November 16, 2013

ObamaDeathCare

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although many articles have appeared on this site dealing with the monstrous exercise of statist social engineering that is ObamaCare in the last four and one-half years since it was first proposed by the reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, only a handful have appeared in recent months prior to what turned out to be the expected failure of the website designed to enroll people in "insurance exchanges." There are only so many times that one can write about the insanity of naturalism at a time when most of those people who are paying attention to recent events are caught up, as per usual, in the trees of the forest that surrounds them.

Thus it is that there has been a conscious decision on my part to avoid regular commentary on this socialist catastrophe, which is in se a complete violation of the Natural Law principle of Subsidiarity. Although ObamaCare is far, far from unimportant as it affects the lives of everyone within the United States of America, the larger threat that exists in the world is that posed by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries to the salvation of souls and thus to the right ordering of temporal affairs. That which contributes to the loss of soul for all eternity is always much more dangerous to the good of men, both individually and collectively, than any of the temporal problems that arise as result of Original Sin and of our own Actual Sins, which are especially prevalent today in our world of Pelagian self-redemption.

Not much time needs to be spent on the specifics of recent events as they pretty much speak for themselves as Obamacare Is Whatever Obama Says It Is.ObamaCare, which was signed into law by Obama/Soetoro on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, as Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., uttered an expletive into an open microphone moments before our caesar took pen in hand to place in the books of the United States Code a nine hundred six page bill, which introduced in 2009 with a text of two thousand four pages before many of its provisions were made into illegal delegations of law-making of power to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, as Public Law 111-148. Public Law 111-148, despite its being upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al. on June 28, 2012.

The Patient Protection  and Affordable Care Act has always been a gigantic Ponzi scheme designed to force every American to enroll in a health insurance program that mandates them to finance one thing and thing alone: the death of innocent human beings. ObamaDeathCare is all about forcing Americans to bankroll every manner of evil imaginable, including the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and to make ever more possible for the medical industry to make profits from its manufactured myth of "brain death" that was designed to provide it with a ready supply of vital members from the bodies of living human beings, men and women executed for purely the most monstrous of utilitarian reasons under the slogan of "giving the gift of life."

There are times, however, when executions under the myth of "brain death" are done upon supposedly "useless" human beings, such as the mentally ill, hearkening back to the practices of the Nazis themselves that were condemned by the Bishop of Muster, Prince Clements von Galens (see Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two).

The following report, written by the heroic apostle of Catholic truth, Dr. Paul Byrne (see Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, Stories That Speak For Themselves, Headless Corpses?, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way?, Grand Illusion, Every Once In A While, Canada's Death Panels: A Foretaste of ObamaCare, Someone Was Killed To Keep "J.R." Alive, Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies ..., Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death", Good Rule Of Thumb: Reject What Conciliarists Promote, To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion, Just Obey God, Death To Us All, Choosing To Live In States Of Apoplexy, provides just a glimpse into part of the evils that ObamaDeathCare is designed to fund:

Michael, 60 years old, had just finished eating. Michael and his family were watching television when Michael suddenly slumped and fell to the floor. His family called 911. The emergency medical team resuscitated Michael. On the way to the hospital, a pulse was detected. Medications to support blood pressure were used during the resuscitation.

A diagnosis of mental illness was made many years earlier. Michael had no known physical illness prior to his collapse. Michael lived with his mother and sisters. They were Catholic and lived in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Michael did not use tobacco or drink alcohol. Michael took 2 medications for his mental illness. Both affect the brain; one of them "increases risk of death."

On admission to hospital, Michael was breathing, but unresponsive. He was anemic (Hemoglobin 8) and his white blood cells showed many young forms (occurs with infection). On admission, his temperature was normal, but the next morning was elevated to 103 degrees (occurs with infection).

One consultant wrote, "There has apparently been some discussion back-and-forth between the hospitalist team, the intensivist, and the organ donor people as to how to properly manage him." In less than 24 hours after admission to hospital the neurology consultant wrote, "Limited neurological examination. The patient is unresponsive. Pupils are fixed. Absent corneal reflex bilaterally. Absent doll's eyes. No purposeful movements of the extremities noted. No movements of extremities to noxious stimuli. Reflexes are absent throughout. Toes are mute. IMPRESSION:... clinically, the patient is brain-dead status post cardiac arrest, likely with severe anoxic damage to the brain. May consider, do not resuscitate."

EEG showed "intermittently fast background activity of very low amplitude. Anteriorly also record consist of an irregular fast activity of small amplitude. No focal slowing or frank epileptiform features noted throughout the recording."

Sodium was abnormally elevated to 157 mEq/L; repeat was 162. Two days after admission he was determined to be "brain dead" per neurology. During an apnea test, no breathing was observed.

No blood levels of drugs that were prescribed or any other drugs were obtained. No cause of collapse of Michael was overtly considered other than statements that Michael had suffered from lack of oxygen and that Michael was "brain dead." It didn't matter that there was brain wave activity and that his heart was beating 100,000 times per day and that circulation and respiration were occurring with support from the ventilator.

Michael's relatives were assured that the determination of "brain death" was done in accordance with the hospital policy of certification of death by neurological criteria, which is patterned after, and consistent with, the New York State Department of Health and New York State Task Force on Life & the Law, "Guidelines for Determining Brain Death," published November 2011. In this document "brain death" is defined as "irreversible loss of all function of the brain. The three essential findings are coma, absence of brainstem reflexes and apnea." It was determined by a neurologist, an intensivist, and a hospitalist that there were no "confounding clinical circumstances." Under New York State law, Michael was determined to be "brain-dead" and was legally dead.

A Catholic priest who is Chairman of the Ethics Committee at the hospital volunteered that the hospital operated in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Bishops. This man was legally "brain dead" and ventilator support of the vital activity of respiration would be stopped at a precise hour and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), which was already in place over the objection of the relatives, would be carried out. The ventilator was then taken away at the precise hour, even though Michael's relatives strongly objected. Prior to removal of the ventilator Michael's heart was beating; blood pressure was normal. Michael had respiration supported by a ventilator that pushed air in. Michael had to push the air out before the ventilator could push the air in again. A ventilator can push air into a cadaver, also known as a corpse, but quickly after death, the air will not and cannot come out of a cadaver.

Michael was judged to be "brain dead" shortly after arrival at the hospital, which Michael's relatives and the general public expect to be a healing center. In the hospital Michael was sentenced without a trial to true death. How was true death imposed on Michael? The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) includes "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain." Note that the word "functions" is plural.

The statute in New York includes "total and irreversible cessation of brain function." Thus, the statute has reduced the plural "functions" to the singular "function." The brain has many functions; absence of any function as determined by the three doctors in the New York Hospital meant absence of "all function." Thus, the statute and Rules do not protect the life of the patient.

The Rules and Regulation call for providing "reasonable accommodation of a Surrogate Decision-maker's religious or moral objections to use of the brain death standard to determine death." Michael's mother and sisters pleaded with the administrator of the hospital not to take away the ventilator, but the judgment had been made; nothing could be done to stop the removal of the ventilator. It was the hospital's decision that they had provided "reasonable accommodation" to Michael's family's religious and moral objections to the "brain death" criteria used by the hospital. They had a Catholic priest, the Ethics Committee, and it was stated that they were operating in accordance with the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Bishops. It was also stated that they had a judge who agreed with what they were doing and they would give no more time to Michael, not even one more hour or one more day!

Prior to 1968, ventilators were in use but there was no controversy. Patients died on ventilators. So how did all these issues that involve taking organs and stopping ventilators come about? The goal of medical practice used to be that a living person would not be declared dead. Until the advent of mechanical ventilators and other complex life supporting therapies, the mistake of judging a dead person as alive was practically impossible. Prior to these developments and the desire to do vital organ transplantation, medicine made every effort to judge the moment of death in the direction of preserving human life from a death-dealing mistake.

"Brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. "Brain death" began with the appointment of the Harvard Committee to consider the issues. The results of their work were in the "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." [1] The first words of this report are as follows: "Our primary purpose is to define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death." Only persons who are alive can be in a coma, whether reversible or not. Was this the hubris of a few academicians or was it simply a surrender to fear of legal chastisement regarding perceived economic and utilitarian needs in 1968, especially the desire to get healthy living vital organs for transplantation? It seems that a predetermined agenda existed from the onset. There were no patient data and no references to basic scientific studies. In fact, there was only one reference, which was to Pope Pius XII. [2] While there was a reference to and a quotation from this Allocution of Pope Pius XII, they neglected to include the following: "But considerations of a general nature allow us to believe that human life continues for as long as its vital functions – distinguished from the simple life of organs – manifest themselves spontaneously or even with the help of artificial processes."

