1534 To the Present: The English Legacy of Judicial and Medical Tyranny Claims Another Victim

The forces of Antichrist in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been emboldened to unmask themselves and their agenda of evil without fear of obstruction from anything other than a few “discordant” voices who lack any temporal means to stop them in their assault upon everything contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Each one of the Ten Commandments is under a daily assault from the mutually reinforcing of Judeo-Masonic naturalism in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. This is an assault from which there is no refuge whatsoever. Everyone—from the preborn to the elderly and everyone else in between—is a banana peel away from slipping into the grip of the spiritual and physical death-dealing potentates of Modernity and Modernism.

Two articles from 2017, Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros, have documented the way in which the likes of George Soros have transformed healthcare into a vessel of rank utilitarianism that comes replete with judges that give deference to hospital death panels whose members play God with human lives.

There exists a completely unnuanced preferential option for death on the part of civil potentates and the healthcare “professionals” they enabled, and there exists a nuanced preferential option for death on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries, These undeniable realities are displaying themselves in an unmistakable manner in the case of the late Indi Gregory, an eight month old baby who suffered from mitochondrial depletion syndrome for which no known cure presently exists. There are, however, experimental treatments that might help Indi Gregory. As in the tragic cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evanas, among several others, any success with Indi Gregory would have helped other babies in the future, and the Prime Minister of Italy, Georgia Melloni, went to the extraordinary efforts of securing Italian citizenship for Indi and had made arrangements to bring him the Ospitale Bambino Jesu if the black robed tyrant in England would have permitted it:

A critically ill eight-month-old baby has been granted Italian citizenship as her parents fight to prevent doctors ending her life support.

Medics in Nottingham have been told by the High Court they can withdraw treatment for Indi Gregory, who has mitochondrial disease.

Indi's parents oppose the move and an Italian hospital has agreed to continue treating her.

Now the Italian government has made Indi a citizen to support the move.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said she will defend Indi's life until the end.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, she said: "They say there isn't much hope for little Indi, but I will do everything in my power to defend her life until the end.

"And to defend her mother and father's right to do everything they can for her."

Italy's cabinet met on Monday to grant the child citizenship, citing "pre-eminent humanitarian values".

Christian Concern, which has been supporting Indi's parents, from Ilkeston in Derbyshire, said an urgent High Court hearing would take place on Tuesday to consider her life-support removal.

Indi has mitochondrial disease and medics at Nottingham's Queen's Medical Centre (QMC) have said they can do no more for her.

They said she was dying and told a previous High Court hearing her treatment was futile and causes pain.

However parents Claire Staniforth and Dean Gregory have been fighting the move and Bambino Gesu Children's Hospital in Rome has agreed to provide treatment.

The family's latest challenge to the High Court was dismissed on Saturday.

A protest against the ruling was held outside the QMC on Sunday.

An Italian government source told the Reuters news agency the family would be able to appeal to the Italian consulate in Britain to ask that Indi be airlifted to Italy, but there was no obligation for Britain to grant the request.

The news agency reported Galeazzo Bignami, a junior minister, said the government's move would allow the baby's transfer to the Bambino Gesu paediatric hospital, and that without it her life support would have been turned off on Monday.

In response to the latest development, Mr. Gregory said: "My heart fills up with joy that the Italians have given Claire and I hope and faith back in humanity."

Dr Keith Girling, medical director at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, said: "Cases like this are incredibly difficult for everyone and our thoughts are with Indi's parents at this very difficult time.

"A hearing to decide whether Indi can be extubated at home or at hospital is now due to be held on Tuesday 7 November.

"Until a decision is made we will continue to provide specialised care for Indi." (Indi Gregory: Critically ill baby granted Italian citizenship.)

English judges, being who they have been since King Henry VIII declared himself “supreme head of the church in England” and launched a judicially-sanctioned genocide against Catholics who refused to recognize this bogus title and thus remained faithful to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Justices Peter Jackson, Eleanor King, and Andrew Moylan, upheld Justice Robert Peel’s repeated efforts to kill of Indi Gregory and they rejected as “misconceived” Italian Prime Minister Melloni’s intervention, choosing quite predictably to enforce the death sentence that had been imposed upon innocent Indi Gregory by the same sort of “physicians” at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust as were to be found at the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) who imposed such sentences upon Charlie Gard:

Judges in the United Kingdom have doubled-down on their mandate to remove a terminally ill infant from life support rather than allow parents to seek treatment at the Vatican.

Justice Robert Peel ruled Wednesday that 8-month-old Indi Gregory was to be removed from her life-supporting ventilator on Thursday against the parents' wishes. An appeal in the case has been denied and the child is mandated to be removed from life support imminently.

"Claire and I are again disgusted by another one-sided decision from the judges and the Trust. The whole world is watching and is shocked at how we have been treated," said father Dean Gregory, according to Christian Concern, their legal counsel for the case.

The courts sided with Peel's mandate on Friday, denying Dean and Claire Gregory's right to appeal. 

Senior UK judges Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lady Justice Eleanor King and Lord Justice Andrew Moylan of the Court of Appeals refused the appeal, ruling that the Italian government and the Vatican were "wholly misconceived" attempting to transfer the ill infant into their custody.

The Italian government, in an attempt to stop the British healthcare system from pulling Indi's life support, has granted citizenship to the child, so she may receive continued treatment there.

Indi Gregory was born in February of this year and suffers from a degenerative mitochondrial disease that will very likely take her life.

Leadership at the Vatican — in collaboration with the Italian government — have prepared resources for Indi to continue treatment at Bambino Gesù, a Catholic pediatric hospital in Rome.

"Claire and I have always wanted what is in Indi’s best interests. She has human rights and we wanted her to have the best treatment possible<" the baby's father said of the decision. "If the UK did not want to fund it, why can she not go to Italy and receive the treatment and care which the amazing Italian Prime Minister and government has offered." (UK judges double down on mandate to pull infant off life support, denies parents’ appeal to take baby to Italy.)

