades ago if go back to the laws passed in California, Colorado, Hawaii, and New Jersey in the late 1960s is not a “small issue.” We are not supposed to just “live” comfortably with such “slaughter.”

Second, a president’s performance cannot be reduced to mere economic measures such as the cost of gasoline or groceries. It is not to minimize the effects of Bidenflation and the crushing effect it continues to have on the budgets of Americans (I know, I do most of the grocery shopping for my family) nor to contend in the slightest that efforts to lower these costs is either unimportant or superfluous to the common good. It is a duty of a public office to foster the common temporal good, and that includes, of course, ending regulations and curbing government expenditures that contribute to, if not directly cause, inflationary tendencies.

Nevertheless, however, it is a Faustian bargain to minimize, if not totally ignore, the slaughter of the innocent preborn because of the genuine need to restore border security, deport the violent criminals who are in the United States of America illegally, bring manufacturing plants and jobs back to this country, eliminate wasteful government spending, regulations, and policies, and restore the country’s energy independence from foreign oil that had been achieved during the president-elect’s first term in the White House from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021.

The noted Soviet dissident, Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, put the matter this way when he gave his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: The split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the president’s performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life? (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center — A World Split Apart.)

Although Solzhenitsyn was, a Russian nationalist who belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church, very much opposed to Catholicism and termed the Catholic Middle Ages as a repression of man’s physical nature, he also opposed Modernity’s trampling upon man’s spiritual nature, and the questions he posed above are just as relevant today as they were nearly forty-six and one-half years ago.

Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., has taken some contrary positions about late-term baby butchery, but he remains fully supportive of a woman’s nonexistent “right to choose” to kill her child. There is no moral between directly killing any innocent life after conception. A baby comes into existence at conception and when, to use Kennedy’s own words, a baby is “full formed,” and it is shameful that leaders of the some of the newer “pro-life” organizations are contended that Kennedy’s change of position on late-term baby-killing is a cause for celebration:

"He certainly needs to change his position on abortion just in order to be consistent," said Shawn Carney, co-founder and CEO of 40 Days for Life. "Look, if RFK wants to take away our Fruity Pebbles and our Cool Ranch Doritos — both of which are great American institutions — because they're unhealthy, you can't do that and also deny health care to a baby girl who survives an abortion or support abortion at 40 weeks."

ennedy did not respond to requests for comment for this story. His nomination was met with outright opposition from some pro-lifers, including former Vice President Mike Pence.

"The Trump-Pence administration was unapologetically pro-life for our four years in office. There are hundreds of decisions made at HHS every day that either lead our nation toward a respect for life or away from it, and HHS under our administration always stood for life," Pence said in a lengthy statement on the website for his Advancing American Freedom nonprofit Friday.

He called Kennedy's nomination a "departure from the pro-life record of our administration," citing Kennedy's past pro-choice statements.

"If confirmed, RFK, Jr. would be the most pro-abortion Republican appointed secretary of HHS in modern history," Pence wrote.

The Department of Health and Human Services has a "major impact on abortion access," said healthcare attorney Harry Nelson, founder and managing partner at Nelson Hardiman, LLP.

The Food and Drug Administration, a sub-agency of HHS, has direct power over the availability of the abortion pill, Mifepristone. Known by the brand name Mifeprex, the pill is taken with misoprostol in a two-drug regimen that first deprives an unborn baby of hormones it needs to stay alive and then causes cramps and contractions to expel the dead fetus from its mother's womb.

The Biden administration has taken several actions to deregulate and increase access to Mifepristone by making it available via telemedicine nationally. Pro-life groups have fought in court to have that deregulation overturned.

"Their efforts earlier this year failed at the Supreme Court but having leadership atop FDA who are sympathetic would be a major impact and make this the biggest abortion issue in the country," said Nelson.

HHS also oversees grant funding via Title X and other programs for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Pro-life activists have urged the incoming Trump administration to defund these providers. Additionally, HHS is responsible for enforcing federal law that requires emergency care to stabilize patients, including women with health risks from pregnancy. The Biden administration has sought to use the law, called EMTALA, to require states to permit doctors to administer emergency abortions when the life of the mother is at risk.

"It will be interesting to see RFK’s impact and also how the Trump team around him change things," Nelson said. "I don’t think this is an issue RFK is going to be personally passionate about. The Pro-life hardliners are going to be gunning for Mifepristone, and that will be the primary battle to watch."

Some pro-lifers are giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt because they trust Trump's judgment. In his first term, Trump kept his campaign promise to nominate pro-life judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 after nearly a half-century of anti-abortion activism.

"There's no question that we need a pro-life HHS secretary, and of course, we have concerns about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I believe that no matter who is HHS secretary, baseline policies set by President Trump during his first term will be re-established," Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life President Marjorie Dannenfelser said.

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote, said Kennedy is not "easily labeled."

"He has publicly admitted his comments on unlimited abortion were mistaken. He has also said abortion is a tragedy, and that we must help as many women as possible that want to keep their children," Burch told Fox News Digital.

Kennedy teamed up with CatholicVote days before Election Day in a TV ad urging Catholics to support Trump that aired in swing state Pennsylvania. Burch told Semafor that the collaboration came months after Kennedy talked about his abortion views with his group and after they agreed "we need to be spending an equal amount of money on helping women choose to keep their child as we are on helping them to get abortions."

In comments to Fox News Digital, Burch praised Kennedy's advocacy against "Big Pharma, Big Food and Big Government," saying these are issues the pro-life movement can readily work on with the Trump administration if Kennedy is confirmed by the Senate.

"There is no denying that RFK is not your traditional pro-life advocate. For this reason, we will vigorously oppose any HHS effort to expand or promote abortion or abortion funding. But we are also confident that the reforms he is proposing will lead to a rethinking of the entire food, medical, and drug industry that enables our tragic abortion-minded culture," Burch said. (Pro-life groups cautious on RFK Jr. nomination after evolving abortion views.)

Let me deal with the last part of this news story first.

I am sure that Brian Burch is very well intentioned. However, many fully pro-abortion public officials call abortion a “tragedy.” This does not mean that they want to restore full legal protection to the innocent preborn nor does it mean that he sees the inherent evil of killing a baby at any stage of its growth as a baby is a human being when newly conceived just as much as he is when is “fully formed.”

Mr. Burch may not realize it, but his attempts to excuse the ignorance of Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., who is, after all, seventy years old and has, as a Kennedy, supported the slaughter of the preborn his entire adult life, are repeating the same tragic mistakes that continue to be made by the so-called National Right to Life Committee that to this day has never met even a fully pro-abortion Republican about whom they cannot find something to redeem him or her in comparison to a fully pro-abortion Democrat.

[The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee itself, being a completely secular organization, although it grew out of the work Monsignor James T. McHugh, that notorious protege of a notorious criminal against the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, who helped to devise and promote the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandment (see Origins of Classroom Instruction in Matters of Purity in Catholic Schools and The McHugh Chronicles), at the Family Life Bureau of the so-called United States Catholic Conference in the late-1960s, takes no stand against contraception and actually supports the nonexistent "right" of mothers to kill their innocent preborn children in the event that their own lives are said to be in jeopardy from carrying their babies to birth. What is thus considered to be the "leader" of the "pro-life" movement in the United States of America actually supports direct, intentional surgical abortion in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is in jeopardy as a matter of principle, not as a matter of what they would consider to be legislative expediency.

