The forces of Antichrist in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been emboldened to unmask themselves and their agenda of evil without fear of obstruction from anything other than a few “discordant” voices who lack any temporal means to stop them in their assault upon everything contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Each one of the Ten Commandments is under a daily assault from the mutually reinforcing of Judeo-Masonic naturalism in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. This is an assault from which there is no refuge whatsoever. Everyone—from the preborn to the elderly and everyone else in between—is a banana peel away from slipping into the grip of the spiritual and physical death-dealing potentates of Modernity and Modernism.
Two recent articles, Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros, have documented the way in which the likes of George Soros have transformed healthcare into a vessel of rank utilitarianism that comes replete with judges that give deference to hospital death panels whose members play God with human lives.
There exists a completely unnuanced preferential option for death on the part of civil potentates and the healthcare “professionals” they enabled, and there exists a nuanced preferential option for death on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries, These undeniable realities are displaying themselves in an unmistakable manner in the case of Charlie Gard, a ten-month old baby who is one of sixteen babies in the world who are known to suffer from a condition, mitochondrial depletion syndrome for which no known cure presently exists. There are, however, experimental treatments that might help Charlie Gard. Any success with Charlie Gard would help other babies in the future.
This having been noted, however, Charlie Gard is a human being. Although he has been granted a reprieve for the moment, a death sentence that was handed down by black-robed jurists who are but the inheritors of England’s bloody tradition of “legalized” killing of innocent human beings that began during King Henry VIII’s revolution against the Catholic Church, whose missionaries had converted English pagans during Roman times and then re-evangelized them after Pope Saint Gregory the Great sent Saint Augustine of Canterbury to them 600 A.D. Charlie Gard and his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, are but victims of a medical industry that was shaped by a utilitarian ethos that has its roots in the English Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ King, making possible the triumph of all manner of false ideologies as the sterile substitutes for the Holy Faith.
Before discussing the specifics of the Charlie Gard tragedy, including the statement about it issued by the president of the so-called “Pontifical Academy for Life,” “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia, I believe that it is important to provide some of the background that has made cases such as Charlie Gard’s so commonplace in what is now called the United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world, although I would ask readers to re-read The Real "Brexit" Occurred In 1534 for a detailed examination of the long-lasting effects of the Protestant Revolution there.
From Protestantism to Evolutionism to Utilitarianism to Atheistic Marxism
As noted in Sunday's commentary, The West Was Made Great by the Catholic Faith, Nothing Else, the efforts of various Renaissance thinkers to divorce culture from the faith and statecraft from morality, to say nothing of the State from the Social Kinship of Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, found allies in those who fomented the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century.
Martin Luther propagated the false notion that one is “saved” by making a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus in his heart and on his lips, thereby eschewing the truth that one needs to work out his salvation in fear and in trembling, that it is possible by one Mortal Sin to lose one’s salvation for all eternity. Luther further helped to advance the agenda of the secular relativists by his promotion of the heretical view that there is but one source of Divine Revelation–Sacred Scripture–and that said source is subject to the individual interpretation of believers, rejecting entirely the magisterium of the Church established by the God-Man Himself. This belief in individual interpretation was to render Scripture into meaninglessness, as the rejection of any ultimate authority in the Church meant that the “opinion” of each individual believer was a good as another’s.
Thus, the way was left wide open for the demythologizing of Sacred Scripture, a process begun in earnest by the German Protestant “scripture scholars” in the immediate wake of Charles Darwin’s theory of the natural selection of the species in the late-Nineteenth Century. Protestantism of its very nature, therefore, opened way for those alleging themselves to be Christians to cite their own individual authority and expertise to place into question the very truths contained in that which was said to be the sole source of Divine Revelation, and resulted in the ultimate triumph of the secular evolutionists and positivists and relativists and naturalists in the midst of the world-at-large. Pope Saint Pius X critiqued the falsity of such scriptural exegesis in great detail in his encyclical letter on Modernism, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
The result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
It fell to Pope Pius XII to condemn the recrudescence of Modernist Scriptural exegesis when it resurfaced under the aegis of the “new theology,” based on the very evolution of dogma that had been condemned by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Gregis Dominci:
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Affflante Spiritu."
25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
The belief in the evolution of dogmatic truth and of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, although inherent in the very essence of the Protestant Revolution, was given great impetus by the two great evolutionary revolutions of the Nineteenth Century, Darwinism and Marxism.
The belief that human beings evolved randomly from a set of molecules has reinforced the false philosophies and heretical theologies that have been proposed in the past seven hundred years, and were propagated even before the rise of the “Second” Vatican Council and the counterfeit church of conciliarism under the guises of Modernism, Sillonism, the Liturgical Movement, and Chardinianism, among other things.