This having been noted, however, Indi Gregory was a human being. The black-robed jurists who imposed the death sentence on this innocent child are but the inheritors of England’s bloody tradition of “legalized” killing of innocent human beings that began during King Henry VIII’s revolution against the Catholic Church, whose missionaries had converted English pagans during Roman times and then re-evangelized them after Pope Saint Gregory the Great sent Saint Augustine of Canterbury to them 600 A.D. Indi Gregory and her parents, Dean Gregory and Claire Staniforth, are but victims of a medical industry that was shaped by a utilitarian ethos that has its roots in the English Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ King, making possible the triumph of all manner of false ideologies as the sterile substitutes for the Holy Faith.

I believe that it is important to provide some of the background that has made cases such as Indi Gregory's so commonplace in what is now called the United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world, although I would ask readers to re-read The Real "Brexit" Occurred In 1534 for a detailed examination of the long-lasting effects of the Protestant Revolution there.

From Protestantism to Evolutionism to Utilitarianism to Atheistic Marxism

As noted The West Was Made Great by the Catholic Faith, Nothing Else, which was published in 2017, the efforts of various Renaissance thinkers to divorce culture from the faith and statecraft from morality, to say nothing of the State from the Social Kinship of Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, found allies in those who fomented the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century.

Martin Luther propagated the false notion that one is “saved” by making a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus in his heart and on his lips, thereby eschewing the truth that one needs to work out his salvation in fear and in trembling, that it is possible by one Mortal Sin to lose one’s salvation for all eternity. Luther further helped to advance the agenda of the secular relativists by his promotion of the heretical view that there is but one source of Divine Revelation–Sacred Scripture–and that said source is subject to the individual interpretation of believers, rejecting entirely the magisterium of the Church established by the God-Man Himself. This belief in individual interpretation was to render Scripture into meaninglessness, as the rejection of any ultimate authority in the Church meant that the “opinion” of each individual believer was a good as another’s.

Thus, the way was left wide open for the demythologizing of Sacred Scripture, a process begun in earnest by the German Protestant “scripture scholars” in the immediate wake of Charles Darwin’s theory of the natural selection of the species in the late-Nineteenth Century. Protestantism of its very nature, therefore, opened way for those alleging themselves to be Christians to cite their own individual authority and expertise to place into question the very truths contained in that which was said to be the sole source of Divine Revelation, and resulted in the ultimate triumph of the secular evolutionists and positivists and relativists and naturalists in the midst of the world-at-large. Pope Saint Pius X critiqued the falsity of such scriptural exegesis in great detail in his encyclical letter on Modernism, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

The result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with the evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

It fell to Pope Pius XII to condemn the recrudescence of Modernist Scriptural exegesis when it resurfaced under the aegis of the “new theology,” based on the very evolution of dogma that had been condemned by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Gregis Dominci:

22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.

23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Affflante Spiritu."

25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council[5] (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

The belief in the evolution of dogmatic truth and of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, although inherent in the very essence of the Protestant Revolution, was given great impetus by the two great evolutionary revolutions of the Nineteenth Century, Darwinism and Marxism.

The belief that human beings evolved randomly from a set of molecules has reinforced the false philosophies and heretical theologies that have been proposed in the past seven hundred years, and were propagated even before the rise of the “Second” Vatican Council and the counterfeit church of conciliarism under the guises of Modernism, Sillonism, the Liturgical Movement,  and Chardinianism, among other things.

Even though the path for the acceptance of Darwin’s false ideology evolutionism–and its vast consequences on the devolution of human behavior and hence human society—was paved by the variety of forces noted herein, it arrived on the scene while other evolutionary ideologies and philosophies were gaining acceptance in intellectual circles.

Thus, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s concept of a dialectical process responsible for the inevitable evolution of ideas in history became the foundation for Karl Marx’s belief that human history was nothing other than the clash of competing economic classes according to the principle of dialectical materialism, a process which would result inevitably in the evolutionary triumph of communism. Darwin’s evolutionism and Karl Marx’s evolutionary notion of history merged to have their diabolical appeal on philosophers and theologians alike.

Arising together in the 1840s, Darwin’s evolutionism of the species and Marx’s evolutionary notion of history, paved the way for social programs in the United Kingdom, Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, and elsewhere, including the United States of America after World War I, that viewed “useless” human beings as expendable according to Darwin’s belief in the “survival of the fittest,” which Margaret Sanger adapted as her own motto of the Birth Control Review as “More From The Fit, Less From the Unfit, That is the Chief Goal of Birth Control.” 

As one who denied the existence of God and the immortality of the human soul, Marx was a materialist. Matter, he contended, was the only thing that exists. Marx can thus be called an historical materialist. All human beings make decisions, he contended, on the basis of their economic self-interest. The palpably false nature of this proposition is evident to anyone who understands true history. Millions upon millions of people have sacrificed their lives in behalf of the true Faith. Millions of others have laid down their lives to defend the lives of their family members and friends. Marx’s contention that everyone makes decisions solely on the basis of economics is simply false. However, it is something he believed, and it is the cornerstone of his belief in economic reductionism, the view that all of history is determined by economics.

The clash of competing economic classes, Marx wrote, occurred according to the dialectical principle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Borrowing from (and turning “right side up,” to use Marx’s terminology) the dialectical process of Georg Hegel, Marx believed that one economic system (the thesis) gave rise automatically to its exact opposite (the antithesis). The clash between the first economic system and its opposite would produce eventually an entirely new system, the synthesis. This new system would then become the new thesis–and it would produce its own antithesis, with the clash between the new thesis and the new antithesis resulting in yet another synthesis. This would go on and on until such time as the stage of Ideal Communism was realized, that staged in which all of the world’s wealth had been distributed justly and the last capitalist liquidated. It would be a that point that the need for government would be eliminated, as everyone would live peacefully with each other. There would be no envy, no war, no injustice, no conflict among human beings whatsoever.

