Shed No Tears for The Fuller Brush Man

The Fuller Brush Man is dead.

What do I mean?

Let me give you the kind of roundabout answer for which I have become fairly infamous.

My late mother, Norma Florence Red Fox Droleskey, was never properly catechized in the Faith. Adopted as an infant by a vaudevillian performer who claimed, falsely, to be a Sioux Indian chieftain, my mother led a rather itinerant existence throughout much of her early childhood and into her adolescence before her father-by-adoption, Chief William Red Fox, settled in Corpus Christi, Texas, which is where he would spend the remaining forty years of his life and where my mother's (and father's) mortal remains are buried.

My poor mother just never understood the Faith, something that was a source of much friction between us as she could not make the distinction between the bad example given by those in ecclesiastical office (and by prominent Catholics—the Kennedys, Francis Albert Sinatra, et al.—who were given favors by those in ecclesiastical office despite their scandalous lives) and the truths of the Holy Faith, none of which depend upon the behavior of sinful human beings for their objective validity, a point made very clearly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly, the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, [130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member." [131] (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

It is very sad that my mother, like so many other Catholics throughout the centuries who have fallen away from the practice of the Holy Faith, never understood the simple truth enunciated by Pope Pius XII nearly seventy-five years ago. My mother did, however, have many good natural instincts, most of which were purely visceral but based nonetheless on a reasonably good insight into human nature.

For example, my mother always disliked Peter Edward Rose from the first time she saw him play for the Cincinnati Reds in 1963. "That man is a stinker," my mother said. "He'd probably cheat and lie as soon as look at you." Not a bad observation as it turned out seven years after her death in 1982 when the stories of Pete Rose's betting on baseball games while he was the manager of the Cincinnati Reds broke and resulted in his being banned permanently from Major League Baseball by then Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamotti on August 24, 1989.

My mother, who took me to Holy Mass at Saint Aloysius Church in Great Neck, New York, with my younger brother even though she really did not understand the Faith, also had a visceral dislike for "The Fuller Brush Man," who was none other than the Baptist "preacher" known as Billy Graham. Graham, who sold Fuller brushes door to door in the late-1930s at one point, was viewed by mother as a charlatan for creating his own church. No, my mother may not have understood the true Faith. She was rather adamant in her ignorance about the Faith. However, she was no friend of Protestantism or its false "preachers" either.

All of this comes to mind as the Fuller Brush Man has died at the age of ninety-nine in Montreat, North Carolina, after a six decade career of taking Catholics out of the true Church and convincing Protestants that they were “saved” and that their sins had been “forgiven” once they made their so-called “profession of faith” at the money-making “rallies” that he held in stadiums, amphitheaters, coliseums, convention centers and other such venues. Although Protestant “revival preaching” has deep roots going back to the Seventeenth Century in this Calvinist/Judeo-Masonic country of ours, William Franklin Graham, Jr., thus helped to provide a contemporary model of large rallies in modern arenas that would be followed by the conciliar “popes,” starting with Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, of holding supposed “religious” services in stadiums, harkening back to the days of the spectacles of the Roman Coliseum itself. 

Far from “preaching the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” which He has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping, the Fuller Brush Man preached a false gospel and a false theology based on false and blasphemous “King James” and similar heretical versions of Sacred Scripture. William Franklin Graham, Jr., had no mission from Our Lord to serve Him in any capacity, and it is thus offensive to Our Lord and to the blood of the martyrs shed in defense of the Faith against heretics, including Protestants, to eulogize Graham as anything other than a dupe of the devil.

Even some Protestants, believe it or not, criticized Billy Graham during his life for his nondenominational “crusades, but such criticism was misplaced as Billy Graham had his own “church,” the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which continues as a big, worldwide money-making operation to this very day under the direction of one of his sons, William Franklin Graham III. Millions upon millions of people, including many Catholics, have been hoodwinked into making donations to the “BGEA” to enable its mission of spreading a falsified gospel by heretical preachers.

