Who Was Killed To Keep Richard Cheney Alive?
by
Thomas A. Droleskey
Oral arguments in the case of United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al. have been conducted for the past two consecutive days before the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. An unprecedented third straight day of hearings will be conducted today, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, thus concluding the extraordinary precedent-setting amount of time that the nation's highest court has set aside for considering the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010" (otherwise known as ObamaCare).
The efforts of the administration of the reigning caesar, Barack Hussein Obama, to nationalize the nation's health-care industry, in the grip of the utilitarianism and profiteering that has nothing to do with the provision of genuine health care to human beings that was provided by the Catholic Church until the dawning the age of conciliarism, would appear, at least as it stands now until the Supreme Court's decision on the case is rendered in a few months, to stand a reasonable chance of withstanding constitutional challenge. What the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010" does is to render under the government and its bureaucrats health-rationing decisions that have heretofore been made by hospital administrators and insurance companies. None of this can be justified under the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
Alas, the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are not concerned about the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, including the likes of the Court's senior associate justice, Antonin Scalia, who has said repeatedly that the Natural Law plays no role at all in his judicial decision-making. Scalia has said publicly, including once in my own hearing at a Communion breakfast in New York City in 1997, that a state legislature, for example, has the "right" to pass whatever legislation about abortion that its members desire to enact.
That is, state legislatures could vote to prohibit, restrict or permit the surgical dismemberment of innocent preborn children according to the predilections of majority votes. As long as a state legislature follows the mandates of its state constitutions and do not violate the Constitution of the United States of America, which Scalia contends, erroneously in my own view, is "silent" about the legal "permissibility" of abortion, then he is duty bound to uphold it. "You write it," Scalia said, "I'll enforce it." There is a phrase to describe this view: legal positivism, the belief that the legal permissibility is the only standard of law and justice, that mere mortals, contingent beings whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection on the Last Day, can be the ultimate arbiters of moral right and wrong according to the dictates of various majorities acting in accord with the provisions of state constitutions and, if application, the Constitution of the United States.
It is entirely possible, therefore, that at least one or two of he supposedly reliably "conservative" justices of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts or Associate Justice Samuel Alito) might opine that the Congress of the United States of America can legislate legitimately in the field of health care, which is a remarkable concession given the fact that many of those trained in constitutional and administrative law, including this writer, contend that there is no such authorization anywhere in the Constitution, not even in the "health and welfare" clause found in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States of America justifies the takeover of the provision of ordinary health care services to be rationed by unelected bureaucrats of the Federal government. More about possible inclinations of the justices in this direction will be known later today, the third and final day of the hearings, which is devoted to arguments concerning the "severability" of the individual mandate from the rest of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010," that is, whether the entire Act falls if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional.
Of crucial consideration in today's hearings will be whether the Court has the authority to declare the individual mandate severable from the rest of the act when Congress passed the law without a severability provision. That is an entirely different issue from whether Congress has the authority in a theoretical sense to legislate a national takeover of the health care industry. It is one thing to concede, erroneously I believe, that Congress has such authority. It is quite another to determine that the a specific Congressional law passed without a severability clause could remain valid if its key enforcement provision was declared unconstitutional.
The only part of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010" that appears will be struck down on its face by the thoroughly predictably margin of five (Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the "swing" vote on the Court as currently constituted, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) to four (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) is the "individual mandate" that imposes a requirement upon all Americans to purchase health insurance lest they be fined for not doing so.
Although the legal viability of the act absent the individual mandate is indeed the subject of argument today, the striking down of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance would make the rest of the monstrous, statist "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" almost impossible to administer, noting that the apparatchiks in the Obama administration and their like-minded comrades in state governments and insurance policies are drafting contingency plans to adapt to the possibility of ObamaCare absent the mandate. The most likely alternative would be a "single-payer" system such as exists in the United Kingdom and Canada, that is, totally socialized medicine, which is not likely to receive Congressional authorization from the 112th Congress, not that such authorization would matter to the lawless tyrants who populate the nooks and crannies of the Obama administration.