Essential to Marx’s belief system was his insistence that wealth is static, not dynamic. Unlike Adam Smith, the theoretical father of contemporary capitalism, Marx did not believe that wealth could be expanded. Thus, as capitalists had a disproportionate share of the wealth generated by the sweat of the workers, it would be necessary for the workers to expedite the evolutionary process by which the stage of Ideal Communism would be realized. Capitalists were not going to hand over their ill-gotten goods and their unjust hold on political power voluntarily. There needed to be a violent, blood revolution to expedite the process by which the workers could rule triumphantly, ushering in the “end of history” and the “beginning of man” as capitalism and capitalists disappeared from the world forever. 

Ironically, even though there are great differences between Adam Smith and Karl Marx, there are some similarities. Smith believed in the inevitable, evolutionary progress of man as wealth was expanded by the investment and reinvestment of profits. The availability of “capital” for investment and reinvestment had been made possible by the unjust seizure of the Catholic Church’s monastery and convent lands by King Henry VIII, the most massive land grab in history prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. At work in Smith’s theory was his belief in the “invisible hand” that would correct the free market without government interference. Smith’s belief in invisible forces is really the other side of the same coin on which one can find Marx’s belief in the principle of dialectical materialism.

Indeed, Marx himself knew that one had to make what is called a “leap of faith” to accept that (a) history was actually based on the principle of dialectical materialism, and that (b) the dialectical process would indeed end at some point in time in the stage of Ideal Communism. Smith could not prove the existence of the invisible hand; Marx could not prove the existence of the principle of dialectical materialism. Both systems are founded on the acceptance of forces that are illusory. Both are destined to reduce man to the material level as neither accepts the Deposit of Faith as entrusted by Our Lord to His true Church as defining everything about human existence, yes, including economics.

Pope Pius XI summarized the dehumanizing essence of Marxism as follows in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:

The doctrine of modern Communism, which is often concealed under the most seductive trappings, is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race.

10. Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man's relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement.

11. Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.

12. What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets? It would be a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would "give according to his powers" and would "receive according to his needs." Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.

13. When all men have finally acquired the collectivist mentality in this Utopia of a really classless society, the political State, which is now conceived by Communists merely as the instrument by which the proletariat is oppressed by the capitalists, will have lost all reason for its existence and will "wither away." However, until that happy consummation is realized, the State and the powers of the State furnish Communism with the most efficacious and most extensive means for the achievement of its goal.

14. Such, Venerable Brethren, is the new gospel which bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality.

15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask, that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises. By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world's goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism. And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity 540 of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions. They take advantage of the lack of orientation characteristic of modern agnostic science in order to burrow into the universities, where they bolster up the principles of their doctrine with pseudo-scientific arguments.

16. If we would explain the blind acceptance of Communism by so many thousands of workmen, we must remember that the way had been already prepared for it by the religious and moral destitution in which wage-earners had been left by liberal economics. Even on Sundays and holy days, labor-shifts were given no time to attend to their essential religious duties. No one thought of building churches within convenient distance of factories, nor of facilitating the work of the priest. On the contrary, laicism was actively and persistently promoted, with the result that we are now reaping the fruits of the errors so often denounced by Our Predecessors and by Ourselves. It can surprise no one that the Communistic fallacy should be spreading in a world already to a large extent de-Christianized. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

Although many among the elite in the West have long expressed themselves to be morally superior to the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, the truth is, of course, that all political ideologies are but sterile substitutes for the true Faith. Moreover, unbridled Calvinist capitalism and Communism are but two sides of the same diabolical coin:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation.)

This is a point that was made forty years later by Father Edward Leen in The Holy Ghost, to explain that our own form of naturalism is just a different kind of expression in the penultimate naturalist ideology, Bolshevism, as the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity must wind produce a situation of total state control over men as there is no naturalist means on the face of this earth (no, not constitutions or laws or elections or this or that naturalist or secularist or nondenominational ideology or "philosophy) that can stop it. Here are Father Leen's words of wisdom:

A shudder of apprehension is traversing the world which still retains its loyalty to Jesus expressing Himself through the authority of His Church. That apprehension has not its sole cause the sight of the horrors that the world has witnessed in recent years in both hemispheres. Many Christians are beginning to feel that perhaps all may not be right with themselves. There is solid reason for this fear. The contemplation of the complete and reasoned abandonment of all hitherto accepted human values that has taken place in Russia and is taking place elsewhere, causes a good deal of anxious soul-searching. It is beginning to be dimly perceived that in social life, as it is lived, even in countries that have not as yet definitely broken with Christianity, there lie all the possibilities of what has become actual in Bolshevism. A considerable body of Christians, untrained in the Christian philosophy of life, are allowing themselves to absorb principles which undermine the constructions of Christian thought. They do not realise how much dangerous it is for Christianity to exist in an atmosphere of Naturalism than to be exposed to positive persecution. In the old days of the Roman Empire those who enrolled themselves under the standard of Christ saw, with logical clearness, that they had perforce to cut themselves adrift from the social life of the world in which they lived--from its tastes, practices and amusements. The line of demarcation between pagan and Christian life was sharp, clearly defined and obvious. Modern Christians have not been so favorably situated. As has been stated already, the framework of the Christian social organisation has as yet survived. This organisation is, to outward appearances, so solid and imposing that it is easy to be blind to the truth that the soul had gradually gone out of it. Under the shelter and utilising the resources of the organisation of life created by Christianity, customs, ways of conduct, habits of thought, have crept in, more completely perhaps, at variance with the spirit of Christianity than even the ways and manners of pagan Rome.

This infiltration of post-Christian paganism has been steady but slow, and at each stage is imperceptible. The Christian of to-day thinks that he is living in what is to all intents and purposes a Christian civilisation. Without misgivings he follows the current of social life around him. His amusements, his pleasures, his pursuits, his games, his books, his papers, his social and political ideas are of much the same kind as are those of the people with whom he mingles, and who may not have a vestige of a Christian principle left in their minds. He differs merely from them in that he holds to certain definite religious truths and clings to certain definite religious practices. But apart from this there is not any striking contrast in the outward conduct of life between Christian and non-Christian in what is called the civilised world. Catholics are amused by, and interested in, the very same things that appeal to those who have abandoned all belief in God. The result is a growing divorce between religion and life in the soul of the individual Christian. Little by little his faith ceases to be a determining effect on the bulk of his ideas, judgments and decisions that have relation to what he regards as his purely "secular" life. His physiognomy as a social being no longer bears trace of any formative effect of the beliefs he professes. And his faith rapidly becomes a thing of tradition and routine and not something which is looked to as a source of a life that is real.