Even though the path for the acceptance of Darwin’s false ideology evolutionism–and its vast consequences on the devolution of human behavior and hence human society—was paved by the variety of forces noted herein, it arrived on the scene while other evolutionary ideologies and philosophies were gaining acceptance in intellectual circles.
Thus, Georg Hegel’s concept of a dialectical process responsible for the inevitable evolution of ideas in history became the foundation for Karl Marx’s belief that human history was nothing other than the clash of competing economic classes according to the principle of dialectical materialism, a process which would result inevitably in the evolutionary triumph of communism. Darwin’s evolutionism and Karl Marx’s evolutionary notion of history merged to have their diabolical appeal on philosophers and theologians alike.
Arising together in the 1840s, Darwin’s evolutionism of the species and Marx’s evolutionary notion of history, paved the way for social programs in the United Kingdom, Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, and elsewhere, including the United States of America after World War I, that viewed “useless” human beings as expendable according to Darwin’s belief in the “survival of the fittest,” which Margaret Sanger adapted as her own motto of the Birth Control Review as “More From The Fit, Less From the Unfit, That is the Chief Goal of Birth Control.”
As one who denied the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul, Marx was a materialist. Matter, he contended, was the only thing that exists. Marx can thus be called an historical materialist. All human beings make decisions, he contended, on the basis of their economic self-interest. The palpably false nature of this proposition is evident to anyone who understands true history. Millions upon millions of people have sacrificed their lives in behalf of the true Faith. Millions of others have laid down their lives to defend the lives of their family members and friends. Marx’s contention that everyone makes decisions solely on the basis of economics is simply false. However, it is something he believed, and it is the cornerstone of his belief in economic reductionism, the view that all of history is determined by economics.
The clash of competing economic classes, Marx wrote, occurred according to the dialectical principle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Borrowing from (and turning “right side up,” to use Marx’s terminology) the dialectical process of Georg Hegel, Marx believed that one economic system (the thesis) gave rise automatically to its exact opposite (the antithesis). The clash between the first economic system and its opposite would produce eventually an entirely new system, the synthesis. This new system would then become the new thesis–and it would produce its own antithesis, with the clash between the new thesis and the new antithesis resulting in yet another synthesis. This would go on and on until such time as the stage of Ideal Communism was realized, that staged in which all of the world’s wealth had been distributed justly and the last capitalist liquidated. It would be a that point that the need for government would be eliminated, as everyone would live peacefully with each other. There would be no envy, no war, no injustice, no conflict among human beings whatsoever.
Essential to Marx’s belief system was his insistence that wealth is static, not dynamic. Unlike Adam Smith, the theoretical father of contemporary capitalism, Marx did not believe that wealth could be expanded. Thus, as capitalists had a disproportionate share of the wealth generated by the sweat of the workers, it would be necessary for the workers to expedite the evolutionary process by which the stage of Ideal Communism would be realized. Capitalists were not going to hand over their ill-gotten goods and their unjust hold on political power voluntarily. There needed to be a violent, blood revolution to expedite the process by which the workers could rule triumphantly, ushering in the “end of history” and the “beginning of man” as capitalism and capitalists disappeared from the world forever.
Ironically, even though there are great differences between Adam Smith and Karl Marx, there are some similarities. Smith believed in the inevitable, evolutionary progress of man as wealth was expanded by the investment and reinvestment of profits. The availability of “capital” for investment and reinvestment had been made possible by the unjust seizure of the Catholic Church’s monastery and convent lands by King Henry VIII, the most massive land grab in history prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. At work in Smith’s theory was his belief in the “invisible hand” that would correct the free market without government interference. Smith’s belief in invisible forces is really the other side of the same coin on which one can find Marx’s belief in the principle of dialectical materialism.
Indeed, Marx himself knew that one had to make what is called a “leap of faith” to accept that (a) history was actually based on the principle of dialectical materialism, and that (b) the dialectical process would indeed end at some point in time in the stage of Ideal Communism. Smith could not prove the existence of the invisible hand; Marx could not prove the existence of the principle of dialectical materialism. Both systems are founded on the acceptance of forces that are illusory. Both are destined to reduce man to the material level as neither accepts the Deposit of Faith as entrusted by Our Lord to His true Church as defining everything about human existence, yes, including economics.
Pope Pius XI summarized the dehumanizing essence of Marxism as follows in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:
The doctrine of modern Communism, which is often concealed under the most seductive trappings, is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race.
10. Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man's relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement.
11. Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.
12. What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets? It would be a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would "give according to his powers" and would "receive according to his needs." Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.