The primary purpose of the Committee was not to determine IF irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death but to see to it that IT WAS established as a "new criterion for death." With an agenda like that at the outset, the data could be made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. There was a serious lack of scientific method in the origination and development of "brain death."This has continued to the present time where there is no consensus as to which of the myriad of sets of criteria to use and criteria for "brain death" are not evidence based.

"Brain death" is not true death. Rather it is observing cessation of functioning of the brain, which is then translated into "brain death." The primary reason for the origination and propagation of "brain death" was and is the desire to obtain vital organs for transplantation. It can now be ascertained that a validly applied scientific method, sound reasoning, and available medical technology were not utilized in developing the new way of determination of death called "brain death" for the simple reason that death is the absence of life. Life and true death cannot and do not exist at the same time in the same person.

When a person has a head injury or, as in this case, sudden collapse, explainable or not, quickly the possibility of getting organs for transplantation is entertained. In Michael's case no attempt was made to get his organs. Why not? No reason was apparent to indicate that Michael's organs would not be suitable for transplantation. Was it related to mental illness? "Discussion with the organ donor people did occur." Quickly it was determined that Michael was "brain dead" and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was considered and later carried out over the objection of Michael's relatives.

Michael's mother and sisters wanted Michael to be treated. Why wouldn't they? They took care of Michael during his entire life. When Michael collapsed, they called 911 expecting to get help for Michael. Paramedics responded. During transport the pulse returned. At the hospital Michael was said to be "brain dead" based on absence of brain stem reflexes and no visual observation of breathing. The fact that Michael had electrical activity in his cerebral cortex, the largest part of his brain, meant nothing to the doctors who said all they needed was absence of the brain stem reflexes that they had tested and a positive apnea test (positive meaning that he did not show breathing efforts at that time sufficient for observers to see). I add that for these doctors at this New York hospital, they had all they needed to discontinue care! Yet, these doctors, quick to evaluate for "brain death," did not do basic diagnostic tests to rule out infection, identify causes of the metabolic derangements of his electrolytes nor did they test for the presence of obvious drugs or toxins as the reason for his sudden collapse. They did not provide basic supportive care more than 48 hours. Once they determined that he was not an organ donor, they seemed not only to want a "do not resuscitate order" in the event of another collapse, they were intent on withdrawing life-sustaining ventilator support making another collapse, anoxic events and death almost inevitable. They refused family wishes to continue to treat the patient and even denied them time to make transfer arrangements so that their loved one might have a chance at life at a different institution with different doctors. Michael, an innocent person, was effectively executed without trial in a New York hospital.

See: www.lifeguardianfoundation.org for information on how to protect and preserve your life.

One will note the role played by a supposedly Catholic priest in this execution. So much for the conciliarspeak of "solidarity" with the "poor and the suffering," including the mentally ill. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has made its "official reconciliation" with each of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, including the "progress" made by the medical industry. A false church based on false premises accepts the very false premises of separation of Church and State and "religious liberty" that the made the triumph of the contemporary Aztec body-snatchers inevitable. (See Appendix A below for yet another listing of what our true popes have said on these falsehoods and what they would lead to over the course of time if left unchecked. Appendix D contains material extracted from an article earlier this year dealing with the dangers to be found in many Catholic hospitals now in the control of the conciliar authorities and/or not-for-profit corporations that operate solely on the basis of the "bottom line" and not on the binding precepts to be found in the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law.)

Obviously, insurance companies already pay for the execution of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means and by means of the starvation and dehydration of living human beings and by the vivisection of living human beings for their vital body members and in cases such as Michael's above that was described so poignantly by Dr. Byrne. These killings will increase under ObamaDeathCare, and each of us is going to be forced to finance them even if we only fork over an annual fine each year for refusing to sign up for the so-called "insurance exchanges."

The "ethics panels" established by ObamaDeathCare will assure that the rationing of healthcare to those over a certain age who are suffering from cancer or who need some kind of major surgery, such as coronary surgery, even more than has been the case up to now as "health maintenance organizations" and  insurers made their own life and death decisions that are now being shifted to government-authorized "ethics panels."

A Congressional supporter of ObamaDeathCare admitted that this was so nearly three years ago despite all of the current administration's false assurances to the public that all discussion of "death panels" was simply an effort of the alarmists within the false opposite of the naturalist "right" to turn back Barack Hussein Obama/ Barack Soetoro's signature legislative achievement. Acting acting to their standard modus operandi, officials within the administration of the lawless caesar, who has no regard for the laws of God of those of men, including those constitutional provisions that supposedly govern his discharge of executive powers of the office of President of the United States of America and even of the provisions of his own ObamaDeathCare law, which he feels free to suspend or waive without legislative authorization, moved quietly to bring the death panels to life on January 1, 2011 without telling the "people" that they were doing so:

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress. (Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.)

Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”

The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.” (Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.)

Yes, don't tell the people, right?

Some "patient protection," huh?

Although it is the case now that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is himself viewed as an outright liar by large numbers of Americans, it remains to be seen whether the notoriously short attention span of Americans in this era of all manner of instant communications will be sustained over the course of time to punish the adherents of the organized crime family of the naturalist "let" in next year's midterm Congressional election.

If the current public outrage over the implementation of ObamaDeathCare, which includes thus far the cancellation of the insurance policies of nearly five million Americans and escalating premiums for others as their policies are adjusted to cover things that many people, including, say, the consecrated religious and the elderly, do not need (e.g. prenatal care) or want (contraception, abortion, sterilization, gender-change surgery, elective cosmetic surgery), it will be not because ObamaDeathCare is unconstitutional on its face in spite of the absurd decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al. on June 28, 2012, and it will not be because large numbers of Americans are opposed to funding the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn or know anything about the medical industry's manufactured myth of "brain death."

No, the current public outrage over the implementation and consequences of ObamaDeathCare will continue if existing policies continue to be canceled, if the cost of renewing existing policies continues to escalate, which it must as the whole statist takeover of the healthcare industry is premised upon those higher premiums in order to fund insurance coverage for the previously uninsured who wind up enrolling in this program of legalized social engineering and eugenics, and if those who have been undergoing treatments for such life-threatening diseases of cancer continue to be denied further treatment as a result of being unable to afford the higher premiums.

A report on the American Life League website illustrates this point very tellingly:

At first glance, it may sound a bit harsh to define Obamacare as akin to the president’s version of a federal Department of Death with Dignity, but look carefully at a few examples of what has already occurred. 

According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Obamacare is going to harm cancer patients. He writes, “Obamacare is going to degrade medicine but its ill effects will fall disproportionately on patients with serious conditions, especially those diagnosed with cancer.”

How so? He points out that Obamacare will block the ability of cancer patients to seek out the cutting edge treatments from the specialists who provide them. He outlines several reasons why the curtailing and slimming down of insurance benefits can do nothing but make it harder and harder for cancer patients to be treated aggressively.

The outcome is clear. Those patients who are not wealthy enough to bear the burden of paying cash for the treatment that will save or lengthen their lives will die.

Edie Littlefield Sundby, who has stage 4 gallbladder cancer, wrote of her situation since losing her Cadillac insurance plan because of Obamacare. She tells the reader: 

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

In other words, Edie’s struggle to stay alive may not succeed because Obamacare is punishing her by taking away the plan that made it possible for her treatment to be as successful as it has been in the past.

The same type of story was recently told by Bill Elliott, a cancer patient whose healthcare plan was paying for nearly all of his cancer treatment, including the drugs. But recently Obamacare cancelled that insurance and now Bill has to decide what he is going to do about it since signing up for a government-allowed plan could cost him a fortune.

And then there’s Michael Cerpok, a leukemia survivor in Fountain Hills, Arizona, whose future is not looking too rosy. 

Right now, his monthly premium is about half his monthly take-home pay. But the Obamacare law forced his insurer to kill that plan for one that fits the law’s rules.

Now he’ll have to pay more for drugs, and his Mayo Clinic doctor is no longer in his network.