Make no mistake about it, although Protestant “evangelists” were taking Catholics, including my late paternal uncle out of Holy Mother Church in our land of religious indifferentism (“one religion is as good as another,” “who are you to tell me I can’t believe or do what I want,” etc.) in the decades before the “Second” Vatican Council, the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s embrace of false ecumenism gave William Franklin Graham, Jr., the opportunity of a heretical lifetime to take Catholics out of the Faith. Although Graham was viscerally anti-Catholic during the first forty-six years of his life and even held a meeting of Protestant “ministers” in Switzerland in 1960 to urge then to work against the election of United States John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) because he was a Catholic, he made “nice, nice” with Kennedy, who “prayed” with him at the so-called “National Prayer Breakfast” on February 9, 1961, the Feast of Saint Romuald and the Commemoration of Saint Dorothy, three weeks after Kennedy’s inauguration (see John F. Kennedy Library Archives and see the photograph in Appendix C below. Appendix D contains a brief description as to how the former rum-runner for the Mafia, the womanizing Kennedy’s womanizing father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., encouraged him to invite Graham) and even went to Rome to make “nice, nice” with Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII.

Ah, but it was the infamous Americanist enabler of the Kennedy clan, the notorious Richard Cardinal Cushing, who was appointed as the Archbishop of Boston by Pope Pius XII in 1944, who was the first American prelate to encourage Catholics to attend a “Billy Graham Crusade,” doing so in 1950 (Pope Saint Pius X would have removed Cushing once he had gotten word of this outrage, but Pope Pius XII left him in place). It was during the “Second” Vatican Council that Cushing gave Graham an even more public elegy of praise:

By 1961, Mr. Graham and President Kennedy prayed side by side at a Washington prayer breakfast. A few years later, in 1964, Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston (who, as archbishop, had even endorsed a Graham crusade in Boston in 1950) met with Mr. Graham upon returning from Rome and the Second Vatican Council, declaring before a national television audience that Mr. Graham’s message was good for Catholics.

Cardinal Cushing said, “God will bless [Graham’s] preaching and crusade.” Mr. Graham responded with gratitude, stating that he felt much closer to Catholics and Catholic tradition than he did to what was more alien to his message: liberal Protestantism. (How Billy Graham Shaped American Catholicism. For a review of some of Cushing’s other outrageous comments, please see Determined Not To Accept the Truth of Truth Himself, Christ the King, part two. Appendix A below contains another example of Cushing’s “adherence” to Catholic teaching and canon law concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.)

Americanist religious indifferentism paved the way for the “Second” Vatican Council, whose embrace of false ecumenism led the formerly anti-Catholic William Franklin Graham, Jr., to find new ways to “reach” Catholics with his heretical preaching of a false gospel.

Even though Graham had met with “Saint John XXIII” and with “Blessed Paul the Sick,” he struck up a close friend with met Karol Josef Wotyla/“Saint John Paul II” in 1981, prompting Graham to praise his partner in false ecumenism as follows upon his friend’s death on April 1, 2005:

“Pope John Paul II was unquestionably the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world during the last 100 years. His extraordinary gifts, his strong Catholic faith, and his experience of human tyranny and suffering in his native Poland all shaped him, and yet he was respected by men and women from every conceivable background across the world. He was truly one of those rare individuals whose legacy will endure long after he has gone.

“It was my privilege to meet with him at the Vatican on various occasions, and I will always remember his personal warmth to me and his deep interest in our ministry. In his own way, he saw himself as an evangelist, traveling far more than any other Pope to rally the faithful and call non-believers to commitment. He was convinced that the complex problems of our world are ultimately moral and spiritual in nature, and only Christ can set us free from the shackles of sin and greed and violence. His courage and perseverance in the face of advancing age and illness were an inspiration to millions — including me.

“I have been invited to attend the funeral service for Pope John Paul II, but I will not be able to go for health reasons. I have asked a member of my family and one of my long-time associates to represent me at that service.

“May his death remind each of us that some day we too must die and enter into God’s presence — and may we each commit ourselves afresh to Jesus Christ, who died and rose again for our salvation.” (Billy Graham Praises "Brother" Karol.)

Yes, yes, yes, the wonders of “ecumenism.”