13. When all men have finally acquired the collectivist mentality in this Utopia of a really classless society, the political State, which is now conceived by Communists merely as the instrument by which the proletariat is oppressed by the capitalists, will have lost all reason for its existence and will "wither away." However, until that happy consummation is realized, the State and the powers of the State furnish Communism with the most efficacious and most extensive means for the achievement of its goal.
14. Such, Venerable Brethren, is the new gospel which bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality.
15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask, that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises. By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world's goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism. And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity 540 of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions. They take advantage of the lack of orientation characteristic of modern agnostic science in order to burrow into the universities, where they bolster up the principles of their doctrine with pseudo-scientific arguments.
16. If we would explain the blind acceptance of Communism by so many thousands of workmen, we must remember that the way had been already prepared for it by the religious and moral destitution in which wage-earners had been left by liberal economics. Even on Sundays and holy days, labor-shifts were given no time to attend to their essential religious duties. No one thought of building churches within convenient distance of factories, nor of facilitating the work of the priest. On the contrary, laicism was actively and persistently promoted, with the result that we are now reaping the fruits of the errors so often denounced by Our Predecessors and by Ourselves. It can surprise no one that the Communistic fallacy should be spreading in a world already to a large extent de-Christianized. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)
Although many among the elite in the West have long expressed themselves to be morally superior to the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, the truth is, of course, that all political ideologies are but sterile substitutes for the true Faith. Moreover, unbridled Calvinist capitalism and Communism are but two sides of the same diabolical coin:
The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.
We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.
The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.
The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation.)
This is a point that was made forty years later by Father Edward Leen in The Holy Ghost, to explain that our own form of naturalism is just a different kind of expression in the penultimate naturalist ideology, Bolshevism, as the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity must wind produce a situation of total state control over men as there is no naturalist means on the face of this earth (no, not constitutions or laws or elections or this or that naturalist or secularist or nondenominational ideology or "philosophy) that can stop it. Here are Father Leen's words of wisdom:
A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived--from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.
This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely "secular" life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.
The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious--and there are many such still--are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that "life" is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)
As has been noted in the past, no, it's just not this former professor who writes these things. I have only attempted to give voice, however poorly, to the simple Catholic truth summarized so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique on August 15, 1910:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Father Edward Leen was simply giving expression in 1953 to simple, timeless and immutable truths that true pope after true pope had reiterated time and time again in the last three centuries now. No Catholicism, no social order. It's that simple.
Thus shorn of its Catholic roots, the formerly Catholic nations of Europe, including England, have anchored themselves in the diabolical errors of Modernity that shape every aspect of their political institutions, their laws, their politics, their economics, and every aspect of their social lives, including the hijacking of healthcare, the sciences and education by God-hating, Christophobic “experts” who are a mission to eliminate those who are said to be a “burden.”
Although Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a Freemason, and, decades later, under the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) was a pioneer in basing public policy on utilitarian views of the human being, the United Kingdom played its own pioneering role in the junk science of “eugenics” a decade before the rise of Adolph Hitler to power in Germany. How ironic it is that some of those who condemned Hitler so furiously, including future Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill, endorsed the very kind of eugenics that Hitler promulgated by means of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935.
A summary of the pioneering role played by the British in advancing the agenda of eugenicists was provided five years ago by a writer for a “leftist” journal, The New Statesmen, which, ironically, had supported this diabolical agenda wholeheartedly a century ago:
This story begins 150 years ago. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book Origin of Species which expounded his theory of evolution by natural selection. It wasn't long before scientists and political theorists began to apply Darwin's theory to human beings. With the spread of ideas about "the survival of the fittest", social Darwinists started to question the wisdom of providing care to the "weak" on the grounds this would enable people to live and reproduce who were not meant to survive. They feared that offering medical treatment and social services to disabled people would undermine the natural struggle for existence and lead to the degeneration of the human race.
Such views took hold not only in Germany but also particularly strongly in America and Britain. The existence of disabled people was increasingly seen in the UK and USA as a threat to social progress. Darwin himself wrote in his 1871 treatise, The Descent of Man, "We civilised men.... do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick.. .Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind."
It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?".
Galton was convinced a person's mental and physical abilities, like the plant and animal traits described by Darwin, were essentially inherited from one's parents. He grew concerned that eminent British people were marrying late and having too few children. Galton wrote in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius: "Let us do what we can to encourage the multiplication of the races best fitted to invent, and conform to, a high and generous civilisation, and not, out of mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent the incoming of strong and hearty individuals."