Last year, his treatment bill was more than $350,000, but thanks to insurance his out-of-pocket was only $4,500. Now, to keep his doctor, the one who has kept him alive for seven years, Cerpok will have to pay $26,000 out-of-pocket.

When we hear stories like these, we weep for those who are suffering due to the sweeping changes Obamacare has forced on Americans. But, at the same time, we must remember the perspective of those who fashioned this grotesque plan in the first place. 

Before Obamacare was the law of the land, we knew that cost cutting was one of the administration’s objectives. In 2009, Thomas Sowell wrote: 

Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off and on, for thousands of years—repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?

Well, clearly Obama wanted all those things.

In truth, Obamacare in all its ugliness is Obama’s Department of Death with Dignity. One way or another, those who cannot get the treatment they should receive will die. 

Cutting costs can, and will, have tragic consequences. (Obama's Department of Death with Dignity.)

This is all the result of the long term consequences of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and institutionalization of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity that followed in its bloody wake and that of rise and triumph of one Judeo-Masonic naturalist system of social salvation after another in the past three hundred years.

Let us remember the words of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Behold the wreckage wrought by practical atheism of the times in which we live, and anyone but anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, who thinks that there is some kind of interdenominational or nondenominational or naturalistic shortcut to retard the era of chastisement in which we live is invited yet again to read and to take seriously the following words of Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, 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. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The overthrow of the Social Reign in the Sixteenth Century and the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with it has eradicated almost all knowledge of the true history of the Catholic Faith in the Middle Ages when Holy Mother Church established institutions of mercy to care the sick, the indigent, the homeless, the abandoned and the orphaned for the first time in the history of the world.

Indeed, a large proportion of Catholics alive today here in the United States of America have forgotten or have never been taught the simple fact that our true bishops, despite many of them having plunged headlong into the myths of the American founding, made sure to provide hospitals and orphanages and other institutions of mercy that were staffed by good Catholic physicians who were obedient to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and were assisted so ably by the selfless, sacrificial service provided by the consecrated religious who served as trained nurses and nurses' aides. There was no need of government-provided programs as Holy Mother Church took generous care of those who could not provide such care for themselves.

A century of the welfare state, however, has changed all of that to such an extent that the most of the American "bishops," noting a few exceptions here and there (Robert Vasa of Baker City, Oregon, Walter Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, and Charles Chaput, then of Denver and now of Philadelphia, of the counterfeit church of conciliarism supported ObamaDeathCare as a something that was required by the dictates of what they believe to be Catholic Social Teaching even though it is in se a violation of the Natural Law principle Subsidiarity that was defined as follows by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931:

As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

The only objection to ObamaDeathCare that of the American conciliar "bishops" had concerned funding for baby-killing and the subsequent mandate issued by the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, to force religious institutions to cover "family planning services" in the insurance policies they provide for their employees. Otherwise, however, most of these apostates continue to be that ObamaDeathCare is a service in behalf of "the poor."

Indeed, although it is possible that I might have missed it, I have seen nothing printed thus far indicating that a single conciliar "bishop" in the United States of America has said anything about the failed "rollout" of ObamaDeathCare. Then again, how can they do so since even those who might be inclined to utter "peep" keep silent because Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants to avoid "moralism" and "dogmatism" In other words, the false "pontiff" wants to avoid teaching the Catholic Faith, which, of course, has been demonstrated amply on this site in the past eight months he does not hold as it has been passed down to us by Holy Mother Church under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, from the time He descended upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother and others gathered in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost Sunday.

Bergoglio's desire to avoid "moralism" and "dogmatism" was praised by the President of the Republic of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano, when the "Petrine Minister" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism paid an official state visit to the Quirinal in Rome on Thursday, November 14, 2013, the Feast of Saint Josaphat:

Napolitano, 88, praised the Pope’s “conception of the church and the faith,” which he said had impressed all Italians, “believers and nonbelievers.”

“We have been struck by the absence of all dogmatism, the distancing from positions ‘not touched by a margin of uncertainty,’ the call to leave ‘room for doubt’ characteristic of the ‘great leaders of the people of God,’” Napolitano said, quoting the Pope’s words from an interview with a Jesuit confrere published in September.

Pope Francis’ two-hour visit to the Quirinal Palace, which was a papal residence until the reunification of Italy in 1870, was marked by touches of his signature informality. (Bergoglio makes first state visit.)

Yes, world leaders have noted the "culture war" is over, that they have a fellow-traveler in the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio more so than they have had in each of the five men who have been the universal public face of apostasy before his "election" on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.)

Bergoglio, contrary to what some who have written recently to criticize his silence on moral issues, continues to deny Catholic doctrine, starting with his thoroughly revolutionary assertion that the principal purpose of what the thinks is the Catholic Church is the provision of "services" to the poor, not the salvation of souls. He made this clear in his own address to President Napolitano two days ago now:

The Church’s primary task is to bear witness to the mercy of God and to encourage generous reactions of solidarity in order to open a future of hope. For where hope increases, energy and commitment to building a more human and just social order also grows, and new possibilities for sustainable and healthy development emerge. (Official Visit to the President of the Republic of Italy at the Quirinal Palace.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that government-provided "health care" is simply a universal "human right" even though the Catholic Church provided such services to those in need while Catholic chaplains and even the sisters themselves sought to bring the strayed sheep back into the fold before they died or for those with treatable maladies to amend their lives by making a good, integral confession of their sins while hospitalized so that they could return to the world healed in soul as well as in body. Bergoglio, of course, believes that everyone is saved, including atheists, except for those who "Pharisees" who adhere to the "outdated' teaching of the "no church" that has been replaced by the "yes church" of the "Second" Vatican Council. And this is precisely why the true evils of ObamaDeathCare remain unmentioned by the American "bishops," some of who have attempted ot use the very heresy, "religious liberty," that made possible the rise of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in the first place.

Let me reprise what I have written before on this subject:

One lie begets other lies. "Brain death" is a lie from beginning to end.

The lie of the Protestant Revolution has resulted in the proliferation of Protestant sects numbering as many as thirty-three thousand, producing irreligion in its work as a logical consequence.

The lie of "civil liberty" without the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church, the Catholic Church has resulted in the lie of the monster civil state of Modernity that is now being used by God as a chastisement upon us for refusing to take seriously Holy Mother Church's Social Teaching.

The lie of "religious liberty" has led people to believe that the path to social order and personal salvation can be found in any religion or in no religion at all.

The lie of "public education" has led to a taxpayer-subsidized machine to program their captives to be steeped in one ideologically-laden slogan after another to make them willing servants of the monster civil state and to participate merrily in neo-barbaric practices that were eradicated in Europe in during the First Millennium and in most parts of the Americas in the second half of the Second Millennium by the missionary work of the Catholic Church.

The lie of contraception and "family planning" led to increases in the rates of marital infidelity, the abandonment of spouses and children, the proliferation children with stepmothers and stepfathers and and step-siblings, leaving many children rootless and without any sense of being loved unto eternity that each person craves for whether or not he realizes it.

The lie of contraception led steadily to the acceptance of eugenic sterilization and then sterilization for any reasons and, ultimately, to the acceptance of surgical baby-killing on demand.

The lies of contraception and explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments broke down the natural psychological resistance of children to matters that are age inappropriate, robbing them of their innocence and purity, turning them into hedonists as they have grown older, leading eventually to the widespread acceptance of the sins that destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone.

The lies that were told by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., in the 1950s gave us unprecedented and most radical changes in the Holy Week ceremonies that started to accustom Catholics to ceaseless change as an ordinary feature of the liturgical life of the Catholic Church, climaxing in the Trojan Horse that was the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service that, no matter how many times the conciliarists to "fix it," will always be an instrument of innovation and experimentation as it was designed to be precisely that from the moment Bugnini and Antonelli began their plans for the "Mass of the Future."

Thus it is that the lie of "brain death" has accustomed most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into accepting uncritically the representations made by a medical industry that endorses the violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and of the violation of the surgical dismemberment of the innocent preborn and that is in league with the pharmaceutical industry to use us a walking guinea pigs for drugs designed to keep us dependent on them as the "high priests and priestesses" of "modern medicine."

When did the lie of "brain death" originate? At the beginning:

[1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3: 1-5.)

It is very easy to be deceived.