[Moreover, McHugh, who was a representative of Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Vatican at the Cairo conference on “population and development in 1994 (along that notorious indemnifier of sodomy, Diarmuid Martin, the conciliar “archbishop” of Dublin), said to Nightline host Ted Koppel, “Ted, contraception is not an issue for us here in Cairo, which was nothing new as he had made sure to exclude opposition to contraception in his work for the American bishops pro-life secretariat, which exclusion continues to be held by the National Right to Life Committee.]

There can be no compromise on the issue of opposing the slaughter of the innocent preborn. As important as cleaning up the food and pharmaceutical industries may be, the defense of innocent human life comes first, and those in public life need to speak out in its defense and to do what is possible in our current circumstances to curb existing polices that aid and abet the genocide of the innocent, and restoration of healthy foods and truly safe and effective pharmaceuticals just doesn’t cut it in this regard. Sorry. Methinks Mr. Burch does not realize that he may not have as much sway over Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., as he believes. There is a real danger inherent in the allure of believing that “having a seat at the table” necessitates finding “common ground” where none is to be found as there can no compromises over contraception, sterilization, surgical baby-killing, euthanisa, "brain death"/vital organ vivisection/transplanttation, "palliative care"/hospice, or in vitro fertilization.

Additionally, as I have been noting, starting in The Wanderer as early as January of 1995, since the issue of crushed-skull (“partial birth”) baby-killing was used by the National Right to Life Committee and its Congressional allies as a “wedge” issue against the fully pro-abortion administration of President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., the killing of a baby in its later stages development is still the same crime as killing him by means by tearing him apart by a vacuum suction machine twenty-nine times more powerful than the household vacuum cleaner, and no one has ever talked about making the manufacture of such machines illegal, have they? A baby is a baby, and babies cannot be killed no matter the excuses.

Now, with respect to a point made earlier in the Fox News report quoted above, anyone who thinks there is going to be some kind of “battle” over whether the United States Food and Drug Administration will reverse the marketing of the human pesticide, the abortion pill, or will comply with the Comstock Act’s probation of uses the United States postal service mail to mail obscenity or abortion-related material is living in an alternate universe and has not been paying attention to reality:

Former President Donald Trump again drew outrage from pro-life organizations this week after he said he wouldn't ban the distribution of abortion pills by mail if elected.

In an interview with CBS News on Monday, Trump answered whether he would enforce the Comstock Act if he won the 2024 presidential election. As explained by reporter Caitlin Huey-Burns, the 1873 law could "prohibit the … distribution of medication abortion by mail."

"No," Trump responded. "We will be discussing specifics of it but generally speaking, no."

When asked again if he would enforce the Comstock Act, Trump reiterated he would not.

The text of the Comstock Act states that "every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use" is "declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier." It subjects violators to fines and/or imprisonment.

When asked if chemical abortion pills should be "widely available," Trump replied, "It's going to be available," adding, "It is now."

Trump suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted the view of "keep it the way it is" regarding the availability of the abortion pill, referring to a decision earlier this year dismissing a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's approval of medication abortion pill mifepristone.

The justices concluded that the plaintiffs who brought the case lacked standing to do so. They did not rule on the merits of the case.

The former president and Republican nominee's response to the questions did not sit well with pro-life advocacy groups.

"We can't ignore the rule of law and pick and choose the laws that we want to enforce," Kristi Hamrick of Students for Life of America told Politico.

"Isn't everybody's criticism of the Department of Justice their selective enforcement? So this would be the selective un-enforcement of a law that says these are dangerous drugs and should not be mailed. It's very problematic for a party that respects the law," she said, referring to the Republican Party.

Lila Rose, founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action, told the outlet Trump's comments are a cause for concern.

"It seems like Trump doesn't care about the pro-life base anymore," she stressed.

"When Trump is compromising, it's deeply discouraging to pro-life and pro-family voters, and I think he's putting his own election in jeopardy," she warned. "Quite frankly, this is a losing strategy."

Trump's comments about the Comstock Act were not the only part of the interview that drew the ire of pro-life advocates.

He also declared that "the federal government should have nothing to do with this issue," referring to the legality of abortion. The comment comes as some Republicans and pro-life activists want to push for federal abortion restrictions. Trump has been clear throughout 2024 that he opposes efforts to enact a federal abortion ban and believes the issue should be left to the states.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Christian conservative activist organization Family Research Council, condemned Trump's view.

"It is not a pro-life position, it's not an acceptable position, and it does not provide the contrast on this issue to the degree that we have had in the past between him and Kamala Harris," Perkins told Politico.

"What President Trump is doing is suppressing his own support," Perkins added.

Trump faces Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The Democratic Party Platform fully embraces "reproductive rights," signaling an intention to codify the Supreme Court's now-overturned 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide into federal law.

Hamrick suggested that if Trump really "wants to be out of the federal business of abortion," he should "No. 1, stop funding it and, two, end the federal prejudice in favor of this distribution."

Pro-life groups have been warning about the risks of medication abortion for several years. A 2020 investigative report compiled by Live Action noted that women who take the abortion pill can experience "severe cramping, contractions, and heavy bleeding." The report detailed how FDA data shows "women can expect the bleeding to last 9 to 16 days on average, while 8% experience bleeding for more than 30 days."

The report cited statistics suggesting that the abortion pill caused 24 maternal deaths between 2000 — when the FDA first approved it — and 2018 and caused more than 1,000 hospitalizations and over 4,000 "total adverse events." (Trump says he will not enforce law banning abortion pills by mail.)

President-elect Trump means what he says, and he does not want the issue of the chemical and surgical destruction of innocent human life to get in the way of a very commendable, but altogether secondary, effort to destroy the monster from the deep that is the Deep State.

Furthermore, I have not yet seen anyone proclaimed as “pro-life” leaders say anything after the recent election about the former and incoming president’s desire to Federally fund the immoral practice of in vitro fertilization, which is based upon freezing embryonic human beings and killing off those who prove to be of no use in a particular artificial fertilization, which is an outright defiance of the Sovereignty of God over the creation of life. Once agrain, Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., supports such this evil practice that kills untold millions of human lives every year. It will be very interesting to see what Mr. Burch says and does if the forty-seventh president of the United States of America, Donald John Trump, includes a proposal to Federally fund in vitro fertilization when he delivers his first State of the Union address in early-2025 after his inauguration as he had promised during the recently concluded campaign

Let me reiterate: Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., is seventy years of age. He has taken anti-life, anti-family positions his entire adult life. While we need to pray for his conversion, he clearly does not understand First Principles and, as such, is, objectively speaking, disqualified from holding the position to which he has been nominated. His opposition the Big Pharma, Big Ag, the coronascam medical “protocols,” and the subsequent “vaccines” has been courageous, fact-based and defended very eloquently. However, none of that redeems him from being so very wrong about the inviolability of innocent human life.

From Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., to Mehmet Oz

President Donald John Trump’s own indifference to and ignorance about the chemical and surgical destruction of the innocent preborn and of the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth known as "brain death” and vital organ vivisection/transplantation, and “palliative care”/hospice is being manifested almost daily now as he announced on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, the Feast of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Pontianus, that he was nominating the pro-abortion, pro-perversity heart transplant surgeon named Dr. Mehmet Oz to be his nominee to serve as the director for Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services:

President-elect Trump announced on Tuesday that he will nominate Dr. Mehmet Oz to serve as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator in January.

"America is facing a Healthcare Crisis, and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again," Trump said in a statement. "He is an eminent Physician, Heart Surgeon, Inventor, and World-Class Communicator, who has been at the forefront of healthy living for decades."

"Dr. Oz will work closely with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take on the illness industrial complex, and all the horrible chronic diseases left in its wake," the statement added. "Our broken Healthcare System harms everyday Americans, and crushes our Country’s budget." (Trump appoints Dr. Oz to key HHS position in new administration.)