Galton argued that early marriage between healthy, mentally strong families should be encouraged by financial incentives, and reproduction by the "feeble-minded" should be curtailed. In his mind, superior mental and physical capabilities were advantageous not only to an individual but essential for the well-being of society as a whole. To try to spread his ideas, he even wrote a novel Kantsaywhere, about a society ruled by a Eugenic College that followed a eugenic religion designed to breed fitter, more intelligent humans. Galton's views were not regarded as eccentric or offensive at the time. Far from it. In fact, he received many awards during his career. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860 and was knighted shortly before he died.
Galton's writings played a key role in launching the eugenics movement in the UK and America. Supporters of eugenics called for government policies to improve the biological quality of the human race through selective parenthood. They linked physical and learning disabilities to a range of social problems including crime, vagrancy, alcoholism, prostitution and unemployment. Eugenics quickly gained many backers on both sides of the Atlantic, including leading politicians and opinion formers.
It wasn't just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: "The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."
Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be "the most important question of all" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".
Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "procreation tickets" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.
None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.
Advocates of eugenics made significant advances during the Edwardian period. In 1907, the Eugenics Education Society was founded in Britain to campaign for sterilisation and marriage restrictions for the weak to prevent the degeneration of Britain's population. A year later, Sir James Crichton-Brown, giving evidence before the 1908 Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, recommended the compulsory sterilisation of those with learning disabilities and mental illness, describing them as "our social rubbish" which should be "swept up and garnered and utilised as far as possible". He went on to complain, "We pay much attention to the breeding of our horses, our cattle, our dogs and poultry, even our flowers and vegetables; surely it's not too much to ask that a little care be bestowed upon the breeding and rearing of our race". Crichton-Brown was in distinguished company. In a memo to the prime minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race".
In 2012, athletes from around the world will assemble in London for the Paralympic Games, a global event which celebrates the talents and achievements of disabled people. However, a century earlier, in 1912, London was the setting for an international gathering with a very different and more sinister agenda - the first International Eugenics Conference. Organised by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Galton who had died the year before, 400 delegates attended including illustrious figures such as Winston Churchill (who was then First Lord of the Admiralty), Lord Balfour and a number of European ambassadors.
Charles Darwin's son, Major Leonard Darwin, presided at the conference. In the run up to the First World War, he lobbied the British government to establish flying squads of scientists, with the power of arrest, who would travel around the country identifying the "unfit". Those classified as such would be segregated in special colonies or sterilised. (The Origins of British Eugenics.)
The widespread belief in evolution, however, has led rather inexorably to devolution of human behavior. The belief that we are descended from apes has prompted people to act like apes. The law of the jungle rules in our schools, on our streets, in our homes and in our government. Mothers can kill the natural fruit of their wombs under cover of law.
The elderly and the chronically ill can be put to “sleep” much like my late father, a veterinarian, would euthanize a sick dog at the behest of its owners.
Children feel free to massacre each other in schools.
The most vile forms of insults are hurled by young toughs in their twenties and thirties as they attend sporting events, drinking so much alcohol that it may very well be the case that their bodies will need nothing to be preserved for their wakes after their deaths.
If we do not believe that we are redeemed creatures who are made in the image and likeness of the Blessed Trinity, then we devolve to the level of barbarism over time, giving vent to every primordial urge after another solely because we are living on the material and the sensual levels alone.
Wild animals spend their waking hours on the prowl for food. The human beasts shaped by a world which teaches that we are descended from beasts work in order to eat, drink, and be merry, not to give honor and glory to God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church.
No, Charlie Gard’s plight—and the plight of millions upon millions of other innocent human beings from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages—is nothing new. There has been a long, steady process of dehumanizing living human beings in favor of “protecting the environment.” We have arrived at time when all the combined forces that have been at work in the past seven centuries have coalesced to the point that vegetation, flora and fauna, animals and inorganic matter are placed on a level of equality with, if not superior to, human beings, who are endowed by rational, immortal souls that are made in His very image and likeness. Yes, everything must fall apart the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.
Nuancing What Is Entirely Without Nuance
What makes the Charlie Gard tragedy even sadder than it is—and it is very sad—is the fact that his case is not unique.
That is, even though there are only fifteen other children in the world who are known to be suffering from his condition, the institutionalization of death sentences for innocent human beings whose only “crime” consists of having been conceived or having been seriously injured in an accident or of being diagnosed as “brain dead” or in a “persistent vegetative state” or are suffering from some kind of chronic, debilitating or terminal disease has become the norm in hospitals and hospices around the world (see Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros). His case has become notorious only because his parents are not knuckling under to the nonexistent authority of doctors, hospital administrators and judges to sentence him to death. Most parents and/or relatives in similar situations accept with this "authority" with passive resignation, if not a sense of "relief" that a burden is to be lifted from their shoulders.