It is very easy to be deceived by the lie of how "special" we are, of how we are "not like others."

It is very easy to be deceived by others and to let human respect get in the way of a firm defense of the truth when necessity compels such a defense lest souls be imperiled.

It is very easy to be deceived by the prevailing trends in what passes for popular culture, to give unto the "high priests and high priestesses" of banking, commerce, industry, education, law, entertainment, social science, politics, law, government, news and information and medicine the status of near-infallibility as even Catholics have been convinced to live as naturalists without regard for anything supernatural whatsoever.

Do not believe the false prophets. Do not follow the priests and presbyters who have swallowed the falsehoods of the false prophets of the medical industry hook, line and sinkers. Suffer for the truth without compromise as consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, our Immaculate Queen, no matter what you might have to suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears.

Never sign up to be an "organ donor."

Tell your family members that they must never sign up to be "organ donors"--or, if they have, to rescind the "permission" that they have given to be unwitting accomplices and accessories in their own execution by means of being dissected alive.

Do not delay. Do not follow their false prophets in the world or the priests/presbyters who proselytize in their behalf.

We must pray to Our Lady to keep us from being so deceived, especially by the lies that we tell to ourselves, which is why we must be assiduous in praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must always raise the standard of Christ the King as we exhort one and all to recognize that Our King, Who awaits in tabernacles for our acts of love and thanksgiving and reparation and petition, must reign over each man and each nation and that His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen, is to be honored publicly by each man and each nation, including by the government of the United States of America, in order to know what it is to be blessed abundantly by the true God of Divine Revelation. May each Rosary we pray this day and every day help to plant seeds for this as we seek to serve Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary our Immaculate Queen, who do not view any living human being as a ready product for dismemberment in the name of the lie "providing the gift of life."

Let us take solace in the fact that today is the Feast of Saint Gertrude the Great, to  whom Our Blessed Lord ad Saviour revealed the secrets of His Most Sacred Heart:

Now, as the end of time approaches, He says to us what He once announced by the beloved Apostle of His Sacred Heart [Saint Gertrude the Great]: "Let him who thirsts for happiness, grace, and peace, come to My Divine Heart, their source, and draw from it 'gratis' whatsoever he will. My merciful Heart, which desires before the end of time to glorify itself by a supreme manifestation, and to love men to the utmost bounds of affection, has arranged all for this end.

"Let these languid souls come only to Me, confide in My goodness, and abandon themselves to My love. Let them be at rest in the meekness of My Heart, unite themselves to My humility and obedience, and they will no longer feel the weight of My yoke through the abundant consolation with which I will favor them. Come, then, without fear or delay, and abandon yourselves lovingly and for ever unto Me." (Father Andre Prevot, Love, Peace and Joy: Devotion to the Sacred Heart According to St. Gertrude, published originally in 1911.)

Let us repose in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we approach this Font of Mercy and of Love through the Heart out of which It was formed, the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us accept the chastisement of the moment, a chastisement each of us deserves most richly because of our sins, and use it as a means of making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by defending the Catholic Faith without any compromises with the naturalists of the false opposites of the "left" or of the "right." Let us proclaim Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, seeking only to plant a few seeds as we give honor and glory to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Saint Gertrude the Great will teach us humility as we approach the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. She will teach us to have gratitude for the graces that we have received as seek to imitate the meekness with which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus bears with our offenses, our ingratitude, our lukewarmness, our inconstancy. She will teach us to imitate the mercy of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we extend to others the same forgiveness that is given to us so freely in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance by an alter Christus acting in persona Christi.

Although we see dimly here in this life because of our fallen estate and the damage that we have done to our souls by means of our sins, our goal in life to see God clearly in Heaven. Saint Gertrude the Great will help us to see Him more clearly in this life if we place our trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that beats in unison with the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Saint Gertrude will teach us most especially to spend time with Our Beloved in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. We receive infused graces from spending time with Our Eucharistic King. These infused graces will enlighten the mind and strengthen the will as our hearts are purified more and more to desire only the possession of the Most Blessed Trinity for all eternity in Heaven. Eucharistic piety is, of course, a very foretaste of the glories of Heaven itself.

Saint Gertrude adored Our Lord in His Real Presence in these words:

Hail, Most Glorious Body, a most precious Blood of my Lord Jesus Christ, here truly present beneath these sacramental species; I adore Thee with all that devotion and awe wherewith the nine choirs of angels worship and adore thee. I prostrate myself before Thee in the spirit of humility, believing and professing that Thou, my Lord and my God, are herein most truly contained.

Hail, most glorious Body of Jesus Christ my Saviour, true Victim immolated upon the cross. I adore Thee in union with that adoration with which Thy Humanity adored Thy Godhead, and I give Thee thanks with all the love of all thy creatures, that Thou dost deign to remain hidden in this tabernacle for our salvation.

Hail, compassionate Jesus, Word of the Father, Brightness of His glory, Ocean of pity, Salvation of the world, most august and sacred Victim. Hail, Jesus Christ, Splendour of the Father, Prince of Peace, Gate of Heaven, True Bread, Son of the Virgin, Shrine of the Godhead.

I most firmly believe that  Thou, my God, are here present, and that Thou are looking out upon me from behind the veil of the sacrament, and dost behold all the most secret recesses of my heart. I believe that under this species of bread are contained not only Thy Flesh and Thy Blood, but also Thy Divinity and Thy Humanity. And although this mystery surpasses my understanding, I nevertheless believe it so firmly that I am ready to give my life and my blood in defense of its truth.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Whose Most Sacred Heart beats with such burning love for us in every tabernacle of a Catholic church served by a true bishop or a true priest, told us not to fear:

The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?

Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Mt. 10: 24-28.)

We must be willing to care about Catholic truth, without which the world itself falls apart into a fabric of lies, which is what we are witnessing with the convergence of the forces of Modernity and Modernism help to prepare the way for the coming of Antichrist.

Be calm in the midst of the storms. Enfold yourselves into the loving embrace of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Fear not the forces of this passing world. Fear only the loss of you immortal soul. And those who keep close to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary have nothing to fear from this passing world and everything to gain in eternity if they persevere until the end in a state of Sanctifying Grace as they carry the crosses of the moment with joy and gratitude to the good God.

Remember, Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. Have confidence in her Fatima Message. There is a victory that awaits us. Why are we so slow to believe an thus to live in peace?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now ?

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Gertrude the Great, pray for us.

Appendix A

Papal Statements Condemning Religious Liberty

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

"But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

"After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

"Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

"Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right").

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

"But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

"So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action." (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)

 

Appendix B

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani on the Modernist Methodology to Dispense with the True Social Teaching of the Catholic Church

Here the problem presents itself of how the Church and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.

The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.

To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.

In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus.  In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."

Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."

Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages.  For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows." (Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion.)

Appendix C

Monsignor Joseph Clinton Fenton on the Binding Nature of Papal Declarations

(As Extracted From a Previous Article)

The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who had taught my own late seminary professor, Father John Joseph "Jackie Boy" at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, in the late-1930s, wrote a superb explication of the teaching authority of encyclical letters a year before Humani Generis, and I thank Mr. Jerry Meng, the author of Joseph Ratzinger Is Not the Pope, for providing me with information about Father Fenton's material, which appeared in the American Ecclesiastical Review, that I had read several years ago but had faded into the deeper recesses of my memory in the meantime. Thank you, Mr. Meng. To Father Fenton:

It would manifestly be a very serious fault on the part of a Catholic writer or teacher in this field, acting on his own authority, to set aside or to ignore any of the outstanding doctrinal pronouncements of the Rerum novarum or the Quadragesimo anno, regardless of how unfashionable these documents be in a particular locality or at a particular time. It would, however, be a much graver sin on the part of such a teacher to pass over or to discountenance a considerable section of the teachings contained in these labor encyclicals. In exactly the same way and for precisely the same reason it would be seriously wrong to contravene any outstanding individual pronouncement in the encyclicals dealing with the relations between Church and State, and much worse to ignore or disregard all of the teachings or a great portion of the teachings on this topic contained in the letters of Pius IX and Leo XIII.

It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility. (Doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals.)