More importantly, though, we are facing a spiritual and moral crisis caused by the codification of grave sins under the cover of the civil law their celebration in public life. National greatness and personal bodily health can never be estabished on such a rotten foundation.

It was just two years ago that Mehmet Oz, who had never lived in Pennsylvania, was recruited by then former President Donald John Trump to run in the Pennsylvania Republican senatorial primary against David McCormick (yes, the same one who just defeated United States Senator Rober J. Casey, Jr., even though the latter has not yet conceded the fact) even though Oz had supported baby-killing through his whole professional life and mocked what he called “electrical signals” that are, in actual truth, heartbeats of a preborn baby.

Although Mehmet Oz had said he was “at peace” with the possibility that that the Supreme Court of the United States of America might overturn Roe v. Wade following the high court’s hearing oral arguments in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization on December 1, 2021, he had said in 2019 that he was “puzzle” why people “would spend their timing fighting abortion rights”:

When the Supreme Court heard arguments last week for a case that could upend abortion rights nationwide, Mehmet Oz—the TV doctor and accused “quack” turned Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania—suggested he was at peace that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade.

But only two years earlier, Oz characterized efforts to overturn Roe as a misleading and possibly conspiratorial crusade. Not only was Oz supportive of abortion rights, he seemed puzzled that people would spend time fighting abortion rights—going so far as to say that, as a physician, he was “really worried” about the anti-abortion movement and that eliminating Roe would have negative effects on women’s health.

“It’s, as a doctor—just putting my doctor hat on—it’s a big-time concern,” Oz said in the 2019 interview, which aired on the Breakfast Club radio show. “Because I went to medical school in Philadelphia, and I saw women who had coat-hanger events. And I mean really traumatic events that happened when they were younger, before Roe v. Wade. And many of them were harmed for life.”

Oz conceded that abortion “is a hard issue for everybody,” and he said that, on “a personal level,” he disliked abortion and would not want anyone in his family to have one. But he took a common pro-choice position in 2019 that his belief should not be forced onto others. He would not want to “interfere with everyone else’s stuff,” he said, “because it’s hard enough to get into life as it is.”

Oz’s defense of abortion wasn’t just a passing question. He held forth for seven minutes in this 2019 interview about the practice and was highly critical of anti-abortion advocates who argue that life begins at conception. His tone throughout the entire segment on abortion was one of concern that legislators might be passing abortion restrictions, and he seemed to endorse viability—generally thought of as about 24 weeks—as a popular limit for abortion.

“Just being logical about it,” he said, “if you think that the moment of conception you’ve got a life, then why would you even wait six weeks? Right, then an in vitro fertilized egg is still a life.”

Oz also questioned why restricting abortion access was so important to some people.

“There’s so much we gotta do already to take care of each other. To start picking fights on this—I always wonder about it,” he said. “It happens periodically. There are these moral issues that almost on purpose are inflamed.”

And yet, despite his full-throated support for abortion access in 2019, Oz said last week during an interview on WGAL in Lancaster that he was “OK with the Supreme Court making the right decision” on Roe, “based on what they think the Constitution says.”

Earlier that day, the high court heard arguments regarding a challenge to Mississippi’s prohibitive abortion law, with conservative justices signaling they were prepared to scrap Roe entirely.

But in the discussion with the Breakfast Club—hosted by rapper and political pundit “Charlamagne tha God”—Oz devoted several minutes to explaining why the resurgent anti-abortion movement concerned him as a physician, and why Roe was valuable and should not be overturned.

When The Daily Beast called Dr. Oz for comment, he picked up his phone and immediately ended the call. He then did not reply to a text message asking about his remarks in the abortion discussion.

But asked in 2019 about prohibitive laws like the near-total ban Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey had signed earlier that month—a so-called “heartbeat” bill which outlawed abortion in almost every instance starting six weeks after conception—Oz denounced the idea as dangerous, unfair to women, and premised on misleading information.

At one point in the conversation, Oz, who has been vocal about his own Christian faith, also questioned why anti-abortion advocates cared so much in the first place.

“Is this really the way they want to spend their time?” he wondered. “There’s so much we gotta fix in the world.”

While the physician and herbal weight-loss supplement salesman acknowledged that true believers “gotta be heard,” he said “that doesn’t mean that’s what the rule of the land is.”

“If people thought about it and logically work through it, most Americans sort of already agree on what the right answer is”—a position that appears directly at odds with the conservative majority on the Court.

Asked by tha God whether he thought prohibitive anti-abortion laws were “healthy,” Oz replied, “I’m really worried about it,” and invoked his professional experience.

“I’ve taken care of a lot of women who had issues around childbirth. The problem with the [Alabama] law as it stands now—and I think the law was really only passed to generate a Supreme Court challenge—but most women don’t know they’re pregnant,” he said, taking specific aim at the bad-faith effort to overturn Roe. “It’s two weeks past your last period when you have to decide by,” Oz explained, referencing the six-week line.

Oz, who rose to fame in the 2000s as a regular guest on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime television show, claimed he had guests on his own show “all the time” who did not know they were pregnant even “when they’re delivering.”

“So you’re asking women to decide almost instantaneously if they’re pregnant or not,” Oz said. “And it’s also banned in cases of incest and rape. So I don’t quite get it as a doctor.”

He then went to lengths to dismantle the spurious six-week “heartbeat” talking point.

“There are electrical exchanges at six weeks, but the heart’s not beating,” Oz said.

“If you’re going to define life by a beating heart, then make it a beating heart, not little electrical exchanges in the cell that no one would hear or think about as a heart,” he continued. To do otherwise, he said, misleads the average person into “envisioning a little acorn heart beating in there, and that’s not what’s going on at six weeks.”

The Mississippi law currently before the court is not as extreme as Alabama’s 2019 bill, banning abortions after 15 weeks, not six. But hours ahead of Oz’s interview, the conservative justices signaled they were open to a broad ruling that would legalize six-week bans.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the lone conservative to raise the question of a narrow decision, saying, “The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks.” But Roberts would need to pick off at least two other conservatives, and none appeared eager to join him.

One of those justices, Samuel Alito, mused that “the only real options we have” are to uphold or overturn Roe.

And while Oz now seems fine with a conservative majority overturning Roe, as he faces a GOP primary field of anti-abortion Republicans, Oz was explicitly concerned by that prospect in 2019, and suggested abortion bans could result in a “big sucking sound of businesses leaving” states. (Inside Dr. Oz’s Shameless Flip-Flop on Abortion.)

Mehmet Oz really believes what he said in 2019, and it is frightening that a medical doctor can use such flippant language to dismiss the facts of basic biology to disparage the humanity of the unborn child. This is the sort of “doctor” who is acceptable to Donald John Trump, whose third wife, Melania Knauss Trump, was so firm in her support for Oz that it was at her suggestion that the forty-fifth and soon-to-be forty-seventh president of the United States of America committed himself fully to a man who was a resident of Bergen County, New Jersey, to run for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania and, now, to be the direct of the Centers for Medicare Services.

Those who flip-flop on baby-killing are never able to articulate the rationale for their supposed changes of heart and wind up verbally tripping when questioned about the most important moral issue of our times:

Mehmet Oz had to know the question was coming. Which makes what he said even worse.

Oz, the Republican nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, was asked about his views on abortion rights during a debate with Democrat John Fetterman – and whether he supported a federal ban on the procedure after the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

“There should not be involvement from the federal government in how states decide their abortion decisions,” Oz said. “As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

Which, smart! In order for Oz to win statewide in Pennsylvania, he needs to keep it somewhat close in the suburbs of Philadelphia, where a federal abortion ban is generally not a popular notion.