It is indeed very ironic that a English sees fit to demand “proof” that a living infant deserves to receive a reprieve from the sentence of death that he has imposed upon him as the United Kingdom abolished the death penalty for those convicted of heinous capital crimes nearly five decades ago, Indeed, there have been no executions in England since 1964. Ah, but the all-powerful judge overseeing the fate of Charlie Gard has determined that this young baby must be denied experimental treatment in the United States of America and is as determined to finish him off as Judge George Greer was determined to order the execution of Mrs. Teresa Maria Schinder-Schiavo by means of dehydration and starvation in 2005 (see Ten Years Later, which delineates some of the distinctions between extrordinary medical treatment and the ordinary care required to be given to a living human being):
LONDON, England, July 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – At a preliminary hearing today, a UK judge agreed to hear new evidence in Charlie Gard's case on Thursday. His parents have 48 hours – until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday – to provide this evidence to the court.
"Ten percent," Charlie's mother, Connie Yates, said to the judge, Mr. Justice Francis, of her son's chances at dramatic improvement. "You would [let him live] if it was your son, wouldn’t you?"
There has been a lengthy legal battle over whether Great Ormond Street Hospital or Charlie's parents have the right to decide on his treatment, with the former trying to pull the baby's life support and the latter wanting to move him elsewhere for experimental treatment. English courts and the European Court of Human Rights both sided with the hospital even though Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have raised more than $1 million from private donations to transfer him to the U.S.
After worldwide outcry, including from Pope Francis and President Trump, Great Ormond Street Hospital asked the High Court to reconsider "fresh evidence" in the case. However, it maintains its stance that Charlie should be removed from life support against his parents' wishes.
International human rights activist Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who is helping Charlie's parents, posted on Facebook on Monday that Great Ormond Street Hospital requested in court that the case be dismissed. But Francis "has set a full hearing to decide Charlie's future this Thursday based on new evidence," Mahoney said.
Francis, who originally sided with the hospital, said he would be "delighted" to reverse his decision.
"I don’t think there’s anyone involved who wouldn’t want to save Charlie," said Francis. "I am at one with the 350,000" people who signed a pro-Charlie petition delivered to Great Ormond Street Hospital Sunday. He also said he must "decide this case not on the basis of tweets, not on the basis of what might be said in the press, or to the press."
The new evidence from Charlie's parents must include information about "when it was published" and "when it became available to them."
Francis said it would take "drastic" evidence for him to undo his original ruling that Charlie should be removed from life support.
Great Ormond Street Hospital only brought the case back to court because if it didn't, it could have faced possible "judicial review." But, it asked today for the case to be dismissed. The hospital maintains that Charlie should not be allowed to be transferred elsewhere for treatment.
Katie Gollop, a laywer for the hospital, "said she had seen nothing that could be called new evidence," according to The Guardian. She said "that her client had only asked for a new hearing because of the letter from the seven doctors sent from the Vatican children’s hospital and also one from the parents’ solicitor threatening it with judicial review if it did not consider new evidence."
During today's court proceeding, Chris asked Gollop when Great Ormond Street is "going to stop lying." ABC News described this as an interruption.
Gollop has previously argued that the reason Charlie's life support should be unplugged is because if it's not, he will remain in a "condition of existence" that doesn't benefit him.
"The significant harm is a condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit," she said. "It is inhuman to permit that condition to continue."
Connie says her son is "not in pain and suffering." On Sunday, Chris refuted the media myth that Charlie has "catastrophic brain damage." (Judge Could Decide Charlie Gard's Fate on Thursday.)
A “condition of existence” that doesn’t benefit him?
Charlie Gard’s very existence benefits those, starting with his parents and those who are seeking to defend his right to live until God chooses to call him home to Himself, who are providing him with love, care and support. God permits some human beings to be totally dependent upon others to teach those who provide their care to do unto them as they would do unto Him in the very flesh:
And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty.  And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:  And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.  Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.  For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.  Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?  And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee?  Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?  And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. (Matthew 25: 31-39.)
“Mister Justice Francis,” long, long removed from the days when English judges sat on their benches beneath Crucifixes and sought to apply the binding precepts of the Natural Law upon those accused of committing crimes or when deciding civil suits, cares not for the words of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King. Catholic England became Protestant England, which gave way to Liberal England, which has produced Socialist England and now Godless England. Doctors and judges play God in England and the United States of America and elsewhere in the so-called “civilized” world every bit as much as judges and doctors in Nazi Germany had done. The irony is clear: there is no difference between what judges such as “Mister Justice Francis” are doing and that which was condemned seventy-six years ago by Bishop Clemens von Galen in Munster, Germany:
We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate selfdefence 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 Münster 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 Münster? 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 Münster! 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 Münster. 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 Jersualem, 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 hat 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 Münster! 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 would 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 Münster, the Lower Rhineland? Did he also weep over us? Over Münster?