During yesterday's hearings, which revolved around the constitutionality of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance (the first day of hearings centered around whether an 1867 law, the Anti-Injunction Act, forbade judicial review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 until there is an attempt to impose a penalty upon a taxpayer who refused to purchase health insurance; this is called a "justiciability" or "ripe for review" question in constitutional law), a very telling moment occurred when Chief Justice John Roberts asked United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., if Congress had the authority to mandate that citizens purchase cellular telephones in order to be ready to make a phone call during an emergency that required a medical and/or police/fire response. It was during his exchange with Verrilli that Roberts just casually brought up so-called "heart transplants," something that is very timely in the wake of the simple fact that some "anonymous" human being was killed by licensed killers (doctors) to provide his heart to former Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To — in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are? (Transcript of Day 2 in case of United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al.)
Notice how casually Chief Justice John Roberts mentions a possible "need" for a heart transplant, thereby conceding that the transplantation of human hearts is just a matter of medical routine to prolong the lives of those whose own hearts can no longer function properly to sustain their lives, which is God's way of telling them to prepare for a good, holy and sacramentally-provided-for death, not to place themselves on lists in order to receive a "donated" heart that can be obtained in no other way than killing a living human being. Chief Justice Roberts accepts the morality and legality of heart transplants without question. So do most doctors and other alleged health-care professionals. So do most "bishops" and priests/presbyters in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to which Roberts, who has ties to Opus Dei, belongs. What's the big deal?
Well, as has been noted on this site before, the "big deal" is that it is impossible to take a heart of the body of any person unless he is alive, meaning that the removal of his act is actually a legal execution of an innocent human being who has not died a natural death. Even though some sedevacantists disparage the scholarly credentials of Dr. Paul Byrne, who has written peer-reviewed articles in medical journals on the medical industry's manufacture, profit-making myth of "brain death," claiming that Dr. Byrne is in a very tiny "minority" within the medical community, it should be noted that only a microscopically small number of Catholics in the world accept the simple truth that those who defect from even one article of the Catholic Faith expel themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church and thus cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately. Truth does not depend for its validity upon the number of people who recognize and accept it. Truth is what is, and Dr. Byrne's simple recitation of medical truth, including the truth of why the myth of "brain death" was invented in the first place, cannot be repeated enough.
Please consider once again Dr. Byrne's 2007 interview with Mrs. Randy Engel in her capacity as the Editor of the Michael Fund Newsletter:
Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?
Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita,
meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In
order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the
donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs
are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time
after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from
a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will
cause the donor’s death.
Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?
Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a
lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that
removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital
organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without
killing the donor.
Editor:
Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking
the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ
donation now possible?
Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in.
Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing
and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain
death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for
transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing
vital organs will cause death.
Editor: I still recall the announcement of the
first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town,
South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the
obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs
for transplant from a living human being?
Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.
Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?
Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was
formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining
death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain
dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not
originate or develop by way of
application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not
determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death.
Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new
criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already
arrived at conclusions.
Editor:
Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a
ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?
Dr. Byrne: Yes.
Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?
Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be
fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and
circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged
that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is
real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?
Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?
Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than
thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the
United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then.
This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of
criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set
includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up
to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she
can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this
test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of
time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe
on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but
to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to
receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly
dead.
Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?
Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be
declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of
circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all
functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then,
all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.
Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?
Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is
characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and
putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the
destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted,
the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.
Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?
Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and
flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood
pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and
maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often
be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of
observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth,
and will go through puberty if they are a child.
Editor:
Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to
surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”
Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of
vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing
drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes,
and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In
normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision
will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light.
This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain.
Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great
Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A
corpse does not feel pain.
Editor: I
know that there have been instances where young pregnant women have
sustained serious head injuries, declared “brain dead,” and have given
birth to a live child.
Dr. Byrne: That is true. With careful management,
these “brain dead” women have delivered a live baby. In the longest
recorded instance, the child was carried for 107 days before delivery.
Editor: Are there other uses for “brain dead” patients besides being the source of fresh vital organs?
Dr. Byrne: Legally, “brain dead” patients are
considered corpses or cadavers, and are called such by organ retrieval
networks. These “corpses” can be used for teaching purposes and to try
out new medical procedures. Yet these same “corpses” are carrying unborn
children to successful delivery. Certainly this is extraordinary
behavior by a “cadaver!”
Editor:
What if a potential organ donor does not meet the criteria for “brain
death,” but has sustained certain injuries or has an illness suggesting
that death will soon occur?