Unfortunately for Oz, he kept talking.

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,” he added.

Which, um, not good.

It’s not entirely clear to me what Oz was attempting to do here. He started by borrowing the language of the abortion rights movement that a decision regarding an abortion is between a woman and her doctor. And then, in a mind-boggling moment, he tacked on “local political leaders” as part of that decision-making process.

What’s most bizarre about the whole formulation is that, as I noted above, Oz had to know the question was coming. Democrats – in Pennsylvania and around the country – have dedicated millions of dollars in TV ads to highlighting what they characterize as extreme positions staked out by Republicans on the abortion issue. There’s simply no way that in his debate prep, Oz didn’t ready a response.

Unfortunately for him, if this was his ready response, then it amounted to a massive swing and miss. Democrats quickly criticized Oz’s “local leaders” idea, blasting him as deeply out of touch with women and the very personal decision they make when they opt to have an abortion.

“Debates are more often lost than won, and Mehmet Oz lost this one with his line that abortion should be a decision between ‘a woman, her doctor, and local elected officials,’” tweeted Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Paul Begala. “He is fueling the Dems’ top issue. @JohnFetterman must be pleased.”

Fetterman released a new ad Wednesday morning highlighting Oz’s abortion comments.

What remains to be seen is how Oz’s comment lands with voters – and how it fits into their overall perception of the debate.

There’s no question that Fetterman, who had a stroke in May, struggled mightily to make his points throughout the proceedings. While his campaign has insisted that he is on the road to recovery and that his auditory processing issues are temporary, it was hard to watch the debate without seeing a candidate struggling badly to keep up.

Does that concern over Fetterman’s ability to do the job wind up as the dominant story coming out of the debate? Or is it Oz’s huge gaffe on “local political leaders” being part of a discussion with a woman and her doctor about having an abortion?

Be sure of this: Had Oz not made the abortion flub, the only story coming out of the debate last night would be Fetterman’s deeply uneven performance. Now, Oz is making his own headlines – and not in a good way. (Dr. Oz’s awful answer on abortion.)

Donald John Trump alone bore responsibility for the election of John Fetterman in 2022 by insisting that Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has been willing to transplant hearts vivisected from living human beings declared to “brain dead” specifically for that purpose and is thus a killer who has, by means of inventing new devices for such transplantations, enabled untold numbers of vivisections, run for the United States Senate against David McCormick.

Anyhow, the Centers for Medicare Services, with which I have become quite familiar in the past eight years since turning sixty-five years of age on November 24, 2016, funds many procedures and surgeries, including coverage for organ transplantation:

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) covers:

Necessary tests, labs, and exams

Generally, Part A also covers:

Services for heart, lung, kidney, pancreas, intestine, and liver transplants
The costs of finding the proper organ for your transplant surgery

Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers:

Doctors’ services associated with heart, lung, kidney, pancreas, intestine, and liver transplants
Immunosuppressive (transplant) drugs in certain circumstances. (Organ Transplant Insurance Coverage.)

Dr. Mehmet Oz believes in vital organ vivisection and transplantation under the aegis of “brain death,” whose supposed “standards” continue to be lowered to include what is now called “circulatory death”:

A friend of mine was recently counseling a heartsick family at the bedside of their dying child. The family had already refused to make the girl a “brain dead” organ donor since they understood that brain death is not death, but rather a social construct designed to allow organ harvesting from vulnerable, brain-injured people. Undeterred, the organ procurement team asked whether they would consider making their daughter an organ donor after “circulatory death.” While this might sound like an ethical option, the devil is in the details.

In 1993, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center introduced a new protocol for harvesting organs from people who had consented to be given a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) status called donation after circulatory death, or DCD. DCD is a death that is planned to occur at a specific time and place. These people are not brain dead, but are either not expected to survive or have decided that their quality of life is unacceptable and have requested that life support be withdrawn in a way that allows for organ harvesting. DCD donors are taken to the operating room (or a suite nearby) and are removed from all life-sustaining care, including their ventilator. Once they become pulseless, doctors observe a two to five minute “no touch” period to be sure that their heartbeat does not spontaneously resume. Organ harvesting begins as quickly as possible thereafter, since warm organs very quickly become unsuitable for transplantation in the absence of circulation.

But are these people dead after just two to five minutes of pulselessness? Many medical professionals are uncomfortable with DCD because we know that people are routinely resuscitated within this timeframe. Because DCD donors could still possibly be resuscitated, they are not yet dead. The only reason they are not being resuscitated is that the patient or their family has decided to forego resuscitation (even though it might have been successful) and become an organ donor. Sociologist Renee C. Fox has sharply criticized the DCD protocol, calling it “an ignoble form of medically rationalized cannibalism” that “borders on ghoulishness.” She deplored dying a death away from family in an operating room, a “desolate, profanely ‘high tech’ death that the patient dies, beneath operating room lights, amid masked, gowned, and gloved strangers.” And Dr. Ari Joffe, a clinical professor of pediatrics and critical care at the University of Alberta, in reviewing the medical literature found a dozen patients whose hearts restarted without any medical intervention at all after as much as 10 minutes of cardiac arrest, with some of these patients making a complete recovery. Worldwide, many countries have decided that DCD is unethical: the practice is banned in Finland, Germany, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary, Lithuania, and Turkey.

In 2021, a case report appeared of a DCD organ donor who self-resuscitated on the operating room table during the removal of her kidneys. This unfortunate 39-year-old woman with Down Syndrome had suffered a ruptured aneurysm in her brain. She was not brain dead but was not expected to survive. Her family consented to donation after circulatory death. So, instead of being held in her mother’s arms and entering eternity knowing she was loved, she was taken to the operating room. Her ventilator was removed and her vital signs dropped rapidly.

“At 2:57 A.M., she had no measurable blood pressure, no oxygen saturation, and no respiration. A physician listened to her heart under the sterile drapes for an additional 2 minutes. During that time, no heart tones were heard. Her pupils were fixed and dilated, and her face was cyanotic/mottled. Her spontaneous respirations halted, and there was no palpable carotid pulse. She was pronounced dead at 2:59 A.M.

After cardiac death was pronounced, an abdominal midline incision was made to begin organ procurement at 3:00 A.M. It was seen that her aortic and renal arteries were pumping and pulsing. The organ procurement surgery was stopped. It was noted that she had spontaneous agonal respiration. Her heart rate was back in the mid-80s to 90, and her blood oxygen saturation levels were back in the 50s. At the time, the patient was given additional doses of Fentanyl and Lorazepam. Subsequently, she was pronounced dead a second time at 3:17 A.M.”

In essence, her heart started beating again and she started gasping for breath while doctors were removing her organs. Her manner of death was determined to be a homicide.

And in the never-ending quest for viable organs, doctors have found a macabre new way to skirt both the brain death and circulatory death criteria. Transplant centers around the country are removing people who have signed a DNR order from life support, waiting for their hearts to stop, and then immediately clamping off the blood flow to their brains to make them brain dead on purpose. Then their organs are resuscitated, but the person doesn’t wake up because the circulation to their brain has been clamped off. The protocol for this procedure, called normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) from the University of Nebraska, notes: “The initial step for ligation of the blood vessels to the head is necessary to ensure that blood flow to the brain does not occur. Once blood flow to the heart is established, the heart will start beating.” How dead are you if doctors can re-start your heart in your own chest?

Lauris Kaldjian, MD, PhD, director of the program in bioethics and humanities at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine writes, “NRP represents a technologically elaborate attempt to refashion definitions of death to maximize the number and quality of transplanted organs. It both depends on and violates the circulatory definition of death and arguably employs iatrogenic [doctor-induced] brain death.”