The late “Father” Richard John Neuhaus, the famous Luther pastor of Saint Peter’s Lutheran Church in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, was an admirer of Graham’s. Neuhaus, who made a “personal decision” to convert to what he thought was the Catholic Church in 1990 even though he did not believe that all Protestants had to follow his example (see Saying Luther's Goal Was One Church, Noted Lutheran Turns to Catholicism), provided a detailed account of “Saint” Wojtyla’s close friendship with the Fuller Brush Man:

Opening his Southern crusades to blacks and cooperating with Roman Catholics, both measures vigorously criticized by many of his supporters, required courage of the kind conventionally lauded as liberal or progressive. It is true that challenging racial segregation and anti-Catholic prejudice were both deemed progressive stances, but I am rather sure that carried little weight with Billy Graham. His singular passion was to preach the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to absolutely everyone.

Many Catholic leaders warmly welcomed his ministry; others were more ambivalent. In New York, the late John Cardinal O'Connor embraced him and urged archdiocese priests to encourage people to come out to hear him. Innumerable Catholics were doubtlessly renewed and strengthened in faith as a consequence of Graham's ministry.

He met with popes from John XXIII to John Paul II, and his friendship with the latter seemed especially warm and deep. After an extraordinary personal meeting of two hours in 1989, Graham reported, "There was a pause in the conversation; suddenly the pope's arm shot out and he grabbed the lapels of my coat, he pulled me forward within inches of his own face. He fixed his eyes on me and said, 'Listen Graham, we are brothers.'"

Already in 1966, only a year after the Second Vatican Council, Graham said, "I find myself closer to Catholics than the radical Protestants. I think the Roman Catholic Church today is going through a second Reformation." On The Phil Donahue Show in 1979, he said, "I think the American people are looking for a leader, a moral and spiritual leader that believes something. And the pope does. … Thank God, I've got somebody to quote now with some real authority." On John Paul's visit to America in 1980: "[He] has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century. ... The pope came [to America] as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist. … The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age—by pointing people to Christ." And later, on the pope's message in Vancouver, where Graham preached a month later: "I'll tell you, that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I've ever heard. … He gives moral guidance in a world that seems to have lost its way."

In his statements about John Paul II, as well as about Mother Teresa and the Catholic church more generally, many evangelicals thought Graham had gone overboard or landed in gross heresy. But I am confident that he was driven by a passion for sharing the saving gospel of Christ. In the great encyclical of 2000, Redemptoris Missio ("Mission of the Redeemer"), John Paul envisioned the third millennium as "a springtime of world evangelization." Graham surrendered his entire life to playing a not insignificant part in precipitating that springtime. (The Preacher and the "Popes".)

“Listen, Graham, we are brothers” demonstrates that, despite differences of style and emphases of preaching, “Saint John Paul II” was of one mind with the man he elevated to the “College of Cardinals” on February 21, 2001, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who called Tony Palmer, an Anglican “bishop,” as his “brother bishop” in a video presentation he, the Argentine Apostate, recorded to be played at the “Kenneth Copeland Ministries” rally in Fort Worth, Texas, four years ago last month. (See Appendix B for more information about the Tony Palmer-Bergoglio friendship.)

Well, William Graham, Jr., and Karol Josef Wojtyla were brothers, but in falsehood, not Christianity. Wojtyla reaffirmed the snake-oil salesman who came to the “decision” in 1943 that the Bible was the infallible word of God, in his false “mission” of preaching, and Graham, in turn, was willing to expend capital with other Protestants to obtain permission from the “pope” and his “bishops” to encourage Catholics to attend his “missions” and “crusades.” Conciliarism’s false ecumenism and Billy Graham were made for each other.

Many American dioceses welcome William Franklin Graham, Jr., when he scheduled a “mission” within their territorial boundaries. As noted in the Neuhaus article, cited above, which appears to have been written by the late Lutheran pastor/conciliar presbyter prospectively in anticipation of Graham’s death (Neuhaus himself died on January 8, 2009), the late John “Cardinal” O’Connor welcomed Graham into the Archdiocese of New York. So did the late “Bishop” John Raymond McGann, the nefarious conciliar “ordinary” of the Diocese of Rockville Centre from June 24, 1976, to January 4, 2000, something that I remember very well as organizers of a “Stand Up for Life” rally in September of 1990 at Eisenhower Park in the County of Nassau, New York, got themselves hoodwinked by organizers of a “Billy Graham Crusade” at the Nassau Coliseum into promoting the “crusade” in exchange for their being able to plaster cars in the coliseum’s parking lot with flyers for their rally, which ran from September 19, 1990, to September 23, 1990. The BGEA people, however, reneged on their word, forbidding any promotion of the pro-life rally a few days later.