Dr. Byrne: Such cases have brought about the
development of a what is called “non heart-beating donation” (NHBD),
more recently labeled “donation by cardiac death” (DCD)–in which
treatments considered extraordinary means, such as mechanical
ventilation, are discontinued and cause the patient to become pulseless.
As soon as circulation stops, death is declared.
Editor: Then what?
Dr. Byrne: This stopping of life supporting
treatments is done in the operating room. After a few minutes–the time
varies in different institutions–procedures to take vital organs begins.
Editor: But how can this be accomplished if the person declared to be dead, is truly dead?
Dr. Byrne: It can’t.
Editor: What about insurance coverage for “brain dead” patients?
Dr. Byrne: Hospitals allow them to occupy a bed and
insurance companies cover expenses as they do for other living
patients. If the patients’ organs are suitable for transplantation, any
transfer of the patients to another hospital is covered by insurance.
Insurance also covers the cost of life support, blood transfusions,
antibiotics and other medications needed to maintain organs in a healthy
state. This also applies to “brain dead” patients to be used in medical
teaching facilities.
Editor: I
know that the federal government has taken an active role in promoting
so-called “living wills.” Has it also played a role in promoting vital
organ donations?
Dr. Byrne: The federal government has, for reasons
that are unclear, been deeply involved in promoting vital organ
transplantation. For example, a federal mandate issued in 1998 states
that physicians, nurses, chaplains, and other health care workers may
not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining
approval from the regional organ retrieval system. If the potential for
transplantation exists, a trained “designated requester” visits with
the family of the patient first, including families that adamantly
oppose organ donation. If someone at the hospital speaks to the family
of the patient first, the hospital risks losing its accreditation and
possibly federal funding.
Editor: Why the “designated requester”?
Dr. Byrne: That’s because studies show that these
specialists have a greater success obtaining permission for organ
donations from grieving family members. They are trained to “sell” the
concept of organ donation, using emotionally-laden phrases such as
“giving the gift of life,” “your loved one’s heart will live on in
someone else,” and other similar platitudes, all empty of true meaning.
Don’t forget that the donation and transplant industry is a multi-
billion dollar enterprise. In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran an informative
series on this issue, but as a rule it is difficult, if not impossible,
to obtain solid financial data. One thing, however, is clear: donor
families do not receive any monetary benefit from their “gift of life.”
Editor: There appears to be a strong utilitarian aspect to vital organ transplantation.
Dr. Byrne: That is because the philosophy that
inspires the practice is based on the error that man is an end to
himself, and the sole maker with supreme control of his own destiny.
Slavery bought, sold and treated enslaved persons as chattel. The human
transplantation industry and the “bioethics” groups that promote vital
organ transplantation also consider human beings to be chattel, that is,
they can be used as a source of organs for transplantation. This
utilitarian ethic should be rejected. “Brain death” and all forms of
imposed death are contrary to the Natural Moral Order and against God’s
Ordinance “Thou shall not kill.”
Editor: It is obvious that organ
donation is a very serious matter – literally a matter of life and death
for the potential donor and the family of a potential donor, and that
everyone ought to be implicitly and explicitly informed about the true
nature of so-called “brain death” and vital organ transplantation.
Would you review for our
readers some of the questions they should ask themselves before signing
an organ donor card or giving permission for a loved one to be declared
“brain dead” in anticipation of organ transplantation?
Dr. Byrne: If there is any question in the mind of
your readers as to the fact that “brain death” is not true death,
perhaps they may want to ask themselves the following questions
regarding “brain death” and vital organ transplantation:
· Why can health insurance cover intensive care costs on “bread dead” patients?
· Why do “brain dead” patients often receive intravenous fluids,
antibiotics, ventilator care, and other life support measures?
· Is it right and just for physicians and “designated requesters” to
tell families that their “bread-dead” loved one is dead when she or he
is not dead?
· How can “brain dead” patients have normal body functions, including vital signs, if they are really dead?
· How can a “brain-dead” pregnant mother deliver a normal, healthy infant?
· Why does a ventilator work on someone declared “brain dead,” but not on a corpse?
· Why is it wrong to carry out the burial or cremation of a “brain-dead” person?
· Are persons who have been declared “brain dead” truly dead?
· If “brain-dead” persons are not truly dead, are they alive?
Editor: Thank you on behalf of The Michael Fund for providing this valuable information to our readership?