The American College of Physicians recommended in 2021 that the practice of NRP be paused, as “the burden of proof regarding the ethical and legal propriety of this practice has not been met.” Other nations, such as Australia, have banned NRP altogether. But despite ongoing ethical concerns, this type of organ harvesting is continuing and expanding in the United States.

How many families would give their loved ones over to transplant teams if they knew the grisly reality taking place behind operating room doors? While professionals debate the ethics of DCD and NRP, people continue to sign their donor cards in ignorance of these facts. Physicians and organ procurement organizations must come clean on the many controversies surrounding both “brain death” and “circulatory death” organ harvesting. It is critical that patients receive a full explanation of the many ethical questions involved before giving their consent. (Don't be fooled: Organ harvesting after 'circulatory death' kills living donors.)

President-elect Donald John Trump, Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., and Mehmet Oz each support the evil of vital organ vivisection and transplantation in addition to supporting, in Trump’s case, direct surgical baby-killing in the “hard cases” and whenever the “mutable will of people” expresses itself in favor of unrestricted baby-killing, baby-killing as a matter of general principle, contraception (“most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort most of the time”—Father Paul Marx. O.S.B.), voluntarily sterilization, “brain death”/vital organ vivisection/transplantation, and “palliative care”/hospice.

More important that the illness industrial complex that sickens people by means of an overreliance upon pharmaceutical products to the exclusion of natural remedies and alternate treatments is amorality industrial complex that is not only indifferent to the Social Reign of Christ the King but even to the relevance of the Ten Commandments to daily living and public policy-making, thus making pertinent once again the following words delivered by the Lion of Munster, Bishop Clemens von Galen, in three sermons in 1941 during the height of the Nazi regime’s enforcement of the 1935 Nuremburg Laws permitting euthanasia and other offenses against innocent human life:

It is a deeply moving event that we read of in the Gospel for today. Jesus weeps! The Son of God weeps! A man who weeps is suffering pain either of the body or of the heart. Jesus did not suffer in the body; and yet he wept. How great must have been the sorrow of soul, the heartfelt pain of this most courageous of men to make him weep! Why did he weep? He wept for Jerusalem, for God's holy city that was so dear to him, the capital of his people. He wept for its inhabitants, his fellow-countrymen, because they refused to recognise the only thing that could avert the judgment foreseen by his omniscience and determined in advance by his divine justice: “If thou hadst known . . . the things which belong unto thy peace!" Why do the inhabitants of Jerusalem not know it? Not long before Jesus had given voice to it: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13,34).

Ye would not. I, your King, your God, I would. But ye would not! How safe, how sheltered is the chicken under the hen's wing: she warms it, she feeds it, she defends it. In the same way I desired to protect you, to keep you, to defend you against any ill. I would, but ye would not!

That is why Jesus weeps: that is why that strong man weeps; that is why God weeps. For the folly, the injustice, the crime of not being willing. And for the evil to which that gives rise which his omniscience sees coming. which his justice must impose if man sets his unwillingness against God's commands, in opposition to the admonitions of conscience, and all the loving invitations of the divine Friend, the best of Fathers: “If thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But then wouldst not!.: It is something terrible, something incredibly wrong and fatal. when man sets his will against God's will. I would) than wouldst not! It is therefore that Jesus weeps for Jerusalem.

Dearly beloved Christians! The joint pastoral letter of the German bishops, which was read in all Catholic churches in Germany on 26 June 1941, includes the following words.

“It is true that in Catholic ethics there are certain positive commandments which cease to be obligatory if their observance would be attended by unduly great difficulties; but there are also sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us; which we must carry out even if it should cost us our life. Never, under any circumstances, may a man, save in war or in legitimate self-defence, kill an innocent person.”

I had occasion on 6th July to add the followings comments on this passage in the joint pastoral letter:

“For some months we have been heating reports that inmates of establishments for the care of the mentally ill who have been ill for a long period and perhaps appear incurable have been forcibly removed from these establishments on orders from Berlin. Regularly the relatives receive soon afterwards an intimation that the patient is dead, that the patient's body has been cremated and that they can collect the ashes. There is a general suspicion, verging on certainty. that these numerous unexpected deaths of the mentally ill do not occur naturally but are intentionally brought about in accordance with the doctrine that it is legitimate to destroy a so-called “worthless life,” in other words to kill innocent men and women, if it is thought that their lives are of no further value to the people and the state. A terrible doctrine which seeks to justify the murder of innocent people, which legitimises the violent killing of disabled persons who are no longer capable of work, of cripples, the incurably ill and the aged and infirm!”

I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Munster, in the course of this week.

German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death”. No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the patient had in fact been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Conti, no secret is made of the fact that indeed a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue.

Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the life of any person . . . and fails to inform the authorities or the person whose life is threatened in due time . . . commits a punishable offence”. When I learned of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of Munster Provincial Court and to the Munster chief of police by registered letter, in the following terms:

“According to information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital at Marienthal, classified as ‘unproductive members of the national community’, to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken".

I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police.

I had already written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. The first transport of the innocent victims under sentence of death has left Marienthal. And I am now told that 800 patients have already been removed from the hospital at Warstein.

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!

I will give you an example of what is happening. One of the patients in Marienthal was a man of 55, a farmer from a country parish in the Munster region I could give you his name who has suffered for some years from mental disturbance and was therefore admitted to Marienthal hospital. He was not mentally ill in the full sense: he could receive visits and was always happy, when his relatives came to see him. Only a fortnight ago he was visited by his wife and one of his sons, a soldier on home leave from the front. The son is much attached to his father, and the parting was a sad one: no one can tell, whether the soldier will return and see his father again, since he may fall in battle for his country. The son, the soldier, will certainly never again see his father on earth, for he has since then been put on the list of the “unproductive”. A relative, who wanted to visit the father this week in Marienthal, was turned away with the information that the patient had been transferred elsewhere on the instructions of the Council of State for National Defence. No information could be given about where he had been sent, but the relatives would be informed within a few days. What information will they be given? The same as in other cases of the kind? That the man has died, that his body has been cremated, that the ashes will be handed over on payment of a fee? Then the soldier, risking his life in the field for his fellow-countrymen, will not see his father again on earth, because fellow-countrymen at home have killed him.

The facts I have stated are firmly established. I can give the names of the patient, his wife and his son the soldier, and the place where they live.

“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts of law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear . . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4,13-14).

“Thou shalt not kill!” This commandment from God, who alone has power to decide on life or death, was written in the hearts of men from the beginning, long before God gave the children of Israel on Mount Sinai his moral code in those lapidary sentences inscribed on stone which are recorded for us in Holy Scripture and which as children we learned by heart in the catechism.

“I am the Lord thy God!” Thus begins this immutable law. “Thou shalt have not other gods before me.” God ” the only God, transcendent, almighty, omniscient, infinitely holy and just, our Creator and future Judge ” has given us these commandments. Out of love for us he wrote these commandments in our heart and proclaimed them to us. For they meet the need of our God-created nature; they are the indispensable norms for all rational, godly, redeeming and holy individual and community life. With these commandments God, our Father, seeks to gather us, His children, as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. If we follow these commands, these invitations, this call from God, then we shall be guarded and protected and preserved from harm, defended against threatening death and destruction like the chickens under the hen's wings.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Is this to come about again in our country of Germany, in our province of Westphalia, in our city of Munster? How far are the divine commandments now obeyed in Germany, how far are they obeyed here in our community?

The eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not lie.” How often is it shamelessly and publicly broken!