This should not have come as a surprise as Billy Graham never “preached” on moral issues, including the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers’ wombs. Indeed, he was not “pro-life” as he supported the deliberate, willful execution of the preborn in their mothers’ wombs in the so-called “hard cases.” See for yourself:

Consider the advice that is found in the The Billy Graham Christian Worker's Handbook:

Billy Graham writes: "We should accept abortion in these cases: rape or incest or if the delivery of the child is a threat to a mother's life." (p. 19, The Billy Graham Christian Worker's Handbook, copyright 1997 edition) 

Graham also noted the following in the 2001 printing of the 1996 edition of The Billy Graham Christian Worker's Handbook:

Even sincere Christians may differ on whether or not abortion is ever justified, especially in difficult situations such as rape or incest, or when tests reveal that the unborn child has severe abnormalities. (The Billy Graham Christian Worker's Handbook, p. 21)

Billy Graham has now met Christ the King, the One Whose Holy Gospel he profaned, first of all by rejecting the simple fact that Divine Revelation consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition. Graham, who claimed to preach the “Bible” even though he did not accept the canonicity of what Protestants call the “Deutero-Canonical” books of the Old Testament, knows now that the words of Pope Pius XII condemning abortion under any and all circumstances applied to him and his belief that “sincere” Christians could “disagree” about the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings:

If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.

We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated an argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pius XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)

No one but no one, including any supposedly “pro-life” adherent of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” in public life such as President Donald John Trump, is truly pro-life if he supports the deliberate, willful execution of the innocent preborn under any circumstances. Such a person is simply less pro-abortion than those who are apologists for unlimited baby-killing under any circumstances. It was the case long before various states began to decriminalize surgical baby-killing in the 1960s that physicians intent on killing a preborn child used the existence of “exceptions” in state laws as a pretext for doing so, and this remains the case today whenever any kind “exceptions” are permitted in legislation.

Words matter.

Truth matters.

To be “pro-life” is to oppose all abortions at all times—and it is to oppose the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage by endorsing, if not using, any form of contraceptives, which had the full backing of the “Reverend” William Franklin Graham, Jr.

The "conservative" Billy Graham was in the vanguard of "evangelical" support for birth control as early as 1959. Consider this excerpt from a Time magazine article of December 21, 1959:

Baptist Evangelist Billy Graham agreed. Birth control, he said, is one of the ways of coping with the "terrifying and tragic" problem of overpopulation; there is nothing in Scripture that prohibits its responsible use, and most Americans practice it, "whether they are Protestants or Roman Catholics. (The Birth-Control Debate - TIME, December 21, 1959.) 

Contraception is a grave evil. Over and above the fact that most forms of contraception kill a living human being, contraception is of its very nature a rejection of the absolute Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. God wants human beings to populate this earth so that their immortal souls can be regenerated in the Baptismal font and thereafter give Him honor and glory as members of the Catholic Church as they seek to work out their salvation in fear and in trembling, offering their prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother. "Overpopulation" was a myth of population imperialists in the 1950s and it remains a myth today. Most of the "developed" countries in the world are seeing their indigenous populations die off as a result of contraception and abortion.  

Although Graham rarely spoke about any "controversial" moral issues in public and praised effusively pro-aborts such as the Clintons, his quasi-magisterium, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, sought to "clarify" these statements in an e-mail that is sent to people who inquired about The Fuller Brush Man's views on abortion:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting us. Please accept our sincere apology for the long delay in answering, due to the great volume of e-mail received. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your message.

You shared with us your concern about a statement made in the CHRISTIAN WORKER'S HANDBOOK. Let us clarify that the current edition reads: "Even sincere Christians may differ on whether or not abortion is ever justified, especially in difficult situations such as rape or incest, or when tests reveal that the unborn child has severe abnormalities."