Dr. Byrne: Thank you for this opportunity to inform
your readers about this vital issue of vital organ transplantation. If
they don’t remember every thing that I have said, I hope that they will
remember this one point: “brain death” is not true death. Instead of
signing a donor organ card, I would encourage everyone to obtain a Life
Support Directive. A free copy of this document is available from
Citizens
United Resisting Euthanasia at: cureltd@verizon.net or write C.U.R.E, 303 Truman Street, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411. (From The Michael Fund Newsletter, December, 2007; see also Dr. Paul A. Byrne's Refutation.)
Even some members of the medical community in favor of the harvesting of vital body organs admit openly and freely that "donors" are alive at the time of their "donations," shall we say, which is why the bar has been lowered, both in theory and, much more importantly, in practice concerning the point at which the body snatchers can begin their work of carving up living human beings for the very profitable "organ transplant" industry (and it is nothing other than an international industry of huge proportions):
Should organ donors be dead before organs are harvested? According to three experts, no.
The
chilling comments were offered by Dr. Neil Lazar, director of the
medical-surgical intensive care unit at Toronto General Hospital, Dr.
Maxwell J. Smith of the University of Toronto, and David Rodriguez-Arias
of Universidad del Pais Vasco in Spain, at a U.S. bioethics conference
in October and published in a recent paper in the American Journal of
Bioethics.
The authors state frankly that under current practices donors may be
technically still alive when organs are harvested – a necessary
condition to produce healthy, living organs. Because of this, they say
that protocol requiring a donor’s death is “dangerously misleading,” and
could overlook the well-being of the donor who may still be able to
suffer during the harvesting procedure.
“Because there is a general assumption that dead individuals cannot
be harmed, veneration of the dead-donor rule is dangerously misleading,”
they write. “Ultimately, what is important for the protection and
respect of potential donors is not to have a death certificate signed,
but rather to be certain they are beyond suffering and to guarantee that
their autonomy is respected.”
Instead of the so-called Dead Donor Rule (DDR), the authors propose
that donors should be “protected from harm” (i.e given anesthesia so
that they cannot feel pain during the donation process), that informed
consent should be obtained, and that society should be “fully informed
of the inherently debatable nature of any criterion to declare death.”
The doctors note that developing the criteria for so-called “brain
death,” which is often used by doctors to declare death before organ
donation, was an “ideological strategy” aimed at increasing the donor
pool that has been found to be “empirically and theoretically flawed.”
They also criticize the latest attempts to create new, even looser
definitions of death, such as circulatory death, which they argue amount
to simply “pretending” that the patient is dead in order to get his
organs.
The legitimacy of “brain death,” “cardiac death,” and even
“circulatory death” - which can be declared only 75 seconds after
circulatory arrest - as actual death has been an ongoing debate in
public commentary on organ donation. Many experts assert that doctors
familiar with organ donation are aware that the terms, intended to
delineate a threshold of probable death, is different from actual bodily
death, rendering highly uncertain the moral status of organ donation.
Meanwhile, countless stories have emerged of “miraculous” awakenings following brain death, providing weight to the arguments of doctors and others who say that the process of procuring viable organs not only fails to
ensure that a patient has certainly died, but is impossible unless a
body is still technically alive.
Dr. Paul Byrne, an experienced neonatologist, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Toledo, and president of Life Guardian Foundation,
said he was not surprised at the recent statements, which he said
merely reflect a long-open secret in the organ donation field.
“All of the participants in organ transplantation know that the
donors are not truly dead,” Byrne told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone
interview Tuesday.
“How can you get healthy organs from a cadaver? You can’t.”
Byrne affirmed that giving pain medication to organ donors is
routine. Doctors taking organs from brain-dead donors “have to paralyze
them so they don’t move so when they cut into them to take organs, and
when they paralyze them without anesthetics, their heart rate goes up
and their blood pressure goes up,” he observed. “This is not something
that happens to someone who’s truly dead.”
The neonatologist said he has personally studied the theory of “brain
death” since 1975, seven years after the first vital organ transplant
in 1968, and has found that death criteria has continually been changed
to accommodate a demand for fresh organs. The idea of a “dead donor
rule” did not even emerge until the 1980s, he said, and didn’t enter
common parlance until years later.
“There really is no dead donor rule, although they’re trying to make it seem like there is,” said Byrne.