The seventh commandment: “Thou shalt not steal”. Whose possessions are now secure since the arbitrary and ruthless confiscation of the property of our brothers and sisters, members of Catholic orders? Whose property is protected, if this illegally confiscated property is not returned?

The sixth commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Think of the instructions and assurances on free sexual intercourse and unmarried motherhood in the notorious Open Letter by Rudolf Hess, who has disappeared since, which was published in all the newspapers. And how much shameless and disreputable conduct of this kind do we read about and observe and experience in our city of Munster! To what shamelessness in dress have our young people been forced to get accustomed to” the preparation for future adultery! For modesty, the bulwark of chastity, is about to be destroyed.

And now the fifth commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”, is set aside and broken under the eyes of the authorities whose function it should be to protect the rule of law and human life, when men presume to kill innocent fellow-men with intent merely because they are “unproductive”, because they can no longer produce any goods.

And how do matters stand with the observance of the fourth commandment, which enjoins us to honour and obey our parents and those in authority over us? The status and authority of parents is already much undermined and is increasingly shaken by all the obligations imposed on children against the will of their parents. Can anyone believe that sincere respect and conscientious obedience to the state authorities can be maintained when men continue to violate the commandments of the supreme authority, the Commandments of God, when they even combat and seek to stamp out faith in the only true transcendent God, the Lord of heaven and earth?

The observance of the first three commandments has in reality for many years been largely suspended among the public in Germany and in Munster. By how many people are Sundays and feast days profaned and withheld from the service of God! How the name of God is abused, dishonoured and blasphemed!

And the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” In place of the only true eternal God men set up their own idols at will and worship them: Nature, or the state, or the people, or the race. And how many are there whose God, in Paul's word, “is their belly” (Philippians 3:19)” their own well being, to which they sacrifice all else, even honour and conscience ” the pleasures of the senses, the lust for money, the lust for power! In accordance with all this men may indeed seek to arrogate to themselves divine attributes, to make themselves lords over the life and death of their fellow-men.

When Jesus came near to Jerusalem and beheld the city he wept over it, saying: “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies . . . shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” Looking with his bodily eyes, Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem, but the divine omniscience looked deeper and saw how matters stood within the city and its inhabitants: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings ” and ye would not!" That is the great sorrow that oppresses Jesus's heart, that brings tears to his eyes. I wanted to act for your good, but ye would not!

Jesus saw how sinful, how terrible, how criminal, how disastrous this unwillingness is. Little man, that frail creature, sets his created will against the will of God! Jerusalem and its inhabitants, His chosen and favoured people, set their will against God's will! Foolishly and criminally, they defy the will of God! And so Jesus weeps over the heinous sin and the inevitable punishment. God is not mocked!

Christians of Munster! Did the Son of God in his omniscience in that day see only Jerusalem and its people? Did he weep only over Jerusalem? Is the people of Israel the only people whom God has encompassed and protected with a father's care and mother's love, has drawn to Himself? Is it the only people that wou1d not ? The only one that rejected God's truth, that threw off God's law and so condemned itself to ruin?

Did Jesus, the omniscient God, also see in that day our German people, our land of Westphalia, our region of Munster, the Lower Rhineland? Did he also weep over us? Over Munster?

For a thousand years he has instructed our forefathers and us in his truth, guided us with his law, nourished us with his grace, gathered us together as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings. Did the omniscient Son of God see in that day that in our time he must also pronounce this judgment on us: “Ye would not: see, your house will be laid waste!” How terrible that would be!

My Christians! I hope there is still time; but then indeed it is high time: That we may realise, in this our day, the things that belong unto our peace! That we may realise what alone can save us, can preserve us from the divine judgment: that we should take, without reservation, the divine commandments as the guiding rule of our lives and act in sober earnest according to the words: “Rather die than sin”.

That in prayer and sincere penitence we should beg that God's forgiveness and mercy may descend upon us, upon our city, our country and our beloved German people.

But with those who continue to provoke God's judgment, who blaspheme our faith, who scorn God's commandments, who make common cause with those who alienate our young people from Christianity, who rob and banish our religious, who bring about the death of innocent men and women, our brothers and sisters with all those we will avoid any confidential relationship, we will keep ourselves and our families out of reach of their influence, lest we become infected with their godless ways of thinking and acting, lest we become partakers in their guilt and thus liable to the judgment which a just God must and will inflict on all those who, like the ungrateful city of Jerusalem, do not will what God wills.

O God, make us all know, in this our day, before it is too late, the things which belong to our peace!

O most Sacred Heart of Jesus, grieved to tears at the blindness and iniquities of men, help us through Thy grace, that we may always strive after that which is pleasing to Thee and renounce that which displeases Thee, that we may remain in Thy love and find peace for our souls!

Amen. (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

Anyone who does not think that the situation in Nazi Germany that was described so clearly and condemned so forcefully by the late Bishop Clemens von Galens i 1941 obtains in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world at the present time is spiritually blind. We are living through the precise situation now as that described and condemned by Bishop Clemens von Galens.

Please do yourself a favor and re-read the late bishop's remarks again.

Bishop von Galens's remarks resonate with Catholic truth and serve as prophetic warnings to us not to trust in the diagnoses and judgments of doctors who have accustomed themselves to lying and killing, something that is especially the case as a result of everyone in the medical industry having to undergo “training” in the ethos of “palliative care.” Patients are evaluated now on a cost-benefit basis that dehumanizes them and permits medical “professionals” to start the processes, tailored to the “needs” of each person and carried out by conditioning patients and their families to accept the “inevitable,” of expediting their deaths in the name of “mercy” and “compassion.”

Bishop von Galens's sermon from the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost in 1941 also discussed the cogent point that it is easier for men to break the Fourth through Tenth Commandments under cover of law when they have violated the First through Third Commandments. Consider this passage once again:

Although admitting, as noted above, that the proximate causes for the astounding advances in evil that we have seen before our very eyes in the past fifty years is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century and the contempt that this has bred for His Deposit of Faith and the authority of His true Church, it is nevertheless also true that the astounding advances in evil that we have seen before our very eyes in the past fifty years have resulted at least in part as the result of a chastisement that God is permitting us to endure as a punishment for our failure to seek to restore all things in Him. How can we stop the advance of evil on the devil's own terms of naturalism, no less think and speak naturalistically about the state of disabled, dependent human beings?

No matter the good intentions of the incoming administration, no nation can be made “great” or “healthy” by means merely natural for to be truly great in the eyes of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, is to be spiritually healthy by being in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church and striving for perfection by means of prayer, penance, fasting sacrifice, and almsgiving.

The Holy Cross remains the one and only standard of true human liberty and thus of true greatness, personal or social.

Protestantism has created a Christianity without the Cross. Judeo-Masonry has created a world without Christianity. The end result must be slavery to the "professionals" in a world of unspeakable savagery.

Father Robert Mader offered words of great inspiration ninety-one years ago in the very country, Germany, where Bishop Clemens von Galen was to preach against the Hitlerian practices of eugenics, which involved the killing off of the feeble in body and in mind, most of which had originated during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, that have become accepted as normal and nature in the "developed" world at this time, including here in the United States of America:

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Romans covered the places of hallowed memory to he Christian with rubble. The cave of the Holy Sepulchre was buried under such rubble, and over as well Golgotha pagan images and temples were erected in honor of Venus and Jupiter. For this reason the Christians did not go there anymore, in order not to be mistaken for idol-worshippers. Emperor Constantine ordered the temples and images torn down and the rubble carried away. After long and hard work the cave of the Holy Sepulchre was found. Not found away three crosses with nails were discovered, and along with them the superscription, which, however, lay separate from the cross.