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. (As found in The Bishop of Munster Versus the Nazis. Text also online at: Four Sermons in Defiance of the Nazis.)
Dr. Paul Byrne summarized the matter very clearly in a statement he issued on Saturday, July 1, 2017, the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus and the Octave Day of the Feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist, before the commendable intervention of President Donald John Trump in behalf of Charlie Gard and his parents:
Parents with doctors and clergy ought to protect and preserve his life. When treatment is not apparent, extraordinary means and experimental treatments are used by doctors with request from and in accord with parents.
The case of Charlie Gard is entirely without any kind of nuance. Leave it, therefore, to the likes of “Archbishop” Vincent Paglia, whose support for all manner of moral evils was explored most recently in Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros, to find nuance when none exists.
As is well-known by now, Paglia issued a statement about Charlie Gard on behalf of the “Pontifical” Academy for Life that has been eviscerated by many “conservative” and traditionally-minded Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of concilarism in the mistaken belief that they represent the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and who enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy, that accepts the nonexistent authority of the European Union’s court to hold a sentence of death upon an innocent child:
The matter of the English baby Charlie Gard and his parents has meant both pain and hope for all of us. We feel close to him, to his mother, his father, and all those who have cared for him and struggled together with him until now. For them, and for those who are called to decide their future, we raise to the Lord of Life our prayers, knowing that “in the Lord our labor will not be in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:58) (Paglia Statement About Charlie Gard.)
Brief Interjection Number One:
“For them, and for those who are called to decide their future”?
Vincenzo Paglia thus accepts uncritically the right of physicians, hospital administrators and judges, among other potentates of the civil state, to “decide the future” for innocent children and their parents.
Decide their future?
To acknowledge the nonexistent “right” of mere mortals, whether acting on their own and/or under the cover of the civil law, to “decide the future” of innocent human beings who are simply in need of care and love as befits redeemed creatures who loved and cared for by the infinite love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and who are close to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is draconian. There has been a complete surrender of the conciliar revolutionaries to the anti-life agenda of the civil state.
Remember, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he who waxes on and on and on so emphatically about the necessity of “protecting the environment” and doing more to “prevent climate change” and assuring “open borders” that deny the legitimate sovereignty of nations, has said not one word about the act passed by the Belgian Parliament on February 13, 2014, that permits child euthanasia up to the age of eighteen in certain cases:
BRUSSELS, February 13, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Belgium has become the first country in the world to approve euthanasia for children of all ages after the country’s parliamentarians passed the controversial bill today in a vote of 86 to 44, with 12 MPs abstaining.
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, called the move a “form of abandonment.”
“Belgium has abandoned the elderly, and now they are saying they will abandon their children,” he told LifeSiteNews.
Schadenberg said the new law is not about ending suffering for children with disabilities, but about expanding the “categories that are eligible for death.”
The bill was first introduced in December 2012.
The law extends to those under the age of 18 who request euthanasia with parental consent. It also applies to younger children requesting euthanasia after a doctor has certified that the child fully understands the implications of the decision.
“This is the horrific logic of euthanasia: Once killing is accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering, the power of sheer logic dictates that there is no bottom,” wrote Wesley J. Smith about the law.
The proposed law had been protested by a number of groups that said the existing 2002 euthanasia legislation has been an unmitigated disaster.
Schadenberg said he was not surprised to see the bill pass, since he said the entire euthanasia project in Belgium is being “pushed blindly” by a government that has ignored all the abuses currently taking place within existing euthanasia laws.
“Euthanasia has been really out of control in Belgium for quite some time. We know from studies that about 32 percent of euthanasia deaths go without requests. Over half of euthanasia deaths are not reported,” he said.
Schadenberg said the new law will only make it easier for doctors to indiscriminately and without repercussion end the lives of the most vulnerable deemed unfit to live. (Belgium Parliament passes law allowing children to be euthanized.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio remains silent about these and other moral outrages as goes about his destructive business as a Modernist so very merrily, denouncing those who adhere to Catholic teaching while enabling those who live lives of unrepentant sin, waxing on and on about “the poor” and the need to “save the environment.” He is a pagan, not the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Jorge has got lots to say about those things that concern him. He has nothing to say about the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance or for the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
The likes of Bergoglio and henchmen such as Vincenzo Paglia are all too willing to concede the legitimacy of the Judeo-Masonic European Union, which is Modernity’s answer to the Holy Roman Empire, and of national laws that require parents to surrender their Natural Law rights over the welfare of their children to the “experts” who know better.