 

To wit, Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following about the falsehood represented by the separation of Church and State:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. . . . Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

 

Gee, I wonder who has spent a great deal of the past seventy-three months endorsing this false thesis: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, that's who. This cannot be. It is impossible for a true Roman Pontiff to contradict another on a matter that is part of the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Some glib commentators might protest that not every papal statement demands our assent, that we can "sift" through what a true pope says. This is false, which is one of the reasons why true popes never spoke in interviews as they knew that their words, which were carefully chosen and vetted by theological advisers (yes, the rendering of this word as "advisors" is also accepted usage), carried the weight of their papal office, that the faithful weren't and could not be expected to make unnecessary distinctions between "official" and "unofficial" words and deeds, which was the whole point of Words and Actions Without Consequences.

Monsignor Fenton elaborated on this point when applying the teaching stated by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis to the authority of papal allocutions:

Despite the fact that there is nothing like an adequate treatment of the papal allocutions in existing theological literature, every priest, and particularly every professor of sacred theology, should know whether and under what circumstances these allocutions addressed by the Sovereign Pontiffs to private groups are to be regarded as authoritative, as actual expressions of the Roman Pontiff's ordinary magisterium.  And, especially because of the tendency towards an unhealthy minimism current in this country and elsewhere in the world today, they should also know how doctrine is to be set forth in the allocutions and the other vehicles of the Holy Father's ordinary magisterium if it is to be accepted as authoritative.  The present brief paper will attempt to consider and to answer these questions.

The first question to be considered is this: Can a speech addressed by the Roman Pontiff to a private group, a group which cannot in any sense be taken as representing either the Roman Church or the universal Church, contain doctrinal teaching authoritative for the universal Church?

The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father's encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950.  According to this document: "if, in their 'Acta' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."[6]

Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his "Acta" are authoritative.  Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the "Acta" of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis.  Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father's "Acta" is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.

There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their "Acta," "de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt."  When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the Holy Father's "Acta," an authoritative doctrinal judgment has been proposed to the universal Church.  All of those within the Church are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision. . . .

Now the questions may arise: is there any particular form which the Roman Pontiff is obliged to follow in setting forth a doctrinal decision in either the positive or the negative manner? Does the Pope have to state specifically and explicitly that he intends to issue a doctrinal decision on this particular point?  Is it at all necessary that he should refer explicitly to the fact that there has hitherto been a debate among theologians on the question he is going to decide?

There is certainly nothing in the divinely established constitutional law of the Catholic Church which would in any way justify an affirmative response to any of these inquiries.  The Holy Father's doctrinal authority stems from the tremendous responsibility Our Lord laid upon him in St. Peter, whose successor he is.  Our Lord charged the Prince of the Apostles, and through him, all of his successors until the end of time, with the commission of feeding, of acting as a shepherd for, of taking care of, His lambs and His sheep.[7]  Included in that responsibility was the obligation, and, of course, the power, to confirm the faith of his fellow Christians.

And the Lord said: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.  But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."[8]

St. Peter had, and has in his successor, the duty and the power to confirm his brethren in their faith, to take care of their doctrinal needs.  Included in his responsibility is an obvious obligation to select and to employ the means he judges most effective and apt for the accomplishment of the end God has commissioned him to attain.  And in this era, when the printed word possesses a manifest primacy in the field of the dissemination of ideas, the Sovereign Pontiffs have chosen to bring their authoritative teaching, the doctrine in which they accomplish the work of instruction God has commanded them to do, to the people of Christ through the medium of the printed word in the published "Acta."

The Humani generis reminds us that the doctrinal decisions set forth in the Holy Father's "Acta" manifestly are authoritative "according to the mind and will" of the Pontiffs who have issued these decisions.  Thus, wherever there is a doctrinal judgment expressed in the "Acta" of a Sovereign Pontiff, it is clear that the Pontiff understands that decision to be authoritative and wills that it be so.

Now when the Pope, in his "Acta," sets forth as a part of Catholic doctrine or as a genuine teaching of the Catholic Church some thesis which has hitherto been opposed, even legitimately, in the schools of sacred theology, he is manifestly making a doctrinal decision.  This certainly holds true even when, in making his statement, the Pope does not explicitly assert that he is issuing a doctrinal judgment and, of course, even when he does not refer to the existence of a controversy or debate on the subject among theologians up until the time of his own pronouncement.  All that is necessary is that this teaching, hitherto opposed in the theological schools, be now set forth as the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff, or as "doctrina catholica."

Private theologians have no right whatsoever to establish what they believe to be the conditions under which the teaching presented in the "Acta" of the Roman Pontiff may be accepted as authoritative.  This is, on the contrary, the duty and the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff himself.  The present Holy Father has exercised that right and has done his duty in stating clearly that any doctrinal decision which the Bishop of Rome has taken the trouble to make and insert into his "Acta" is to be received as genuinely authoritative.

In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own "Acta."  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner?

The text of the Humani generis itself supplies us with a minimum answer.  This is found in the sentence we have already quoted: "And if, in their 'Acta,' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."

Theologians legitimately discuss and dispute among themselves doctrinal questions which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church has not as yet resolved.  Once that magisterium has expressed a decision and communicated that decision to the Church universal, the first and the most obvious result of its declaration must be the cessation of debate on the point it has decided.  A man definitely is not acting and could not act as a theologian, as a teacher of Catholic truth, by disputing against a decision made by the competent doctrinal authority of the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

In line with the teaching of the Humani generis, then, it seems unquestionably clear that any doctrinal decision expressed by the Sovereign Pontiff in the course of an allocution delivered to a private group is to be accepted as authoritative when and if that allocution is published by the Sovereign Pontiff as a part of his own "Acta."  Now we must consider this final question: What obligation is incumbent upon a Catholic by reason of an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Sovereign Pontiff and communicated to the universal Church in this manner? (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

 

The crashing sound you hear in the background is the whole facade of the false ecclesiology of the "resist but recognize" movement that has been propagated in the past forty years as the "answer" to "resisting" the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "encyclical" letters and statements and allocutions of the conciliar "popes" crumbling right to the ground.

The rejections, for example, of the clear and consistent Catholic condemnation of religious liberty and separation of Church and State while endorsing the sort of false ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and while propagating the "new ecclesiology" of the "new theology" that is a public and manifest rejection of the very nature of the Church as summarized by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, are no mere acts of "modification" of past papal statements as they are applied in the world today. They are a wholesale rejection of Catholic truth, which is why they have been shrouded in a cloud of ambiguity and paradox as to deceive many of the elect.

Appendix D

Danger Ahead: Approaching a Catholic Hospital

(Extracted from a Previous Article)

 

Some of my former students would come up to me now and again when I was seated in Field Box 12-C-3 at the now demolished William A. Shea Municipal Stadium from 1994 to 2002. Two students who actually met each other at a pizza party that I hosted in Oyster Bay, New York, in 1981 would drop by for a visit now and again with their daughters. And there was the time ten years ago that a former student from very early in my teaching career in the mid-1970s approached me to say hello. She was sitting a few sections away with her husband.

That particular visit was very painful. It was painful because I knew that the former student's husband killed babies. Indeed, she had told me the following back in the mid-1980s when her husband, who was featured, an internet search revealed three years ago, by a Catholic hospital at which he delivers babies, was in residency at an urban hospital.

It had been in May of 1987 that the former student, who knew that I am a Catholic and that that I had just run for lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line six months before, said to me, "You do know, of course, that [name of husband] does abortions? He believes he's helping the solve the welfare problem by killing off the back and Hispanic babies." I noted to her that it was quite ironic that a Jewish man is imposing his own version of a "final solution" on those he deems to be "unfit" or too much of a "burden" to live. Our friendship effectively ended at that point. Even to write about this makes me very, very sad.

This all comes to mind again when reading about yet another instance of administrators at a supposedly "Catholic" hospital taking refuge in the "law" in order protect themselves in the midst of litigation brought by the husband of a women who, along with her preborn twin boys, died at that institution after the hospital's on-call obstetrician failed to answer a page in a timely manner. Although the facts, recounted just below, are very sad, it is sadly the case that this is really nothing new when it comes to "Catholic" hospitals in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world:

Lori Stodghill was 31-years old, seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in Cañon City on New Year’s Day 2006. She was vomiting and short of breath and she passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill’s obstetrician, Dr. Pelham Staples, who also happened to be the obstetrician on call for emergencies that night, never answered a page. His patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Stodghill’s husband Jeremy, a prison guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple’s then-two-year-old daughter Elizabeth. Staples should have made it to the hospital, his lawyers argued, or at least instructed the frantic emergency room staff to perform a caesarian-section. The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying expert said, but it may have saved the twins.