The Bolshevist Revolution has had one good effect. It has awakened the averagely good Christian to the danger runs in allowing himself to drift with the current of social life about him. It has revealed to him the precipice towards which he has was heading by shaping his worldly career after principles the context of which the revolution has mercilessly exposed and revealed to be at variance with real Christianity. The sincerely religious--and there are many such still--are beginning to realise that if they are to live as Christians they must react violently against the milieu in which they live. It is beginning to be felt that one cannot be a true Christian and live as the bulk of men in civilised society are living. It is clearly seen that "life" is not to be found along those ways by which the vast majority of men are hurrying to disillusionment and despair. Up to the time of the recent cataclysm the average unreflecting Christian dwelt in the comfortable illusion that he could fall in with the ways of the world about him here, and, by holding on to the practices of religion, arrange matters satisfactorily for the hereafter. That illusion is dispelled. It is coming home to the discerning Christian that their religion is not a mere provision for the future. There is a growing conviction that it is only through Christianity lived integrally that the evils of the present time can be remedied and disaster in the time to come averted. (Father Edward Leen, The Holy Ghost, published in 1953 by Sheed and Ward, pp. 6-9.)

As has been noted in the past, no, it's just not this former professor who writes these things. I have only attempted to give voice, however poorly, to the simple Catholic truth summarized so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique on August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Father Edward Leen was simply giving expression in 1953 to simple, timeless and immutable truths that true pope after true pope had reiterated time and time again in the last three centuries now. No Catholicism, no social order. It's that simple.

Thus shorn of its Catholic roots, the formerly Catholic nations of Europe, including England, have anchored themselves in the diabolical errors of Modernity that shape every aspect of their political institutions, their laws, their politics, their economics, and every aspect of their social lives, including the hijacking of healthcare, the sciences and education by God-hating, Christophobic “experts” who are a mission to eliminate those who are said to be a “burden.”

Although Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, a Freemason, and, decades later, under the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) was a pioneer in basing public policy on utilitarian views of the human being, the United Kingdom played its own pioneering role in the junk science of “eugenics” a decade before the rise of Adolph Hitler to power in Germany. How ironic it is that some of those who condemned Hitler so furiously, including future Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill, endorsed the very kind of eugenics that Hitler promulgated by means of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935.

A summary of the pioneering role played by the British in advancing the agenda of eugenicists was provided five years ago by a writer for a “leftist” journal, The New Statesmen, which, ironically, had supported this diabolical agenda wholeheartedly a century ago:

This story begins 150 years ago. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking book Origin of Species which expounded his theory of evolution by natural selection. It wasn't long before scientists and political theorists began to apply Darwin's theory to human beings. With the spread of ideas about "the survival of the fittest", social Darwinists started to question the wisdom of providing care to the "weak" on the grounds this would enable people to live and reproduce who were not meant to survive. They feared that offering medical treatment and social services to disabled people would undermine the natural struggle for existence and lead to the degeneration of the human race.

Such views took hold not only in Germany but also particularly strongly in America and Britain. The existence of disabled people was increasingly seen in the UK and USA as a threat to social progress. Darwin himself wrote in his 1871 treatise, The Descent of Man, "We civilised men.... do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick.. .Thus the weak members of society propagate their kind."

It was a British man, not a German, who first came up with the term eugenics in 1883. Francis Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he became obsessed with Origin of Species, especially its chapter on the breeding of domestic animals. This inspired him to spend much of his life studying the variations in human ability. He wrote: "The question was then forced upon me. Could not the race of men be similarly improved? Could not the undesirables be got rid of and the desirables multiplied?".

Galton was convinced a person's mental and physical abilities, like the plant and animal traits described by Darwin, were essentially inherited from one's parents. He grew concerned that eminent British people were marrying late and having too few children. Galton wrote in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius: "Let us do what we can to encourage the multiplication of the races best fitted to invent, and conform to, a high and generous civilisation, and not, out of mistaken instinct of giving support to the weak, prevent the incoming of strong and hearty individuals."

Galton argued that early marriage between healthy, mentally strong families should be encouraged by financial incentives, and reproduction by the "feeble-minded" should be curtailed. In his mind, superior mental and physical capabilities were advantageous not only to an individual but essential for the well-being of society as a whole. To try to spread his ideas, he even wrote a novel Kantsaywhere, about a society ruled by a Eugenic College that followed a eugenic religion designed to breed fitter, more intelligent humans. Galton's views were not regarded as eccentric or offensive at the time. Far from it. In fact, he received many awards during his career. He was made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860 and was knighted shortly before he died.

Galton's writings played a key role in launching the eugenics movement in the UK and America. Supporters of eugenics called for government policies to improve the biological quality of the human race through selective parenthood. They linked physical and learning disabilities to a range of social problems including crime, vagrancy, alcoholism, prostitution and unemployment. Eugenics quickly gained many backers on both sides of the Atlantic, including leading politicians and opinion formers.

It wasn't just figures on the extreme right of politics who backed the eugenics philosophy. Some of British socialism's most celebrated names were among the champions of eugenics - Sidney and Beatrice Webb (the founders of the Fabian Society), Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes, even the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian. They hoped that a eugenic approach could build up the strong section of the population and gradually remove the weak. In July 1931, the New Statesman asserted: "The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics."

Many early left-wing thinkers wanted government to direct social policy towards "improving" the human race by discouraging reproduction among those sections of society deemed to have undesirable genes. Supporters of state planning often found the idea of a planned genetic future attractive. As Adrian Wooldridge, author of Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England 1860-1990, comments: "The Webbs supported eugenic planning just as fervently as town planning." Beatrice Webb declared eugenics to be "the most important question of all" while her husband remarked that "no eugenicist can be a laissez-faire individualist".