In his "My Answer" column, Mr. Graham has stated: "I am opposed to abortion, except possibly in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. I oppose the casual approach to abortion that is so common today, and I believe it is one of the most serious sins of the modern world in the eyes of God." Please note the word "possibly" in Mr. Graham's statement. This is not a recommendation, but a recognition that under certain very limited situations, it might be necessary. You may want to read the portion of Mr. Graham's book STORM WARNING entitled "The Abortion Holocaust." It deals more extensively with his perspective. In the book, he notes, "The Bible makes it clear that God sees the unborn infant not as a piece of superfluous tissue, but as a person created by Him for life." Mr. Graham strongly opposes "abortion on demand" and was instrumental in the founding of the ministry of Care Net, the largest evangelical network of crisis pregnancy centers. Their ministry seeks to provide the most accessible and effective abortion alternatives possible.

Mr. Graham believes that the spiritual condition of man is at the root of the abortion issue. Until man's spiritual condition is changed by the power of Jesus Christ, we will not find a full solution to this problem. It is sin that produces the problem of most unwanted pregnancies, as well as all the other disorders which plague the human race. It is also sin which produces the misbelief that women have a "right" to take the lives of unborn babies.

Life is sacred, and we must seek to protect all human life: the unborn, the child, the adult, and the aged. Several Bible passages tell of the sacredness of life and speak to the subject of abortion. They include Exodus 20:13, 21:22, 23:7; Job 10:8-12; Psalms 22:10, 51:5, 127:3, 139:13-16; Isaiah 44:1-2, 49:5; Jeremiah 1:4-5. All expectant mothers who face difficult issues should prayerfully consider the teaching of Scripture and competent Christian medical and pastoral counsel.

We hope these thoughts provide clarification.

Sincerely,

Lori A. Perz
Christian Guidance Department
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association 

God did not appoint Billy Graham to be an interpreter of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Billy Graham's "views" about the possible permissibility of surgical baby-killing in some instances were irrelevant. Indeed, those views were from the devil himself as it is only he, the devil, who wants human beings to think that there is ever a circumstance in which an innocent human being may be put to death as a result of an intentional, directly willed act to take his life. While it is very nice that Billy Graham opposed "abortion on demand," he had no right from God to support surgical or chemical abortions under any conditions for any reason whatsoever.

Alas, the Protestant Revolt against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church is of the devil from begriming to end. Protestantism is a revolt against the Divine foundation and maintenance of the Catholic Church and her hierarchical nature. Protestantism is a revolt against the sacramental system established by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as it has been given exclusively by Him to His Catholic Church. Protestantism is a rejection of the Catholic theology of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and to reject the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is to do the work of the devil himself. Protestantism is evil of it very nature. Evil, and there can never be any compromise of any kind with evil.

This is how the matter was put by Father Frederick Faber in the American preface to The Hidden Treasure: Holy Mass, by Saint Leonard of Port Maurice:

"Where there is no Mass," writes one of the Fathers of the English Oratory, "there is no Christianity." The reason is plain. Christ's life was one of sacrifice--not merely of the figurative sacrifice of praise and prayer, but one of outward act, of suffering and of death. His religion must be like Himself: it must be the continuation of the divine human life that He led upon earth, representing and perpetuating, by some sacred rite, the sacrifice that began in the womb of Mary and ended upon the cross of Calvary. That rite is the holy Mass. Do we always realize it as such? Does the conviction sink deep into us, when offering, or assisting at the adorable sacrifice, that Jesus is re-enacting, in our presence, the mysteries of His life and death?

The altar of the Mass is the holy house of Nazareth, the city of Bethlehem, the Egyptian place of exile, the hill of Calvary, the garden-tomb in which Our Saviour's corpse reposed, and the Mount of Olives from which He ascended. The Passion, it is true, is that which is primarily represented and continued in the holy Mass; yet the prayers and rites of the sacrifice refer, at times, to other mysteries. Thus the dropping of a part of the sacred host into the chalice, before the Agnus Dei, represents the reunion of Christ's soul with His body and blood on the morning of the Resurrection. For a description of the many and beautiful analogies between the eucharistic life of Our Lord and His sacred Infancy, we refer the reader to Father Faber's Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament.