The lead defendant in the case is Catholic Health Initiatives, the Englewood-based nonprofit that runs St. Thomas More Hospital as well as roughly 170 other health facilities in 17 states. Last year, the hospital chain reported national assets of $15 billion. The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,’” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

The directives can complicate business deals for Catholic Health, as they can for other Catholic health care providers, partly by spurring political resistance. In 2011, the Kentucky attorney general and governor nixed a plan in which Catholic Health sought to merge with and ultimately gain control of publicly funded hospitals in Louisville. The officials were reacting to citizen concerns that access to reproductive and end-of-life services would be curtailed. According to The Denver Post, similar fears slowed the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth’s plan over the last few years to buy out Exempla Lutheran Medical Center and Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center in the Denver metro area.

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

The Catholic Health attorneys have so far won decisions from Fremont County District Court Judge David M. Thorson and now-retired Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Roy.

In September, the Stodghills’ Aspen-based attorney Beth Krulewitch working with Denver-based attorney Dan Gerash appealed the case to the state Supreme Court. In their petition they argued that Judges Thorson and Roy overlooked key facts and set bad legal precedent that would open loopholes in Colorado’s malpractice law, relieving doctors of responsibility to patients whose viable fetuses are at risk.

Whether the high court decides to take the case, kick it back down to the appellate court for a second review or accept the decisions as they stand, the details of the arguments the lawyers involved have already mounted will likely renew debate about Church health care directives and trigger sharp reaction from activists on both sides of the debate looking to underline the apparent hypocrisy of Catholic Health’s defense.

At press time, Catholic Health did not return messages seeking comment. The Stodghills’ attorneys declined to comment while the case was still being considered for appeal.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether to take the case in the next few weeks. (In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren't legal persons.)

 

The legal arguments advanced by the mega-billion corporate entity known as "Catholic Health" will not stand before the Divine Judge, Christ the King, Who will indeed avenge those who have shed the blood of the innocent and of those who claim that the innocent preborn are not "persons" to be recognized by the civil law. Even English common law recognized unborn children as possessors of legal rights, including their right to inherit property, and it was upon those legal grounds that then former California Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan decided in the 1970s to reverse himself and oppose most, although not all, surgical abortions under the cover of the civil law.

Judge William Blackstone wrote the following in Eighteenth Century about the legal rights of the preborn in what is called Blackstone's Commentaries on English Law:

 

One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit." (See the following article: The Rights of the Unborn from Common Law.)

The civil statutes of the State of Colorado concerning legal nonpersonhood of the preborn are in conflict with English common law, which refers to the decisions made by judges in various cases, most of which occurred during England's nearly one millennium period as a bulwark of Catholicism. More importantly, of course, that an organization calling itself "Catholic Heath" dares to take legal refuge in those statutes is offensive to the simple fact that all men are bound to observe the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to and explicated infallibly by the Catholic Church. Such legal cowards will have much to answer at the moment of their Particular Judgments no matter how much they assuage themselves with the smug satisfaction of "just following the law." "Just following the law" will not pass muster at the Bar of Divine Justice.

All of this having been noted, though, it is important to point out that this simply par for the course in many so-called "Catholic" hospitals today, places where patients are carved up alive for the harvesting of their vital body members once they have been declared "brain death," which, as has been noted many times on this site, is an invention of the medical industry to make money and to dispatch with the "elderly" and the infirmed and whoever else is deemed to be "useless" or whose life is deemed too "costly" to maintain (see Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death"and Someone Was Killed To Keep "J.R." Alive). 

So-called "Catholic" hospitals are places where brain-damaged or comatose individuals have been and continue to be starved and dehydrated to death a false representations of "brain death" and/or false claims that the provision of food and water for such persons constitutes "extraordinary medical means" when, in truth, the provision of food and water is ordinary care given to a living human being. Many relatives, not wanting to see their loved ones "suffer" and trusting entirely in the truthfulness of a medical industry that is devoted to the frustration of the generation of the species and the killing of the innocent preborn, take their false representations at face value and act accordingly.

To wit, a forty-five year old Roman Catholic priest had a stroke around 1993. He was from Armenia, speaking English fluently. His parents spoke very little English. Officials at a so-called "Catholic" hospital had decided to starve and dehydrate the priest, whose name I do not recall, to death because he was said to be in a “persistent vegetative state.”

Contacted in 1995 by several Catholics Catholics, I conducted an investigation for purposes of writing an article for The Wanderer. These are the facts:

1) The priest’s parents consented to the starvation and dehydration because they accepted the word of their son’s attending physicians that his condition was “irreversible.”

2) The priest himself, however, did understand what was going on around him. He communicated with blinks of the eyes to my informants when they visited him.

3) There is an important lesson here: most physicians today lie about the state of patients in these conditions. Why not? Most physicians support baby-killing. What is the big deal about lying when you support killing and/or have killed human beings yourself? To take the “word” of doctors seeking to declare a patient’s condition to be “irreversible” is imprudent and contrary to empirical evidence.

4) My informants asked the priest if he wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death. He blinked his eyes to signal no (after the Catholics I knew had gotten him to confirm that he could understand them by blinking his eyes once for yes and twice for no). Tears welled up in his eyes when he was told what would happen to him.

5) Physicians dismissed the “blinking” of the eyes as “meaningless reflexes,” which is one of the standard ways by which they seek to dehumanize living human beings.

6) Pleas made to the priest’s parents to stop the dehydration and starvation of their son fell on deaf eyes. They believed that the doctors “knew best.”

7) The priest was starved and dehydrated to death.

8) I wrote up the story for The Wanderer, seeking comment from the hospital’s administrator. I remember well where I was when I checked my answering machine and listened to the feminist nun’s message, which threatened to sue everyone involved if the story was published. I was in a pay phone booth in front of an H.E.B. Supermarket in Corpus Christi, Texas, where I was to speak that evening.

9) I was undaunted by the threat. I had the facts cold. My informants, though, were spooked by the threat. The story never saw the light of day as my sources would not let me quote them by giving them pseudonyms to protect their identities. They were that afraid of the threat of the lawsuit, proving once again that conciliar officials use every form of intimidation imaginable to suppress the truth.

 

Much like the case of the murdered Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo (see Five Years Later), the case of the Armenian priest in 1995 became an issue only because he had friends who knew that he was being killed under the cover of the civil law. It has become an ordinary occurrence in hospitals throughout the world, including some supposedly "Catholic" hospitals, to use various medical euphemisms to skate around the counterfeit church of conciliarism's supposed opposition to the dehydration and starvation of innocent human beings.

Many so-called "Catholic" hospitals have played "footsie" with pro-death forces for a very long time now.

Here are just a few case stories to remind you of this fact:

The news was a real bummer. A reporter named Tom Szyszkiewicz, who writes for the Catholic publications, Our Sunday Visitor and the National Catholic Register, was calling to tell me he had discovered two Catholic hospital systems were committing the induced-labor abortion procedure – live-birth abortion – on handicapped babies.

The bad news warped to bizarre when Szyszkiewicz said these hospitals were waiting until babies were 23 to 26 weeks gestation before aborting them – i.e., until they were of viable age – so they could say these weren’t abortions at all, but simply labor inductions and, thus, sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

“That’s crazy,” I thought. Most hospitals I’m aware of that commit LBA do just the opposite: They make sure to abort babies before 23 weeks – the most recent viability cutoff date according to the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics – to avoid the ethical and legal dilemmas of deciding whether to resuscitate a baby they just tried to kill.

The Catholic hospitals’ abortion strategy seemed even more risky when taking the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into account. It states that live-born babies, no matter what their gestational age or circumstances of birth, are “persons.” According to the 14th Amendment, “persons” born in the United States are automatic citizens who cannot be “deprive[d] … of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor den[ied] … equal protection of the laws.”

This means live-aborted babies can’t be cast aside to die in hospital soiled utility rooms, or drowned in buckets of water, or sealed to suffocate in biohazard bags. They must be medically assessed and cared for just like wanted babies.

Last week, I contacted both hospital systems to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I wasn’t.

Loyola Health System in Chicago, and Providence Health System on the West Coast and Alaska, both commit live-birth abortion.