Similarly, George Bernard Shaw wrote: "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man." Bertrand Russell proposed that the state should issue colour-coded "procreation tickets" to prevent the gene pool of the elite being diluted by inferior human beings. Those who decided to have children with holders of a different-coloured ticket would be punished with a heavy fine. HG Wells praised eugenics as the first step towards the elimination of "detrimental types and characteristics" and the "fostering of desirable types" instead.

None other than William Beveridge, the architect of the post-1945 welfare state, was highly active in the eugenics movement and said that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry are to be recognized as unemployable. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights - including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood". A belief in eugenics was certainly not confined to the jackbooted far right.

Advocates of eugenics made significant advances during the Edwardian period. In 1907, the Eugenics Education Society was founded in Britain to campaign for sterilisation and marriage restrictions for the weak to prevent the degeneration of Britain's population. A year later, Sir James Crichton-Brown, giving evidence before the 1908 Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, recommended the compulsory sterilisation of those with learning disabilities and mental illness, describing them as "our social rubbish" which should be "swept up and garnered and utilised as far as possible". He went on to complain, "We pay much attention to the breeding of our horses, our cattle, our dogs and poultry, even our flowers and vegetables; surely it's not too much to ask that a little care be bestowed upon the breeding and rearing of our race". Crichton-Brown was in distinguished company. In a memo to the prime minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, "The multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race".

In 2012, athletes from around the world will assemble in London for the Paralympic Games, a global event which celebrates the talents and achievements of disabled people. However, a century earlier, in 1912, London was the setting for an international gathering with a very different and more sinister agenda - the first International Eugenics Conference. Organised by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Galton who had died the year before, 400 delegates attended including illustrious figures such as Winston Churchill (who was then First Lord of the Admiralty), Lord Balfour and a number of European ambassadors.

Charles Darwin's son, Major Leonard Darwin, presided at the conference. In the run up to the First World War, he lobbied the British government to establish flying squads of scientists, with the power of arrest, who would travel around the country identifying the "unfit". Those classified as such would be segregated in special colonies or sterilised. (The Origins of British Eugenics.)

The widespread belief in evolution, however, has led rather inexorably to devolution of human behavior. The belief that we are descended from apes has prompted people to act like apes. The law of the jungle rules in our schools, on our streets, in our homes and in our government. Mothers can kill the natural fruit of their wombs under cover of law.

The elderly and the chronically ill can be put to “sleep” much like my late father, a veterinarian, would euthanize a sick dog at the behest of its owners.

Children feel free to massacre each other in schools.

The most vile forms of insults are hurled by young toughs in their twenties and thirties as they attend sporting events, drinking so much alcohol that it may very well be the case that their bodies will need nothing to be preserved for their wakes after their deaths.

If we do not believe that we are redeemed creatures who are made in the image and likeness of the Blessed Trinity, then we devolve to the level of barbarism over time, giving vent to every primordial urge after another solely because we are living on the material and the sensual levels alone.

Wild animals spend their waking hours on the prowl for food. The human beasts shaped by a world which teaches that we are descended from beasts work in order to eat, drink, and be merry, not to give honor and glory to God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church.

No, Indi Gregory's plight—and the plight of millions upon millions of other innocent human beings from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages—is nothing new. There has been a long, steady process of dehumanizing living human beings in favor of “protecting the environment.” We have arrived at time when all the combined forces that have been at work in the past seven centuries have coalesced to the point that vegetation, flora and fauna, animals, and inorganic matter are placed on a level of equality with, if not superior to, human beings, who are endowed by rational, immortal souls that are made in His very image and likeness. Yes, everything must fall apart the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Things have fallen apart so much that so-called "doctors" in The Netherlands, a land shaped prinicpally by the species of Protestantism known as Calvinism, have become so utilitarian as to make arbitrary decisions about killing off "disabled" babies at will, which is nothing other than extension of the dehumanization of the little child in the world and of the utilitarian view that human beings have no inherent value other if they are said to pose a "burden" for others:

Netherlands programs have euthanized otherwise healthy individuals with autism and intellectual handicaps in recent years, researchers have found.

Five individuals under the age of 30, who cited autism as a factor in their decision to seek legal euthanasia, are among the cases reviewed by specialists at the U.K.'s Kingston University.

"Factors directly associated with intellectual disability and/or ASD were the sole cause of suffering described in 21% of cases and a major contributing factor in a further 42% of cases," Kingston University's report on the issue foun Netherlands programs have euthanized otherwise healthy individuals with autism and intellectual handicaps in recent years, researchers have found. 

Five individuals under the age of 30, who cited autism as a factor in their decision to seek legal euthanasia, are among the cases reviewed by specialists at the U.K.'s Kingston University. 

"Factors directly associated with intellectual disability and/or ASD were the sole cause of suffering described in 21% of cases and a major contributing factor in a further 42% of cases," Kingston University's report on the issue found.

The study noted that in many cases, doctors determined there was "no prospect of improvement" for intellectually challenged individuals because there is no treatment for their handicap.

"Reasons for the EAS [euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide] request included social isolation and loneliness (77%), lack of resilience or coping strategies (56%), lack of flexibility (rigid thinking or difficulty adapting to change) (44%) and oversensitivity to stimuli (26%). In one-third of cases, physicians noted there was ‘no prospect of improvement’ as ASD and intellectual disability are not treatable," the study reads.

Palliative care specialist Irene Tuffrey-Wijne — one of the lead authors of the Kingston University report — found Dutch doctors were legally killing patients who sought their own euthanasia because their intellectual disability or mental condition prevented them from leading a normal life, according to The Associated Press.

One record includes the case of a Dutch woman in her 30s with autism and borderline personality disorder. Doctors determined her afflictions prevented her from maintaining relationships and made forming connections with others "too difficult."

Is society really OK with sending this message, that there’s no other way to help them, and it’s just better to be dead?"

Dutch psychologist Dr. Bram Sizoo expressed horror at the trend of autistic youths seeking assisted suicide and euthanasia's expanding acceptance.