Byrne led a Vatican conference on “brain death” criteria in 2008 in
which a large group of international experts, many of whom are world
leaders in their fields, attested to the illegitimacy of “brain death” as an accepted criterion for organ removal.
The comments by the Canadian and Spanish experts have come under fire
from the organ donor community, some members of which have expressed
concern that the statements could lead people to opt out of donating
their organs.
“In the overwhelming majority of cases, the concept of death is easy,
obvious and not really subject to any complex interpretation. It’s very
clear,” Dr. Andrew Baker, the medical director of the Trillium Gift of
Life Network, which oversees Ontario’s transplant system, told the
National Post. “They’re dead, you can see it, there is no return of
anything.”
James DuBois, a health ethics professor at Saint Louis University,
also criticized the comments, saying that removing the Dead Donor Rule
could “have negative consequences: decreasing organ donation rates,
upsetting donor family members and creating distress among health care
workers.”( Requiring death before organ donation is unnecessary; for an article dealing with the New York State Legislature's efforts to encourage "organ donation," see Triumph of the Body Snatchers.)
Richard Bruce Cheney has a new heart beating in his chest because the person in whose body God Himself meant that heart to beat until his natural death was killed to make it "available" for transplantation. A human being was killed to make it possible for the seventy-one year-old former Vice President of the United States of America to live another few years, which, sad to say, will not, at least as it appears presently, be spent making reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for his support of "marriage" between persons of the same gender and the monstrous wars of aggression he helped to design and implement that resulted in the needless deaths of countless thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.
No, Richard Cheney will just have a few extra years to defend himself and continue promoting the evils that call down upon his immortal soul the wrath of God, hardly a productive use of one's time after having received a heart from a person who was killed for him to have "more time." Richard Cheney was created by God with a immortal soul that has been redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to know, love and serve Him through His Catholic Church. He does not understand this, and barring a miraculous conversion, for which we must pray every day, he will continue using his "added time," gained immorally, poorly.
Ah, yes, the "civilized" United States of America, a place where the killing of the innocent preborn, both by surgical and chemical means, is considered almost beyond change, certainly a matter that need not cloud the farce that is presidential politics at a time that the economy is in such horrible straits as it is at present. Why worry about moral truth when we've got "more important" matters to concern ourselves with at this time? Well, it is precisely the casual, blithe acceptance of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law that has made possible the casual, blithe acceptance of the myth of "brain death" and the "normality" of heart transplantation surgery even by a sitting chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
No matter what "most" people, including John Roberts, think about "brain death" and heart transplantation surgery, however, Catholics must understand that truth does not depend upon "numbers." If it did, then the crowd that, motived by our own sins having transcended time, cried out for the release of Barabbas and the Crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ would have had "truth" on its side. It cannot be that way with believing Catholics. Indeed, it must not be that way with us.
The late Archbishop Alban Goodier explained this to us very directly in volume two of The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ: An Interpretation:
This is now brought home to us by the report of the police. Think of it! At this beginning of His last campaign Jesus submitted to being the subject of a police investigation! There was no charge against Him, unless it be trumped-up charge of opposition to the Temple authorities; the police were there to watch Him, and to make Him prisoner, merely as a matter of duty and no more. But when they stood among the crowd they were paralysed. They behold the evident sincerity in His face; they listened to His convincing words; they saw with their own eyes how by His mere presence He suppressed every effort to create disturbance. They heard with their own ears the silencing of every commotion; they knew with the shrewdness and experience of their calling that to take Him, whether openly or in secret, would only create further trouble. By His word alone He could pacify the crowd better than could all the Pharisees and rulers with all their following of satellites. He was the Master, of that there could be no doubt; as the Master He spoke, 'and not as the Scribes and Pharisees'. Men listened, and were carried beyond themselves, and asked with deep seriousness whether He were not the Christ. What that meant these ministers of the rulers neither knew nor cared; but this they did know, that the Man before them was true.
It was a plain conclusion, and they could come to no other. To imprison such a Man was on the face of it unjust; it was more, it was imprudent. But unjust or not and imprudent or not, such a decision did not please their masters. Their scheme for victory, while they themselves lay in the background, had failed, their own emissaries had failed them. Then on their servants must their hatred be poured out; and since this could not be done with justice, they would do it with contempt. Were they not the lords of all in the Temple? Were they not the guides? Did they not alone possess the power to discern what was truth and what was falsehood? Had they not alone the right to judge? Who but they were permitted to interpret the secrets of the Law? They alone were the chosen of the chosen people; to desert them on whatever ground was infidelity, to listen to any other voice was treachery, to follow any other, no matter on what evidence, was to be accursed. The attitude was and is nothing new. Their might was their right; on that ground truth has been mangled since the beginning of the world. (Archbishop Alban Goodier, The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ: An Interpretation, Volume Two. London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, Ltd., 1931, pp. 86-87.)