But they don’t like the word, “abortion.” They call what they do, “early induction of labor.”

Webster’s Dictionary defines abortion as, “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.”

So now “termination of pregnancy” is called “early induction of labor.” Euphemisms … what would abortion proponents do without them?

Other Catholic hospitals may also be involved. Szyszkiewicz reported in the March 7, 2004, Our Sunday Visitor that Providence is the 10th largest U.S. Catholic health system, and “spokespersons for the other nine … were either vague about their hospitals’ practices or did not return calls.”

Loyola and Providence say they are acting in accordance with the 2001 U.S. Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services that states, “For proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.”

Theologian James LaGrye from the bishops’ doctrinal office said the term “proportionate” is used “for situations in which some grave risk would be incurred if an action were not taken to avoid it,” wrote Szyszkiewicz, who added, “LaGrye said the mental health of the mother ‘is a reason’ to perform early induction.”

In addition to having “mental health” concerns, Fr. Jack O’Callahan, staff ethicist at Loyola, said they are trying “to ward off the physical complications of bringing to term a child who is not going to live anyway.”

But, euthanizing one’s handicapped child is not the solution to maintaining mental health, nor do handicapped babies normally spread voodoo vibes to make their mothers sick.

What about the physical and mental complications of abortion?

Even fatally ill babies, left to develop until term, give their mothers the gift of lowering their risk of breast cancer. Contrarily, mothers who abort dramatically increase their risk.

Aborting mothers also stand a much greater chance of ending up in hospital high-risk maternity departments next time they get pregnant. Their forcibly stretched cervixes will have difficulty keeping subsequent babies inside until full term.

But I digress.

The Aug. 19 New England Journal of Medicine reported that the smallest known surviving preemie just celebrated her 15th birthday. In 1989, Madeline Mann was born at Loyola Hospital at 27 weeks, weighing 9.9 ounces. She is now a violin playing, roller-blading, high-school honor student.

Doctors at Loyola delivered Madeline early by Caesarean section after determining she might fare better in their care than in her mother’s uterus. (Catholic hospitals commit – and US Apostates condone--live birth abortion.)

 

What Miss Stanek, who is not a Catholic, missed in her news report posted on September 15, 2004, that the euphemisms used by "Catholic" health system administrators to justify practices that result in the quite intended deaths of innocent preborn children is that most of these forgotten victims of the American genocide are never baptized and will thus never see the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Ah, but what is that to apostates who have jettisoned Limbo, with their "pope's" full blessing, mind you (see No Need to be in Limbo Any Longer)? Not much. Not much at all.

Some "Catholic" hospitals have actually sanctioned the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn:

 

RICHMOND, VA, June 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Diocese of Richmond in Virginia is caught in the middle of a controversy surrounding workers at a Catholic charity, who helped procure an abortion for an abandoned immigrant. Richmond Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, as well as two other bishops, wrote a letter to the 350 bishops nationwide addressing the situation, in which they indicated that the workers have since been fired.

According to the letter, in January, the unnamed 16-year old girl from Guatemala obtained the abortion by using a parental consent form signed by workers from the Commonwealth Catholic Charity, Richmond (CCR).  Members from the charity also drove the girl to the abortion center and, two-months prior, issued her a contraceptive device.  Consequently, four members of the CCR have been fired, and one supervisor from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop's Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) agency has been suspended.

To add to the controversy, a federal investigation is in the works, given the fact that Virginian law states that only a parent, grandparent or adult sibling can give parental consent - not a social worker.

As reported by the Washington Times, the girl was a ward of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  For years the USCCB has received contracts from the HSS for the care of foster immigrants.  The USCCB, namely their MRS arm, in turn subcontracts to Catholic Agencies such as the CCR.

As faithful Catholics are aware, any Catholic who procures or helps someone else procure an abortion is automatically excommunicated.  Further, one who uses contraception is considered to be in a state of mortal sin.

Yet according to the bishops' letter, the employees behind the scandal were unaware of some or all of the Church's teaching on abortion and contraception: "Some members of the MRS staff were not sufficiently aware of church teaching and [USCCB] policy regarding these matters to take stronger and more appropriate actions."

In order to combat this ignorance, the letter said that all MRS employees will be trained on "the primacy of Catholic teachings and beliefs as they impact their work or professional ethics...to assure that such unacceptable incidents never happen again."

"This incident is a most regrettable stain on the record of excellence in the work both of MRS and of Catholic Charities," read the letter.

In a LifeSiteNews interview, Steve Neil, the spokesperson for the Richmond diocese, confirmed that, "all Catholic agencies are to uphold the Church's teachings."

Neil also said that it is "expected that all employees of Catholic Agencies are to adhere to these teachings and should be fired if they do not. Ultimately they are undermining the mission of the Church."

As expected, the USCCB has received considerable criticism for this incident because the organization chooses the agencies to which the foster immigrants are given to for protection and support.

David Siegel, acting director of the HHS Refugee Resettlement Office, issued his concerns via a letter to Johnny Young, executive director of the USCCB MRS agency.

"USCCB's inability to direct the actions of its sub-grantee was a failure of management, oversight and monitoring," stated the letter.

According to the Washington Times, HHS spokesman Kenneth Wolfe criticized the CCR directly, saying, "We were surprised and disappointed to learn of a chapter of Catholic Charities using this funding to facilitate a minor procuring an abortion."

In its defense, the CCR blamed Bishop DiLorenzo for the incident, pointing to the bishop's membership on the CCR's board as well as the fact that the agency is incorporated under direction of the Richmond Diocese.

However, in a press release regarding the event, the CCR admitted to the role their employees played and attempted to reassure the public that precautions were being taken to prevent such an incident from happening again, including the "ongoing education and training for all Catholic Charities employees to underscore the primacy of Catholic teachings and beliefs that impact their work and professional ethics." Catholic Charity Caught Helping Virginia Girl Obtain Abortion

WASHINGTON, DC (Washington Times) - The Roman Catholic bishop of Richmond was told that a diocesan charity planned to help a teenage foster child get an abortion in January and did not try to prevent the procedure.

Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo "was told erroneously that everything was in place and there was nothing he could do to stop it," said Steve Neill, Bishop DiLorenzo's communications officer. "He is very apologetic about the whole episode.

"It is very awkward, it is very embarrassing. A human life was taken. He certainly has not taken it lightly in any way. He is clearly opposed to abortion."

Mr. Neill said the bishop was informed Jan. 17, the day before an abortion was performed on the 16-year-old Guatemalan girl, who was a foster care client of Commonwealth Catholic Charities of Richmond (CCR), a group incorporated under the diocese.

CCR Executive Director Joanne Nattrass also knew about the planned abortion, Mr. Neill said.

"The director was very upset about it and it clearly went against all she stood for as a director of Catholic Charities," he said.

After The Washington Times revealed the abortion on June 18, Ms. Nattrass released a statement on June 19 saying the incident was "contrary to basic teachings of the Catholic Church."

Federal authorities are investigating CCR because the girl was a ward of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS had contracted with CCR to take care of the girl, whose parents are not in the country.

Ms. Nattrass wrote that neither CCR nor diocesan funds paid for the abortion but did not say who did. Federal law forbids any federal funds to be used.

Ms. Nattrass' statement also said a CCR staff member signed the consent form necessary for a minor to have an abortion, even though Virginia law mandates parental consent for anyone younger than 18.

Martin Tucker, a spokesman for the Virginia attorney general's office, would not say whether a state investigation is under way.

After HHS officials learned of the abortion, they complained about the incident on April 23 to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), a parent agency to Catholic Charities.

Bill Etherington, an attorney for the diocese and CCR, said Bishop DiLorenzo was given bad information about whether the abortion could be prevented, but didn't elaborate as to how.

"He was told it could not be stopped," Mr. Etherington said. "It was erroneous information. He didn't have to sign off on it. He was not personally involved."

He added, without elaborating, that the underage abortion did not violate state law.

After learning of the federal investigation, Bishop DiLorenzo and two other bishops issued an April 29 letter to the nation's 350 Catholic bishops detailing the botched management decisions that led to the abortion.

"He wrote the letter with the intent that word was going to get out and they should be notified of the circumstances," Mr. Neill said.

Four CCR employees were fired over the incident, and one USCCB official who worked with its office of Migration and Refugee Services was suspended.