Without doubt one of the these must be the Cross of the Savior, but there was no certain sign that would differentiate it from the crosses of the two thieves. This was given when a mortally il woman was suddenly cured by touching the true Cross. The Holy Cross was then encased in silver and precious gems, and a church was built over it, which according to Emperor Constantine's order was to be more magnificent than anything ever seen before. In memory of these events, the Church recalls the Finding of the Most Holy Cross on May 3, in order that on every day until the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14), land and people with be blessed with a splinter, a particle of the Cross.

We have every reason to remember these events. Christianity is the religion of the Crucified One. In his first letter to the Corinthians the Apostle of the Nations, St. Paul, declares: "For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). St. Paul's preaching, no matter how many-sided it appears, always returns to the central Sun of Christendom: Jesus on the Cross, King of the World! Everything else is either a ray from this Sun, or it is nothing. In the Crucifix lies our entire dogmatic and moral theology, our entire teaching on faith and morals, our catechism. The Cross is our library. Every other book has value only inasmuch as the spirit of the Cross speaks in it.

Modernists have attempted to ban the old preaching of St. Paul, the Gospel of the Cross, to oblivion. The Cross means the teaching of the necessity of sacrifice and of grace, and this now lies under the rubble on which a new paganism has erected once again the pagan images and temples of Jupiter, Mercury, Venus and Bacchus--in other words, the absolutist state, capitalism, immorality, and addiction to pleasure. A certain superficial Christianity, which puts more value on being modern than on being Catholic and Biblical, and for which the imitation of the spirit of the times is more understandable than the imitation of Christ, has made itself a willing accomplice.

We have lost the Cross. We have a Christianity that no longer understands sacrifice and there is no Christianity or only a soulless version of Christianity. We need Constantines and Helens who will once again dig out the the Cross from under the rubble and make it their shrine and their sign, and who believe that the King's throne is the Cross.

The crucified King! In the family we must have a Finding of the the Most Holy Cross! The modern family has lost the crucifix, and in its place it has raised up the political hero, the artist, old pagan gods, nudity and the prostitute. The crucifix does not fit into the modern home. The modern living room preaches money-grabbing, pride, vanity, lasciviousness, laziness. The modern living room is the exaltation of the seven deadly sins. At least one is honest enough to feel the Cross no longer fits into this milieu and has got rid of it because in the long run the crucifix can only remain there where the spirit of the Crucified One remains, and the spirit of the Crucified is no longer there.

The spirit of the Crucified is the spirit of love and sacrifice, but the spirit of the modern family is the spirit of selfishness and enjoyment. The speech of the Crucified says: First the others, I come last! The speech of selfishness is: First I, then again I, the others come last! The Christian family is built on the notion of sacrifice and devotion. The concept of the Christian father is: Work from morning to evening for others. The concept of the Christian mother is: Care for others! Let the self always come last! The concept of the Christian child is: Respect, love, obedience. Father and mother first, only then I!

The notion of sacrifice is dying out in the modern family. The modern family is built upon the law of egotism. The modern family takes as its motto: "As much enjoyment and as little sacrifice as possible!" This is the source of Malthusianism. That is where characterless education comes from. And that is the doom of the family. Only the Cross and its sermon of self-discipline, self-denial and devotion can save the dying family. (Father Robert Mader, Cross and the Crown, edited and translated by Dr. Eileen Kunze, Sarto House, 1999, pp. 117-119.)

The myth of “brain death” and the practices of the modern "palliative care" industry are founded upon a rejection of the Holy Cross. So is most of modern medicine, especially for the chronically or terminally ill. We must embrace the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, not flee from It, the very instrument of our salvation.

The only thing that must matter to us is to remain faithful until we die and to be ready to suffer all, including actual martyrdom. Nothing we lose in this world, including our very lives at the hands of the evil men and women and mutants who make up the fascistic administration of the corrupt, physically decrepit, morally sick, and intellectually dishonest statist named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., that is intent on crushing all opposition, matters if we persevere until the end in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Without Our Lady’s graces, though, we will be lost, which is why we had better be quite intent on praying her Most Holy Rosary daily.

In all the difficulties of these times, though, we must remember that we have nothing to fear as the graces won for us by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, will be ever sufficient for us to carry whatever crosses in whatever circumstances of whatever time God has from all eternity appointed them to live and to work out their salvation in fear and in trembling.

The following prayers, found in The Raccolta, should fill us with peace in the midst of the difficult times in which we live:

Lord Jesus Christ, who didst say unto Thine Apostles: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I gve unto you,” regard not our sins but Thy merits, and grant unto Thy servants, that they whom the Almighty Father hath created and governeth, and whom Thou hast ordained unto everlasting life, may love one another with all their hearts for Thy sake, and may be made one in spirit and rejoice in Thy perpetual peace. Lord Jesus Christ, concerning whom the Prophet hath said: “And all kings of the earth shall adore Him, all nations shall serve Him,” extend thy reign upon the whole human race. Send upon all men the light of Thy faith, deliver them from all the snares and bonds of passion, and direct them to heavenly things; and graciously grant, that the states and nations may be united by means of Thine immaculate Bride, Holy Church, and through the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace, may serve Thee in all humility; and that all tongues and peoples may form one great choir, to praise Thee both day and night, to bless Thee, to exalt Thee, O King of the nations and the Ruler thereof, O Prince of prince immortal King of ages. Amen. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 703, pp. 558-559.)

O God, who art the author and lover of peace, in knowledge of whom is eternal life, whose service is a kingly state; defend us Thy humble servants from all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in Thy defense, may not fear the power of any adversaries. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 703, pp. 559-560.)

O merciful Queen of the Rosary of Pompeii, thou, the Seat of Wisdom, hast established a throne of fresh mercy in the land that once was pagan, in order to draw all nations to salvation by means of the chaplet of thy mystic roses: remember thy divine Son hath left us this saying: “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.” Remember likewise that on Calvary thou didst become our Co-Redemptrix, by virtue of the crucifixion of Thy heart cooperating with Thy Crucified Son in the salvation of the world; and from that day thou didst become the Restorer of the human race, the Refuge of sinners, and the Mother of all mankind. Behold, dear Mother, how man souls are lost every hour! Behold, how countless millions of those who dwell in India, in China, and in barbarous regions do not yet know our Lord Jesus Christ! See, too, how many others are indeed Christians and are nevertheless far from the bosom of Mother Church which is Catholic, Apostolic and Roman! O Mary, powerful mediator, advocate of the human race, full of love for us who are mortal, the life of our hearts, blessed Virgin of the Rosary of Pompeii, where thou dost nothing else save dispense heaven’s favors upon the afflicted, grant that a ray of thy heavenly light may shine forth to enlighten those many blinded understanding and to enkindle so cold hearts. Intercede with thy Son and obtain grace for all the pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics in the whole world to receive supernatural light and to enter with joy into the bosom of the true Church. Hear the confident prayer of the Supreme Pontiff [of Holy Church in these times of papal vacancy], that all nations may be joined in the one faith, may know and love Jesus Christ, the blessed fruit of thy womb, who liveth and reigneth with the Father and the Holy Spirit world without end. And then all men shall love thee also, thou who art the salvation of the world, arbiter and dispenser of the treasures of God, and Queen of mercy in the valley of Pompeii. And glorifying thee, the Queen of Victories, who by means of thy Rosary, dost trample upon all heresies, they shall acknowledge that thou givest life to all the nations, since there must be a fulfillment of the prophecy in the Gospel: “All generations shall call me blessed.” ((The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 628, pp. 501-503.)

There is a whole lot of good, solid Catholic theology in the prayer just above.

Our Lady is the Co-Redemptrix of the human race.