Pope Leo XIII, however, taught us that we have a duty to oppose unjust laws, which can never bind our consciences:
10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)
Pope Leo XIII’s clear, bold reiteration of Catholic teaching has been rejected by the figures of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism such as Bergoglio and Paglia. These wretched revolutionaries are but architects of a false religion that is designed precisely to lead the “human family” into a “bond of brotherhood” that the Antichrist will use rule over the earth.
“Decide their future”?
There is nothing for human beings to “decide” in the case of Charlie Gard. There is only love to be given unto him as his parents attempt to seek experimental treatments that carry a ten percent chance of success. No one has the right to “decide” that Chris Gard and Connie Yates cannot do so. A mere mortal can never judge the “quality” of an innocent life and then consign a person to death according to his own subjective judgment, which favors the execution of those in conditions such as Charlie Gard’s.
To the next excerpt from Vincenzo Paglia’s statement:
The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales issued a statement today that recognizes above all the complexity of the situation, the heartrending pain of the parents, and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie. The Bishops’ statement also reaffirms that “we should never act with the deliberate intention to end a human life, including the removal of nutrition and hydration, so that death might be achieved” but that “we do, sometimes, however, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done, while always acting humanely in the service of the sick person until the time of natural death occurs.” (Paglia Statement About Charlie Gard.)
Brief Interjection Number Two:
A court-imposed death sentence that hovers over Charlie Gard and has caused his parents so much anguish will, if carried out, subject this innocent child to a very unnatural death.
Furthermore, the only “limitations” upon Charlie Gard’s care are being imposed by the authorities at Great Ormond Hospital, “Mister Justice Francis,” and the high court of the European Union.
Moreover, while there are times when the continuation of a particular course of treatment might be deemed extraordinary, the provision of life support to Charlie Gard is not extraordinary. It is what is demanded in the cases of children who are afflicted with mitochondrial depletion syndrome.
Then again, the haste to kill off Charlie Gard follows only too logically from a mentality that accepts the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn as a “right” and then masks its gruesomely bloody reality under the euphemism of “choice.”
While we are to understand that death, which is our passageway to eternal life or eternal damnation, will come for us all and thus must be prepared for it any moment, we can do nothing cause the death of one who is very much alive. Charlie Gard will suffer a terrible death by means of asphyxiation if “Mister Justice Francis” does not permit him to leave the United Kingdom for experimental treatment here in the United States of America. This is what is in his best interests?
The final part of Paglia’s letter seeks to defend the supposed complexity of the Charlie Gard case by making reference to paragraph sixty-five of Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995:
The proper question to be raised in this and in any other unfortunately similar case is this: what are the best interests of the patient? We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also accept the limits of medicine and, as stated in paragraph 65 of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family. Likewise, the wishes of parents must heard and respected, but they too must be helped to understand the unique difficulty of their situation and not be left to face their painful decisions alone. If the relationship between doctor and patient (or parents as in Charlie’s case) is interfered with, everything becomes more difficult and legal action becomes a last resort, with the accompanying risk of ideological or political manipulation, which is always to be avoided, or of media sensationalism, which can be sadly superficial. (Paglia Statement About Charlie Gard.)
Interjection Number Three:
As has been stated just above, it is not in Charlie Gard’s “best interests” to choke him to death.
Secondly, Charlie Gard is not burden to himself or to his parents, who have raised over $1.3 million to provide for his care, including the aforementioned experimental treatments here in the United States of America.
Thirdly, Paglia’s paternalistic, condescending attitude towards Chris Gard and Connie Yates is the typical sort of approach that is used by those immersed in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s and the “Soros Scholars” method of “preparing” relatives to accept a pathway that has only one end: the “expedited” deaths of their relatives according to a “schedule” that best fits their own psychological and emotional readiness. Paglia clearly believes that Charlie Gard’s parents are in denial about their son, making it necessary for the “experts” to talk down to them in a “loving” manner, of course, in order to convince them to “let go” of their son.
Fourthly, Paglia, who is a master of euphemism as befits all revolutionaries, used the terms “political manipulation” and “media sensationalism” to disparage anyone who would contend that there is no kind of nuance in Charlie Gard’s case.
This is the same cheap trick that he used to dismiss criticism of “Pope Francis’s” appointment of two pro-abortion “Soros Scholars” to the “Pontifical” Academy for Life that Paglia heads. Revolutionaries must always disparage “counter-revolutionaries,” which is why Bergoglio himself constantly mocks who see dogmatic and moral truth in clear terms of black-and-white.
Finally, it is nothing other than tragically laughable to find some well-meaning “conservative” and traditionally-minded Catholics within the confines of the conciliar structures seeking to correct Paglia’s misinterpretation and misapplication of paragraph sixty-five of Evangelium Vitae.