The Mass is truly a "hidden treasure," and, alas, our cold, dead faith allows it to remain so. If we valued it as we ought, we would hurry every morning to the church, ceaseless of the snows of winter and the heats of summer, in order to get a share of the riches of this treasure.

The saints knew the value of one Mass: that it was a dark day in their calendar on which they were deprived of the happy privilege of saying or hearing Mass. Although St. Francis de Sales was overburdened with apostolic work on the Mission of the Chablais, he made it a point never to miss his daily Mass. In order to keep his holy resolution, he had frequently to cross the river Drance, to the village of Marin, in which there was a Catholic church. It happened, in the winter of 1596, that a great freshet carried away a portion of the bridge over the stream, and the passengers were, in consequence, compelled to cross on a plank laid over those arches of the broken structure that had withstood the waters. Heavy falls of snow, followed by severe frosts, made this board very slippery, so that it became dangerous to attempt passing on on it; but St. Francis was not to be deterred, for despite the remonstration of his friends, he made the perilous journey every morning, creeping over the icy plank on his hands and feet, thus daily risking his life rather than lose Mass.

Dear Christian reader! beg this glorious saint to obtain for you and me some portion of his burning love for the most holy and adorable sacrifice of the altar.  (The Hidden Treasure: Holy Mass.)

No, no one who disbelieves in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass practices true Christianity, which is, of course, Catholicism. No baptized Catholic who disbelieves that the Mass is indeed the unbloody re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross is a Catholic in good standing.

We have seen, therefore, a convergence of the dark forces of Protestantism and of Modernism, the former of which has helped to create the latter, which has joined the former to sustain a world that can only degenerate over the course of time because of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and disbelief in the necessity of men and their nations to gather around the Sacrifice of the Cross every day in Holy Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the chief means by which the souls of men are sanctified. It is thus the chief means by which nations can know any semblance of social order as individual men seek to live in this live as befits citizens of Heaven mindful that every one of their actions has an eternal dimension and must be subordinated to the Deposit of Faith that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church.

As a Protestant, the late William Franklin Graham, Jr., who was an “ordained” Baptist minister, believed that “the church” was an amorphous mass of believers without a hierarchy even though each Protestant sect, including the “Billy Graham Evangelistic Association,” has a hierarchy. Moreover, Billy Graham was seen as sort of an American “pope” who is being hailed in death as “America’s Pastor,” something that is true in the sense that the United States of America is open to every error imaginable.

Remember, as power abhors a vacuum, many Protestants have had to create “hierarchies” to “guide” them in their daily lives. In other words, Protestant "popes," if you will, had to emerge over the course of time to speak “authoritatively” for Protestants about theological and secular issues. Look at the influence that the late Billy Graham and the late Jerry Falwell, the late Oral Roberts, the late Robert Schuller and the very much alive Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson, among so many others, have exercised upon American life in the past seventy years or so.

What is truly tragic for the sanctity and salvation of the souls of men and the good of their nations is that these pseudo-hierarchies of pseudo-religious sects exist even though the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, calls each of them to submit to a visible hierarchy, headed by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, which alone has the power to teach in the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to provide them with the supernatural helps He Himself instituted to aid them in life and at the hour of death:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” ¹⁷ As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. ¹⁸ And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. ¹⁹ It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.²⁰ For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

65. For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption [123] -- was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete. The Eternal Father indeed willed it to be the "kingdom of the Son of his predilection;" [124] but it was to be a real kingdom, in which all believers should make Him the entire offering of their intellect and will, [125] and humbly and obediently model themselves on Him, Who for our sake "was made obedient unto death." [126] There can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect each other -- as do the body and soul in man -- and proceed from our one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," [127] but also clearly commanded: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you"; [128] and again: "He that heareth you heareth me." [129] (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.