This, of course, has application to us all.
It has application in a particular sense to the world of Modernity, where people are trained to accept the "truth" of alleged "experts" in the fields of law and medicine that have been deformed by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the interrelated and multifaceted lies of naturalism associated with the term Judeo-Masonry.
In this regard, you see, people are trained to accept the august "word" of the "majority" of medical opinion on vaccinations or contraception or "brain death" without question.
In this regard, you see, lawyers themselves are trained to accept the mere letter of the civil law as the only basis of the administration of justice and in the legal interpretation of the meaning of various statutes without any regard to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted by Our Lord, Christ the King, Himself to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
No, they are the "experts" who must strive for "meaning" in matters such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 that would never be up for debate or consideration in a society where men conformed themselves to the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus were possessed of the sensus Catholicus on how to provide health care to the indigent and the disabled, seeing in each person not a means to an end but the very image of Our Lord Himself. People have thus lost the ability to reason, to understand the preservation of one's life by means of looking the other way at the truth at how vital body members are extracted from living human beings in a process that kills these innocent victims of Modernity is illicit and cannot be justified no matter how many people think it is right and no matter how many family members plead for "compassion" in a sentimentally-driven desire to preserve the physical life of a loved one at all costs, no matter the costs to their own immortal souls in the process.
Archbishop Goodier's words apply as well, of course, to the Pharisees and Scribes of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI who attempt to redefine the Catholic Faith as having little more application to public life than a philosophy of "freedom" and "justice" absent a conversion the unconditional conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Church, a message that the false "pontiff" brought to Cuba yesterday, March 27, 2012.
Truth is truth no matter how few people see and accept it.
Falsehood is falsehood is no matter how many people adhere to it and no matter how forcefully they present their sophistic arguments that are always so full of specious reasoning that violates the principle of non-contradiction.
And the truth is simple: there would be no need for "ObamaCare" in any nation possessed of the sensus Catholicus. There would no killing of innocent human beings for their body members in order to prolong the life of one whom God is ready to call unto Himself so that the Particular Judgment can be rendered on his immortal soul.
We may never know who was killed to keep Richard Bruce Cheney alive. We do not the the truth of Truth Incarnate, Truth Crucified and Resurrected, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ, is killed every day by the lords of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We follow these lords at the peril of the loss of our own immortal souls.
Always remember, please, that Western civilization, including the United States of America, is simply realizing the result of the false premises of its own founding as the errors of Russia take hold more and more with each passing day. What is happening at present is simply a continuation of the fascism and statism of the previous two presidential administrations (William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's and George Walker Bush's). Americans, especially Catholic Americans, have been asleep at the switch as they have placed their trust in career politicians who have been penultimate statists who have equated criticism of their policies with unpatriotic activities. This is a Chastisement, good readers, and there is only one way out of this Chastisement: Our Lady's Fatima Message.
Yes, we are being visited with a Chastisement, my friends, and there is no stopping this chastisement short of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the world's true bishops as Russia is at last consecrated to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We must suffer this Chastisement well in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as we consider it a singular privilege to be alive at a time when our very liberty and our lives might be demanded of us. To quote the words used so frequently by Saint Francis of Assisi, "Deo gratias! Thanks be to God we are alive in this time. Thanks be to God! Deo gratias!
The Chastisement will be vanquished. These things will happen only when Heaven's Fatima Peace Plan is fulfilled.
We must remember that there can be no true reform of any society unless it is yoked to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as It is lifted high by His true Church, something that is rejected by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have made their "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity. We must remember these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained 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.
Care to disagree with Pope Saint Pius X?
"Liberals" and "conservatives" do.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does.
Do you?
We are in Passiontide. We must persevere in our Lenten practices of prayer and penance and fasting and
mortification so that we might have life everlasting in
Heaven, please God and by the graces He won for us and that flow into
our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed
Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that we die in states of
Sanctifying Grace.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