"Some of them are almost excited at the prospect of death," Sizoo said. "They think this will be the end of their problems and the end of their family’s problems."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association has left the decision of who qualifies for assisted suicide up to medical professionals with few hard guidelines or rules. (Netherlands euthanizing autistic and intellectually handicapped people, researcher finds.)

The sort of utilitarian social engineering that took root in both England and Germany in the latter part of the Twentieth Century helped to spawn both the eugenics program in the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich of Adolph Hitler, and it has become institutionalized all throughout the so-called “civilized” West. Thus, jurists and “medical professionals” must take no note of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law nor must they consider the fact that we are called to treat others we would treat Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the very flesh and to bear the crosses that He sends us with joy and gratitude as members of His true Church. Very, very few people in the world are aware that suffering is the consequence of Original Sin that is had infinite value for the honor and glory of God and the good of souls. Fewer still understand that there is grace to be earned for selflessly giving to those who are in need of assistance to perform basic tasks as both giver and recipient benefit from the great glory that we have to embrace redemptive suffering.

Such must be the case when most people alive today give no thought to First and Last Things and/or when they believe, no matter how inchoately, in universal salvation.

Imposing Death Sentences Upon the Innocent Has Become the Global Norm Under the Cover of Law

What makes the Indi Gregory tragedy even sadder than it is—and it is very sad—is the fact that her case was not unique.

That is, even though there are only a relative handful of children in the world who are known to be suffering from her condition, the institutionalization of death sentences upon innocent human beings whose only “crime” consists of having been conceived or having been seriously injured in an accident or of being diagnosed as “brain dead” or in a “persistent vegetative state” or are suffering from some kind of chronic, debilitating or terminal disease has become the norm in hospitals and hospices around the world (see Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros). Indi Gregory's case became notorious only because her parents refused to knuckle to the nonexistent authority of doctors, hospital administrators, and judges to sentence her to death. Most parents and/or relatives in similar situations accept with this "authority" with passive resignation, if not a sense of "relief" that a burden is to be lifted from their shoulders. 

It is indeed very ironic that English judges see fit to demand “proof” that a living infant deserves to receive a reprieve from the sentence of death that they have imposed upon innocent children as the United Kingdom abolished the death penalty for those convicted of heinous capital crimes over five decades ago. Indeed, there have been no executions in England since 1964. Ah, but the all-powerful judge, Robrert Peel, who oversaw  the fate of Indi Gregory was determined that this young baby must be denied experimental treatment in Italy that officials in the conciliar Vatican and the Italian government had arranged for her. Peel was as determined to finish Indi Gregory off as Judge George Greer was determined to order the execution of Mrs. Teresa Maria Schinder-Schiavo by means of dehydration and starvation in 2005 (see Ten Years Later, which delineates some of the distinctions between extrordinary medical treatment and the ordinary care required to be given to a living human being).

The very existence of children such as Indi Gregory benefits those, starting with ther parents and those who are seeking to defend his right to live until God chooses to call him home to Himself, who are providing him with love, care and support. God permits some human beings to be totally dependent upon others to teach those who provide their care to do unto them as they would do unto Him in the very flesh:

And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.  (Matthew 25: 31-39.)

Unlike Indi Gregory, Charlie Gard, and Alfie Evans, young Cody Dorman, who suffered from Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome, was accepted with love by his parents, who were later blessed as Our Lord, in his infinite love for His redeemed creatures and in His particular love that attends to the details of each person's life, used a dumb creature, to bring joy to his life:

Since 1984, the world’s best thoroughbreds have competed in the Breeders’ Cup, but in the history of the race there are few stories as heartwarming and miraculous as Cody’s Wish and Cody Dorman.

This is the story of a racehorse that saved a young boy’s life.

Cody Dorman suffers from Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome (WHS), a rare genetic disorder that affects many parts of the body, resulting in delayed growth and development, intellectual disability, low muscle tone and seizures.

Doctors told the Dorman family that Cody would only live for two years and although he is now 16 years-old, Cody has spent a lifetime overcoming long odds.

In 2018, Cody made a wish to meet a racehorse, and with the help of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Cody and his parents Kelly and Leslie, with sister Kylie, went to Godolphin’s Gainsborough Farm in Kentucky.

Stud Farm Manager Danny Mulvihill arranged an introduction with a ‘mild mannered six-month-old weanling’.

What happened from there was special, the foal just came up and laid his head down on Cody’s lap and just spent some quiet time there with Cody.”

It all started from that extraordinary moment.

In 2020, after watching their son additionally struggle with severe depression, Cody’s parents got the idea to go back and visit that horse they had met two years earlier to lift Cody’s spirits.

“The hardest thing we’ve dealt with and watched him go through is depression,” Cody’s parents said.

Mulvihill was once again in awe as this now two-year-old thoroughbred colt ‘kept pulling until again he was right in front of Cody, where Cody could stroke him’.

“It was like the horse knew who was there to see him,” he said.

The bond with this horse changed everything for Cody.

“He found me, and he hasn’t forgotten me. He has always looked for me and we have the same heart and drive, we never give up,” Dorman said.

Since 1984, the world’s best thoroughbreds have competed in the Breeders’ Cup, but in the history of the race there are few stories as heartwarming and miraculous as Cody’s Wish and Cody Dorman.

This is the story of a racehorse that saved a young boy’s life.

Cody Dorman suffers from Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome (WHS), a rare genetic disorder that affects many parts of the body, resulting in delayed growth and development, intellectual disability, low muscle tone and seizures.

Doctors told the Dorman family that Cody would only live for two years and although he is now 16 years-old, Cody has spent a lifetime overcoming long odds.

In 2018, Cody made a wish to meet a racehorse, and with the help of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Cody and his parents Kelly and Leslie, with sister Kylie, went to Godolphin’s Gainsborough Farm in Kentucky.

Stud Farm Manager Danny Mulvihill arranged an introduction with a ‘mild mannered six-month-old weanling’.

“What happened from there was special, the foal just came up and laid his head down on Cody’s lap and just spent some quiet time there with Cody.”

It all started from that extraordinary moment.

In 2020, after watching their son additionally struggle with severe depression, Cody’s parents got the idea to go back and visit that horse they had met two years earlier to lift Cody’s spirits.