None of the conciliar "popes" who met with William Franklin Graham, Jr., ever exhorted him to convert to the Catholic Faith. This is because these apostates have rejected the clear teaching expressed by Pope Pius XI in his apostolical letter to Protestants, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, to invited them to convert to the Faith in advance of the [First] Vatican Council:

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Pope Pius IX feared to have to render an account to Christ the King if he had, "through some possibility," "not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a brutal ecclesiastical tyrant, does not.

Pope Leo XIII also sought with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the true Faith, addressing the Orthodox as follows in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)

Condemning the nascent ecumenical movement of his own day that would triumph at the "Second" Vatican Council and in the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes," Pope Pius XI was just as direct in inviting non-Catholics to convert to the the Faith:

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

The Catholic Church is indeed "the pillar and ground of the truth, which is why she can never cast aside the "integrity of the faith" in order to tolerate the errors of non-Catholics. Her shepherds have unhesitatingly invited all non-Catholics to submit to the teaching and government of the Catholic Church, which was founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Willaim Franklin Graham, Jr., was able to exploit the counterfeit church of conciliarism's rejection of what Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI disparingly called "the ecuemnism of return" by using the endorsement given him by the conciliar "popes" to have ready access to Catholics, many of whom left what they thought was the Catholic Church to become a follower of his, Graham's, because he gave them partial truths about Our Lord that were more appealing than the preaching of conciliar priests and presbyters. 

Do not be tempted to eulogize The Fuller Brush Man, the gifted and superbly eloquent Billy Graham, who, though not a Freemason, had high words of praise for Masonic-affiliated organizations and was held in very high esteem by high-ranking members of various Masonic lodges (see Freemasons Praise Billy Graham) No one who praises Freemasonry and/or any of its allied associations is a friend of Christ the King and the sanctification and salvation of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.

Alas, the greatest tragedy of the Fuller Brush Man’s life and death is that he never knew nor honored Our Lady as the Mother of God and he never knew the power of her Most Holy Rosary. It is bad enough to gain worldwide fame for preaching a false gospel. However, is far worse for a man such as William Franklin Graham, Jr., to live for nearly a century without knowing the lovingly tender care that Our Lady desired to shower upon him if only he had accepted her as the August Queen of Heaven and taken her for his own very Most Blessed Mother.

We must offer up our prayers and our sacrifices and humiliations and mortifications and penances to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, so that every human being on the face of this earth, including those who followed the false preacher named William Franklin Graham, Jr., will be converted to the true Catholic Faith and then recognize in the Mother of God the Singular Vessel of Devotion without whose intercession we cannot get to Heaven.

A blessed Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch to you all!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.

Appendix A

Richard Cushing's Endorsement of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy's Invalid Marriage to Aristotle Onassis

"This idea of saying she's excommunicated, that she's a public sinner—what a lot of nonsense. Only God knows who is a sinner and who is not. Why can't she marry whomever she wants?"

The speaker defending Jackie Kennedy's marriage to Aristotle Onassis was no gossip columnist or pundit—indeed, few society reporters were so disposed. He was Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Prince of the Holy Roman Church and—as it turned out last week—foremost a friend in need.

The cardinal made his defense of Jackie at a meeting of Boston's Caritas Guild, composed of the city's licensed beverage executives, and he chose that platform to stress caritas—charity. As Cushing knows, it is one of the most elusive of virtues. Two days after his speech, he announced that the volume of hate mail he had received as a consequence, some of it "in the language of the gutter," had persuaded him to resign his see at the end of this year instead of his previous target date, August 1970.

The emotional defense of Jackie by Cushing—who had presided at her first wedding in 1953 and at John Kennedy's funeral ten years later—was not very well received in Rome either. Before Cushing spoke out, the Vatican's chief press officer, Monsignor Fausto Vallainc, had expressed the church's official view that Jackie had "knowingly violated the law of the church" and was ineligible to receive the sacraments. Although reluctant to dispute a cardinal, Vatican theologians simply reiterated their interpretation of the church's law after Cushing's statement.

Totally Unpredictable. In announcing his decision to resign well ahead of schedule, Cushing complained that 98% of the mail he had received since his statement to the Caritas Guild had condemned his stand. The cardinal sentimentally pointed out that his own sister had married a Jew outside the church and that, while Mrs. Onassis might not be able to receive the sacraments, "she should continue all the private devotions she had as a Catholic."