As I have noted in other circumstances, why should one conciliar “pope” and his appointees be bound by a fixed interpretation of a predecessor’s words when each of the conciliar “popes” and their appointees feel free dismiss almost everything taught by our true popes and twenty general councils prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism on October 28, 1958, by having recourse the same kind of dogmatic evolutionism (“living tradition,” “hermeneutic of continuity”) discussed earlier in this commentary? Efforts to use one conciliar “pope” against an earlier conciliar “pope” are truly sad to behold, especially since each of these apostates and figures of Antichrist have contempt for the teachings of their true predecessors.
Vincenzo Paglia is simply a water-boy for the globalist state that is guided by the principles of Judeo-Masonic naturalism, including Marxism, itself.
Believe in dogmatic evolutionism, you see, and one will believe all too readily in moral evolutionism based on pure situation ethics no matter how disguised.
To be sure, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has expressed his “closeness” to Charlie Gard and his parents, and there have been efforts by Vatican authorities to bring Charlie Gard to a Vatican hospital for treatment there. Such efforts are very commendable.
Nonetheless, however, “Pope Francis” has done nothing to criticize a word of one Vincenzo Paglia issued, and it is simply not credible for anyone to contend that Paglia, who is a close ideological ally of the Argentine Apostate, did not clear his statemen with his “pope” in advance of its being released. Paglia’s statement reeks of deference to the anti-life forces at work with the world.
Such deference, though, comes all too naturally to Paglia, something that Mrs. Randy Engel noted in a recent e-mail she distributed by means of her extensive list:
Dear Friends – Is there no end to the anti-life scandals at Pontifical Academy for Life? Or is it Death?
Karolinska Institute is NOT a “Medical University.” It’s a Big Auschwitz for unborn children.
In the selection of its members, the Vatican must also consider the institution that the member represents. In the case of Katarina Le Blanc that institution is the Karolinska Institute – one of the world’s foremost promoters of abortion and abortifacients. The Institute also is involved in non-therapeutic fetal experimentation and the provision of fetal tissues from aborted babies. Its eugenic mind-set is illustrated by its pioneer promotion of human embryo preimplantation diagnosis and in-vitro Fertilization.
Either remove Le Blanc and all the other anti-life characters which infest the “academy” or just shut the growing hell-hole down! Enough is enough!
Randy Engel, U.S. Coalition for Life
xmlui/bitstream/handle/10616/ 44523/Thesis_Katarina_ Haapaniemi_Kouru.pdf?sequence= 7
Mrs. Engel provided a link that contained the following information about Katarina Le Blanc:
The Nuova Bussola Quotidiana writes, that Katarina Le Blanc from the Swedish Karolinska Institutet, who was named on June 13th as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, works with human stem cells derived from aborted children.
In 2013 she published with other authors an article in PLOS ONE on stem cell research based on cells harvested from killed human embryos. The Pontifical Academy for Life declared in 2000, that such research is immoral.
In July 2016 Le Blanc published in Scientific Reports with others a study based on cells taken from the lungs of aborted children, purchased from the abortion-network Planned Parenthood at the price of 45 Dollars a baby. (Katarina Le Blanc: Pro-Abort.)
What needs to be shut down, of course, is the counterfeit church of conciliarism as it is a pretty easy thing to mock the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment after one mocks and defies the binding precepts of the First through Fourth Commandments. Those who praise false religions and who blaspheme God by acts of omission and commission are killers of souls. It is only logical for them to be friends of those who kill bodies.
A false church with false doctrines, false and sacramentally barren liturgical rites and false pastoral practices has helped to devastate one formerly Catholic country after another. This devastation was long in the planning by the adversary, and it has taken over fifty years of careful propagation to prepare the way for what is only the logical public manifestation of what was intended all along: the overthrow of the Catholic Faith in favor of a naturalistic “religion of man” and its “nuanced” option in favor of death.
Jorge has made it impossible for believing Catholics who are still attached to the structures of their false church to "appeal to Rome" about such men as Paglia as the latter is doing precisely what his "pope" wants done. This is simply the convergence of the forces of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Our Lady promised Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. We must do our part to bring this about by praying for a restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter as we seek to console the good God, Who is so grieved by our sins and those of the world, by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and by making more sacrifices for the conversion of sinners, offering up the tribulations of the moment to Him as the consecrated slaves of His Co-Eternal, Co-Equal Divine Son, Christ the King, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Let us remember to pray to Our Lady fervently for Charlie Gard and his parents—and for all who have risen to their defense.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Pope Saint Pius I, pray for us.