Our Lady is the Seat of Wisdom.

Our Lady is our Refuge of Sinners.

Our Lady is the Treasurer of all the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Our Lady is also our Immaculate Queen to whose Immaculate Heart has been entrusted the cause of world peace and the restoration of all things in her Divine Son, Christ the King, something that Pope Pius XII noted in his prayer consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, she who is the Queen of Heaven and Earth:

Queen of the most holy Rosary, help of Christians, refuge of the human race, victorious in all the battles of God, we prostrate ourselves in supplication before thy throne, in the sure hope of obtaining mercy and of receiving grace and timely aid in our present calamities, not through any merits of our own on which we do not rely, but only through the immense goodness of thy mother’s Heart. In Thee and in thy Immaculate Heart, at this grave hour of human history, do we put our trust; to thee we consecrate ourselves, not only with all of Holy Church, which is the mystical body of thy Son Jesus, and which is suffering in so many of her members, being persecuted, but also with the whole world, torn by discords, agitated with the hatred, the victim of its own iniquities. Be thou moved by the sight of such material and moral degradation, such sorrows, such anguish, so many tormented souls in danger of eternal loss! Do thou, O Mother of mercy, obtain for us from God a Christ-like reconciliation of the nations, as well as those graces which can convert the souls of men in an instant, those graces which prepare the way and make certain the long desired coming of peace on earth. O Queen of peace, pray for us, and grant unto the world in the truth, the justice, and the charity of Christ. Above all, give us peace in our hearts, so that the kingdom of God, may spread it the tranquility of order. Accord thy protection to unbelievers and to all those who lie in the shadow of death; cause the Sun of Truth to rise upon them; may they enabled to join with us in repeating before the Saviour of the world: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to men of good will.” Give peace to the nations that are separated us from error or discord, and in a special manner to those peoples who profess a singular devotion toward thee; bring them back to Christ’s one fold, under the one true Shepherd. Obtain full freedom for the holy Church of God; defend her from her enemies; check the ever-increasing torrent of immorality; arouse in the faithful a practical love of purity, a practical Christian life, and an apostolic zeal, so that the number of those who serve God may increase in merit and in number. Finally, even as the Church and all mankind were once consecrated to the Heart of thy Son Jesus, because He was for all those who put their hope in Him an inexhaustible source of victory and salvation, so in like manner do we consecrate ourselves forever to thee also and to thy Immaculate Heart, Of Mother us and Queen of the world; may thy love and patronage hasten the day when the kingdom of God shall be victorious and all the nations, at peace with God and with one another, shall call thee blessed and intone with thee, from the rising of the sun to its going down, the everlasting “Magnificat” of glory, of love, of gratitude to the Heart of Jesus in which we alone can find truth, life, and peace. (Pope Pius XII, Rescript from the Secretariat of State, November 17, 1942, document exhibited, November 19, 1942, The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 345-347.)

The restoration of all things in Christ will occur as a result of the fulfillment of her Fatima Message after the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter, which will occur miraculously at a time of God’s choosing. All we have to do is persist in our prayers as we maintain a joy-filled hope that we might, by virtue of the graces Our Lady sends to us, be able to plant a few seeds for the restoration of all things in Christ the King as a result of the Triumph of her own Immaculate Heart. To this end, especially in this penitential season of Lent, we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Felix of Valois, pray for us.

Appendix

On the Feast of Saint Felix of Valois

Today is the Feast of Saint Felix of Valois, who founded the Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of the Captives, known commonly as the Trinitarian Fathers, with Saint John Matha in order to ransom Christians who were being held captive by Mohammedans. None other than Saint Louis IX, King of France, supported the work and the mission of the Trinitarian Fathers in the years after the death of Saint Felix of Valois in 1212.

The Divine Office provides us with a stirring account of his life and work:

Felix de Valois, who afterwards took the name of Felix, was born (in the year 1127) of the same family of the de Valois which in after times became Kingly. From his earliest childhood he gave tokens, especially by his pity toward the poor, of the holiness of his coming life. When he was still a little lad he distributed money to the poor with his own hand, with the seriousness of an old man. When he was a little bigger he used to send them dishes from the table, and took especial delight in treating poor children with the most toothsome of the sweetmeats. As a boy he took clothes off his own back more than once, to cover the naked. He begged and obtained from his uncle Theobald, Earl of Champagne and Blois, the life of a felon condemned to death, foretelling to him that this blackguard cut-throat would yet become a man of most holy life which did indeed come to pass as he had said.

After a praiseworthy boyhood, he began to think of withdrawing from the world in order to be alone with heavenly thoughts. But he first wished to take orders, to the end that he might clear himself of all expectation of succeeding to the crown, to which, in consequence of the Salic Law, he was somewhat near. He became a Priest, and said his first Mass with deep devotion. Then, in a little while, he withdrew himself into the wilderness, where he lived in extreme abstinence, fed by heavenly grace. Thither, by the inspiration of God, came the holy Doctor John de la Mata of Paris, and found him, and they led an holy life together for several years, until they were both warned of an Angel to go to Rome and seek a special Rule of life from the Pope. Pope Innocent III. while he was solemnly celebrating the Liturgy on the 28^th day of January, 1198, received in a vision the revelation of the Order and Institute for the redemption of bondsmen, and he forthwith clad Felix and John in white garments marked with a cross of red and blue, made after the likeness of the raiment wherein the Angel had appeared. This Pope also willed that the new Order should bear, as well as the habit of three colours, the name of the Most Holy Trinity.

When they had received the confirmation of their rule from Pope Innocent, John and Felix enlarged the first house of their Order, which they had built a little while before at Cerfroi, in the diocese of Meaux, in France. There Felix wonderfully devoted himself to the promotion of Regular Observance and of the Institute for the redemption of bondsmen, and thence he busily spread the same by sending forth his disciples into other provinces. Here it was that he received an extraordinary favour from the blessed Maiden-Mother. On the night of the Nativity of the Mother of God, the brethren lay all asleep, and by the Providence of God woke not to say Mattins. But Felix was watching, as his custom was, and came betimes into the Choir. There he found the Blessed Virgin in the midst of the Choir, clad in raiment marked with the Cross of his Order, the Cross of red and blue; and with her a company of the heavenly host in like garments. And Felix was mingled among them. And the Mother of God began to sing, and they all sang with her and praised God; and Felix sang with them; and so they finished the Office. So now that he seemed to have been already called away from glorifying God on earth, to glorify Him in heaven, an Angel told Felix that the hour of his death was at hand. When therefore he had exhorted his children to be tender to the poor and to slaves, he gave up his soul to God (upon the 4th day of November) in the year of Christ 1212, in the time of the same Pope Innocent III., being four-score-and-five years old, and full of good works. (Matins, Feast of Saint Felix of Valois, November 20, The Divine Office.)

We need the help of Saint Felix of Valois to plead with the Mother of God, to whom he was so devoted, to ransom us from the evils that imperil the salvation of our immortal souls and those that afflict the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal. The salvation of our immortal souls is all that matters to us in the end, and it is this Last End of man that the conciliar revolutionaries have shown themselves to be stumbling blocks and obstacles as they promote false doctrines both directly by their words and actions and indirectly by means of “conflicts” that give the appearance of substantive disagreements even though each is agreed on the fundamental tenets of their basic apostasy.

We beg Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary to avoid the evils that imperil our souls and to avoid all contagion with conciliarism and its false doctrines.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end. We just have to plant a few seeds by the graces she sends us to be faithful to Christ the King and to the immutable truths of His true Church, which is, of course, always enjoys a Perpetual Immunity of the Church from Error and Heresy.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!