“The hardest thing we’ve dealt with and watched him go through is depression,” Cody’s parents said.

Mulvihill was once again in awe as this now two-year-old thoroughbred colt ‘kept pulling until again he was right in front of Cody, where Cody could stroke him’.

“It was like the horse knew who was there to see him,” he said.

The bond with this horse changed everything for Cody.

“He found me, and he hasn’t forgotten me. He has always looked for me and we have the same heart and drive, we never give up,” Dorman said.

In 2021, the young horse was eventually named Cody’s Wish, and was a maiden after three race starts.

Cody had an idea and adamantly told his family that Cody’s Wish will not win until he was there.

In what can be described as nothing less than a miracle, with Cody on track to watch his best friend race, Cody’s Wish went on to not only win his maiden, but six of his next seven races.

In a story made for Hollywood, on November 5, Cody’s Wish won the Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile and Cody was front and center on track, cheering home his champion.

In an emotional statement post-race, Cody’s father Leslie said: “I think that horse has the legs Cody wasn’t given, put those two together and they make the perfect one.

Cody’s Wish (11:7-1-3) is not only a horse that saw an instant connection with a young boy in a wheelchair but is a racehorse who has made all the difference in Cody’s life.

“(Cody’s Wish) always makes me smile, I love when we just get to hang out together… thank you Cody’s Wish you are a very special horse and a very special friend”.

Stories that end like this are fairytales, and it is rare to see something as miraculous and as beautiful as this real-life fairytale. (The incredible story of Cody's Wish.)

Putting aside the sentimentality wrought by naturalism, Cody Dorman’s parents understood that he was a gift from God, and that his life enriched their family until the day after his beloved horse, Cody’s Wish, won the Breeder’s Cup on November 5, 2023:

A teenager with a rare genetic disorder whose special bond with a racehorse touched hearts in the horse racing world and beyond is being remembered as an inspiration.

Cody Dorman died in the hours after Cody's Wish, the horse named after him, rallied from last to win over the weekend at the Breeders' Cup in Santa Anita, according to a statement released by his family to Thoroughbred industry publication BloodHorse.

In the statement, Dorman's family said Cody suffered a "medical event" on the way home to Kentucky Sunday from Southern California. His death followed an emotional win Saturday by Cody's Wish in the $1 million Dirt Mile at the Breeders’ Cup.

Cody was in winner's circle, waiting for the special horse following the victory in his final race.

“I think that horse probably saved Cody’s life in a lot of ways,” father Kelly Dorman said Saturday. “I know him and the horse have made a lot of lives better.”

Cody was born with a genetic condition called Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Its effects include delayed growth and development, intellectual disability, low muscle tone and seizures.

Cody, who used a wheelchair, developed an immediate bond with the young horse at a Make-A-Wish visit to a Kentucky farm when the then-unnamed Cody's Wish was a foal in 2018.

"I was a little concerned about how jittery the foal would be getting close to him," recalled Cody's father, Kelly Dorman, reflecting on the initial meeting. "There was something different about him right off the bat. He kept pulling and tugging and worked his way up to Cody. He wasn't aggressive or scared. He sniffed around and laid his head right in his lap."

Ridden by Junior Alvarado, Cody's Wish ran the distance in 1:35.97. Sent off as the 4-5 favorite, the 5-year-old horse paid $3.60 to win.

The Alvarado family said they are "gutted and heartbroken."

Horseracing stable Godolphin called Cody's Wish a best friend with whom Cody found "many joyous moments."

"Over these past five years, the Godolphin family has been very fortunate to have met and become friends with the Dorman family, Cody, his parents Kelly and Leslie, and his sister Kylie," Dan Pride, COO at Godolphin, said in a statement. "This heartfelt story has touched the hearts of many in and outside of the Thoroughbred industry. And while Cody’s passing has saddened us, we find comfort in knowing that Cody found many joyous moments during this journey with his best friend, Cody’s Wish. Our hearts are with the Dorman family."

The Dorman family released the following statement Monday:

"We are heartbroken to share the news that our beloved Cody suffered a medical event on our trip home to Kentucky yesterday and he has passed away. On Saturday, Cody watched his best friend, Cody’s Wish, display his usual perseverance and toughness in winning a second Breeders’ Cup. Those are the same characteristics Cody has showed time and again for the 18 years we were blessed to have him. We have been completely amazed to experience the impact Cody has had on so many people, through the journey that this wondrous racehorse has taken us all on. From Churchill Downs, to Keeneland, to Saratoga to Santa Anita this weekend, we could not move 20 feet without someone stopping to tell us just that.

"With Cody’s diagnosis at birth, we always knew this day would come, but we were determined to help Cody live his best life for however long we had him. Anyone who has seen him at the racetrack, especially around Cody’s Wish, understands that in many ways he taught us all how to live, always keeping a positive attitude and being more concerned about those around him than himself.

"As people of faith, we are comforted in the knowledge that Cody has gone home. We pray that he watch over all of us, especially Kylie the best little sister in the world. We are sincerely grateful for all those who have shared this journey with Cody and our family. The joy that his interactions with Cody’s Wish have brought him the last five years is indescribable. We will rely on those memories to help us through an unimaginably difficult time." (Teen who shared special bond with racehorse Cody’s Wish has died. I will put aside all discussion of the "medical episode," which could have been anything given Cody Dorman's Wolf-Hirschborn Syndrome, for a later commentary, although it could have been the case that he was permitted to die after he had achieved the natural happiness that he had so longed and after he had given a lesson about the joy that has been denied to the contracepted, the aborted, and the euthanized children in the past century.)

The Dormans are Protestants and, as such, probably did not believe in redemptive suffering. However, they do understand the inviolability of innocent human life as they gave of themselves tirelessly to their son, who had a condition that might have been used by the likes of Robert Peel and the medical “professionals” in the United Kingdom or The Netherlands to dispatch him as a “useless eater” who would be too much of a “burden” on others. Cody Dorman’s life enriched others. So did the lives of Indi Gregory, Charlie Gard, and Alfie Evans while they were alive before their lives were snuffed out by the medical and judicial tyrants of the anti-Incarnational, Judeo-Masonic world of Modernity.