It was the third time that Cushing had publicly announced his intention to resign. A product of Boston's once-Irish urban ghetto, he was named Archbishop of the city in 1944, and subsequently proved to be one of the great school and church builders of American Catholicism. Affectionately human and totally unpredictable, Cushing was, more importantly, a pioneer ecumenicist in the open style of Pope John, a maverick prelate who found it possible, at various times, to endorse both the John Birch Society and the N.A.A.C.P. In poor health for many years—and, at 73, only two years away from the age limit suggested for episcopal resignations by Pope Paul—Cushing had good reason to ask to be relieved of duty. The Pope is said to have a high regard for Cushing and may well decide to refuse his resignation. On the other hand, if the cardinal mentioned illness or fatigue in his formal request to Paul, that might persuade the Vatican this time to accede to his wishes. (Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article.)

[Thomas A. Droleskey note: Cushing's resignation in 1968 was not accepted by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI at the time. Cushing did not retire until September 8, 1970, after he had turned seventy-five years of age. He died nearly two months later, on November 2, 1970. Oh, by the way, Cushing endorsed the John Birch Society because of its anti-Communism and because its leading founder, the late Robert Welch, believed that Communism had to be fought with Americanism, not, of course, the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King as we pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in fulfillment of her Fatima Message to defeat the anti-Incarnational forces at work in the work. Cushing, a thorough Americanist, thought that this was all just peachy keen swell.]

Appendix B

Bergoglio’s Friendship with His “Brother Bishop,” Tony Palmer

In the message to his widow, Council President Cardinal Kurt Koch says Bishop Palmer’s meetings with Pope Francis over recent months “have given great impetus to ecumenical relations between the Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians.” His strong faith and his passion for unity, the Cardinal says, “reached a global audience of Christians with the message that there is no time to be wasted in division, the time for unity is now.”

During one of his visits to the Vatican in February this year, Bishop Palmer recorded an iphone message that Pope Francis wished to send to a Pentecostal group meeting in the United States. In that off-the-cuff video message, the Pope speaks frankly of his longing for unity and reconciliation, saying that all Christians share the blame for the sins of division.

Mgr Juan Usma Gomez heads the Pontifical Council desk for relations with Pentecostals, Evangelicals and Charismatic groups. He talked to us about the significant impact that Bishop Palmer’s friendship with Pope Francis has had on the worldwide ecumenical movement, saying that they first met in Argentina when Tony Palmer was part of a delegation of Pentecostals and Evangelicals that was holding talks with the Catholic Church in Buenos Aires....."when Tony Palmer was ordained bishop in the Communion of Episcopal Evangelical Churches, they received greetings from the then archbishop Bergoglio...."

Mgr Usma Gomez says Pope Francis teaches us that "to work for Christian unity you need brotherhood....and you realise that all the friends he had in Argentina continue to be his friends.......he's trying to build up not only relations of friendship but also relations of churches trying to look for the promotion of Christian unity..."

He says that the iphone message recorded by Bishop Palmer for the Pentecostal community "opened a door because it reached a really significant number of people...it's an adventure that Pope Francis is asking us to establish.....he started it, he's way ahead of us and we're trying to follow this pattern!" (Jorge's friendship with late Evangelical leader Tony Palmer. See also Francumenism: Mission Accomplished.)

Appendix C

William Franklin Graham, Jr., born on November 7, 1918, with President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, born on May 29, 1917, at the “National Prayer Breakfast,” Washington, District of Columbia, February 9, 1961

Billy and Jack "Prayin'" Together 

Appendix D

At Old Man Joe Kennedy’s Request

America’s first Roman Catholic president invited America’s most famous Protestant minister to lunch and a game of golf in Palm Beach, Fla., in 1961. Kennedy knew Graham had favored his opponent, Richard Nixon, in the 1960 election. But at his father’s suggestion, Democrat Kennedy had asked Graham to come to Florida in hopes of defusing the issue of JFK’s religion. It worked. With the president at his side, Graham told reporters that Kennedy’s election had promoted better relations between Catholic and Protestant churches. (See The Life of Billy Graham)