"They were so caught up with the plight of the young girl who already had a child," Mr. Neill said. "She was not a Catholic. She got pregnant by her boyfriend, and she was determined not to have the baby."

The unnamed girl had been implanted with a contraceptive device provided by CCR two months earlier, according to the April 29 letter.

Catholic doctrine condemns deliberate abortion and the use of contraception as mortal sins. Those who obtain an abortion or help someone else to do so can be excommunicated.

In this case, it was a volunteer, not CCR staff, who drove the girl to the abortion clinic, Mr. Neill said. CCR staff will be having "ongoing formation and education" regarding church teaching on the matter, he added.

The USCCB has refused to comment. A spokeswoman said the matter was a "personnel issue."

Additional comments by Bishop DiLorenzo are slated for release Monday in the diocesan newspaper at www.catholicvirginian.org. (www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/30/bishop-knew-of-abortion-plan.)

Imagine that, my friends. Employees of "Catholic" Charities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, under conciliar control were not sufficiently "informed" about the immutable precepts in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that forbid the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life at any time from conception to natural death. Oh, yes, these now fired employees, who are merely scapegoats for a culture of leftist political naturalism and full-throated support for feminism and perversity in the name of "human rights" and "social justice" that exists throughout almost every conciliar social service agency in the United States of America, were permitted to arrange for an immigrant teenager to secure "parental consent" to kill her baby with the full knowledge of Francis DiLorenzo, who was advised that he was powerless to stop the killing although he had said, according to a online report in the Wednesday evening, July 2, 2008, edition of The New York Times, "I forbid this happen" before being informed that there was "nothing" that could be done to stop the execution of the child.

Powerless to stop the killing? Powerless. This is, quite plainly, the direct effect of conciliarism's systematic attacks on the Faith in the past forty years. No one possessed of the sensus Catholicus is ignorant of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law or our necessity to do discharge our duties before God to at least exhort someone about to kill her child to refrain from doing so.

Mind you, this "powerlessness" came was after officials in "Catholic" Charities gave the poor girl a contraceptive device to use by which she could keep on violating the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. No one in "CCR" (Conciliar Corruption Richmond) cared enough for this girl to discharge the Spiritual Works of Mercy by exhorting her to amend her life? Ah, this is the nub of the issue, you see: many employees of conciliar organizations do not believe in the reality of personal sin, believing only in "social sins" that violate the precepts of this or that naturalistic ideology (feminism, environmentalism, socialism, statism, the agenda of perversity promoted in the name of "human rights" and "dignity"). What's the big deal about giving this poor girl a contraceptive device and taking her to the abortuary?

Readers of this site surely do not need to have a reminder of how "Catholic Charities" and the so-called "Catholic Campaign for Human Development" have helped to fund one pro-contraception, pro-abortion, pro-perversity cause after another.

Indeed, Mrs. Stephanie Block has for years chronicled the "Catholic" Campaign for Human Development's relationship with all manner of nefarious organizations, many of which support contraception and abortion and perversity and illegal immigration (see Catholic Campaign for Human Development). And countless, truly countless, are the cases of Catholic teachers and professors, some of them alleged priests and alleged consecrated religious sisters, who have counseled students to use contraception or to kill their babies, including a Vincentian priest at Saint John's University in Jamaica, New York, who informed a former student of mine in 1985 that it was up to her and her husband to use their "consciences" to determine whether to kill their unborn child. This priest used what is called in conciliarspeak "non-directional" counseling.

Coziness with pro-aborts, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike, in public life and with actual baby-killers is mot common among officials in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including Roger Mahony, the infamous conciliar "archbishop" of Los Angeles (see my own Blood Money Talks and Corrupt Chickens Come Home To Roost In Roger's Nest Of Apostates, long before I understood the true state of the ecclesiastical crisis facing the Church Militant at this time), and his protege, Sylvester Ryan, the now retired conciliar "bishop"of Monterrey, California, who had a baby-killer on his "advisory board" for dealing with priests accused of conduct in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (see Stonewalling from Another Bishop Ryan, Forty Years Of Emboldening, Appeasing And Enabling Killers, part one, Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part two, Forty Years of Emboldening, Appeasing, and Enabling Killers, part three and Timmy's In The Well (Of Americanism, That Is).)

The interconnections that exist between many conciliar "bishops"  and "priests" with Catholic pro-abort public officials are vast and extensive, leading some of them to state that the attack on the innocent preborn is simply "one issue of out of many" to be considered when a Catholic decides how to vote (for those who love participating in this futile exercise of Judeo-Masonic naturalism, cf. When Lesser is Greater). Federal Election Commission reports indicate that scores of conciliar "priests" and "religious" contributed money to the campaigns of various pro-aborts running for the Democrat Party presidential nomination, including then United State Senators Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (D-New York), and John Edwards (D-North Carolina).

How many people remember that it was back that was in early January of 1995, eighteen years ago now, that the conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, Normandy, France, Jacques Gaillot, was removed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after years upon years of protests by Catholics about his words and actions, including his open and unapologetic support for the human pesticide, the French abortion pill, RU-486? (See Farley Clinton's February 2, 1995, article in The Wanderer, Gaillot Stripped of His Bishopric. I had my own commentary on the matter at the time that ran in the same newspaper.) That it took something approaching a revolution from Catholics attached to the conciliar structures in France to effect Gaillot's removal after years of complaints--and even admonitions from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II himself--speaks volumes about the paralysis caused by the conciliar novelty of episcopal collegiality, one of the triumphs of the Modernist spirit in favor of democracy that had been described so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Modernity itself is based on the lie that it is possible for men to know social order absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church and absent a firm reliance upon Sanctifying Grace to grow in the virtues and to rise to the heights of personal sanctity. Social order depends upon the order within the souls of men. Behold the disorder that exists at the present time, a disorder that, of course, is exponentially greater now because of the barrenness, of the false doctrines and the liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The proliferation of error is so pronounced and so widespread in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the average Catholic, noting, of course, exceptions here and there, has become so very accustomed to apostasy that he is incapable of recognizing that is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, for a Catholic to enter into a place of false worship and then to praise that place of diabolical rites as "sacred" and to praise the "values" held by the adherents of that false religion.

Very few Catholics have ever expressed any sense of outrage for the honor and majesty and glory of God when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's called a mosque in Jordan as a "jewel" that stands out on "the face of the earth" during his visit there in 2009 or when he took off his shoes to enter the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem while calling this place that is hideous in the sight of God as "sacred" or entering into Jewish synagogues or Protestant churches to engage in serial acts of false ecumenism.

These Catholics have come to accept such acts of apostasy and sacrilege as "natural" and "normal," if not actual "obligations" required of Christian charity so as to demonstrate to all men of "good will" that a "loving God" does not make distinctions between people who have different beliefs about Him. I know of only a handful of Catholics who expressed publicly any outrage at all for the honor and majesty and glory of God after Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008.

Not even Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, condemned these unspeakable acts of apostasy even though he has now authorized the Society of Saint Pius X to mount vigorous criticism, to the point of undertaking courageous Catholic Action in Buenos Aires to interrupt a conciliar event commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Kristallnacht, featuring a full cast of Talmudists, in Jorge Mario Bergoglio's former cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in recent months. Yes, Bishop Fellay ignored every single one of Ratzinger/Benedict's outrages against God and the harm that that he did to souls in the hopes of getting a place in what he once called "the conciliar zoo." Seeing, at least for the moment, that Bergoglio is no friend of the Catholic Faith, Bishop Fellay has resumed the active "resistance" to a true pope that is in and of itself offensive to God. If the conciliar "popes" have been true Successors of Saint Peter, then Catholics have had to obey them. Their actions have proved them to be figures of Antichrist, which is why they have not been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.

While there is danger to both souls and bodies found in "Catholic" hospitals, the real danger to human beings and thus to all social order is to be found in so-called "Catholic" churches and schools and colleges and universities and professional schools, something that will be discussed in tomorrow's article on this site.

 

Nations, including our own, stand to be annihilated by the wrath of God if we do not heed Our Lady's Fatima Message and make reparation for our sins, especially during the season of Lent that starts in but thirteen days, including any sins of indifference about the twin, inter-related agents of Antichrist that are Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

In the midst of apostasy and betrayal on every side imaginable, we must enfold ourselves in the mantle of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as our shield and use her Most Holy Rosary as our weapon to pray in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, offering our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.