Doctors and judges play God in England and the United States of America and elsewhere in the so-called “civilized” world every bit  as guilty of crimes against humanity as were the judges and doctors in the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. The irony is clear: there is no difference between  such judges are doing and that which was condemned eighty-two years ago by Bishop Clemens von Galen in Munster, Germany:

We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? Not because they have committed any offence justifying their death, not because, for example, they have attacked a nurse or attendant, who would be entitled in legitimate self­defence to meet violence with violence. In such a case the use of violence leading to death is permitted and may be called for, as it is in the case of killing an armed enemy.

No: these unfortunate patients are to die, not for some such reason as this but because in the judgment of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live,” because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”.

The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow?

I will not pursue the comparison to the end so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power.

But we are not here concerned with pieces of machinery; we are not dealing with horses and cows, whose sole function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for mankind. They may be broken up; they may be slaughtered when they no longer perform this function.

No: We are concerned with men and women, our fellow creatures, our brothers and sisters! Poor human beings, ill human beings, they are unproductive, if you will. But does that mean that they have lost the right to live? Have you, have I, the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognised by others as productive?

If the principle that men is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids! If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellow-men even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients” then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, the handicapped who are unable to work, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive. Then it will require only a secret order to be issued that the procedure which has been tried and tested with the mentally ill should be extended to other “unproductive” persons, that it should also be applied to those suffering from incurable tuberculosis, the aged and infirm, persons disabled in industry, soldiers with disabling injuries!

Then no man will be safe: some committee or other will be able to put him on the list of “unproductive” persons, who in their judgment have become “unworthy to live”. And there will be no police to protect him, no court to avenge his murder and bring his murderers to justice.

Who could then have any confidence in a doctor? He might report a patient as unproductive and then be given instructions to kill him! It does not bear thinking of, the moral depravity, the universal mistrust which will spread even in the bosom of the family, if this terrible doctrine is tolerated, accepted and put into practice. Woe betide mankind, woe betide our German people, if the divine commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which the Lord proclaimed on Sinai amid thunder and lightning, which God our Creator wrote into man’s conscience from the beginning, if this commandment is not merely violated but the violation is tolerated and remains unpunished!

I will give you an example of what is happening. One of the patients in Marienthal was a man of 55, a farmer from a country parish in the Münster region – I could give you his name – who has suffered for some years from mental disturbance and was therefore admitted to Marienthal hospital. He was not mentally ill in the full sense: he could receive visits and was always happy, when his relatives came to see him. Only a fortnight ago he was visited by his wife and one of his sons, a soldier on home leave from the front. The son is much attached to his father, and the parting was a sad one:

No one can tell, whether the soldier will return and see his father again, since he may fall in battle for his country. The son, the soldier, will certainly never again see his father on earth, for he has since then been put on the list of the “unproductive“. A relative, who wanted to visit the father this week in Marienthal, was turned away with the information that the patient had been transferred elsewhere on the instructions of the Council of State for National Defence. No information could be given about where he had been sent, but the relatives would be informed within a few days. What information will they be given? The same as in other cases of the kind? That the man has died, that his body has been cremated, that the ashes will be handed over on payment of a fee? Then the soldier, risking his life in the field for his fellow-countrymen, will not see his father again on earth, because fellow- countrymen at home have killed him. The facts I have stated are firmly established. I can give the names of the patient, his wife and his son the soldier, and the place where they live.

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

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

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

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

The eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not lie.” How often is it shamelessly and publicly broken! The seventh commandment: “Thou shalt not steal”. Whose possessions are now secure since the arbitrary and ruthless confiscation of the property of our brothers and sisters, members of Catholic orders? Whose property is protected, if this illegally confiscated property is not returned?

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

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

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

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

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

When Jesus came near to Jerusalem and beheld the city he wept over it, saying: “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies … shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”

Looking with his bodily eyes, Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem, but the divine omniscience looked deeper and saw how matters stood within the city and its inhabitants: “O Jersualem, Jerusalem … how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings – and ye would not!“ That is the great sorrow hat oppresses Jesus’s heart, that brings tears to his eyes. I wanted to act for your good, but ye would not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O most sacred heart of Jesus, grieved to tears at the blindness and iniquities of men, help us through Thy grace, that we may always strive after that which is pleasing to Thee and renounce that which displeases Thee, that we may remain in Thy love and find peace for our souls! Amen. (As found in The Bishop of Munster Versus the Nazis. Text also online at: Four Sermons in Defiance of the Nazis.)

Pray for the conversion of Indi Gregory's parents.

Pray for the conversion of Justices Robert Peel, Peter Jackson, Eleanor King, and Andrew Moylan.

Pray for the conversion of the Dormans.

Pray for all those innocents who are awaiting execution at the hands of judges and medical "professionals."

Pray, pray, pray to Our Lady in reparation of the sins of the whole world, for the conversion of all poor sinners, for our own daily conversion away from sin and towards sanctity, and for the grace of final and holy perseverance,

The brave new world in which we live and with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his "bishops" are at such unholy peace as innocent human beings such as Charlie Gard are put to death under the cover of civil law will pass, although not without great chastisements of the sort that will make our current circumstances seem relatively tame by way of comparison. We must, therefore, continue our resourse to Our Lady, especially by means of praying her Most Holy Rosary, knowing that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end, thus ushering in a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and the restoration of Catholicism as the one and only foundation of a truly just world order in which men live and work as befits redeemed creatures and undertake all their work for the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity in light of their own Last End, the posesssion of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise,

May it be our own blessed privilege to suffer whatever crosses we are asked to bear, including estrangement from relatives and former friends and acquaintances, as we seek to make a bit of reparation for our sins by offering up whatever merit we might bear from the patient endurance of those crosses as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

In the immortal words of Pope Saint Pius X contained at the end of The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, pray for the restoration to come!

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the the Rosary, pray for us.  

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.   

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

Saint Sabbas, pray for us.