Beyond the Headlines: Making Catholic Sense of New Efforts to End Surgical Baby-Killing

As per usual, there is far, far more to the 5-4 ruling issued by the Supreme Court of the United States of America on Wednesday, September 1, 2021, in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Austin Reeve Jackson concerning the Texas law, S.B. 8., that bans most surgical abortions after the sixth week of a woman’s expectancy than one will find from a review of news reports and/or the hysterical, histrionic reactions to the ruling from those who are committed to the preservation of the execution of the innocent preborn by all means, chemical or surgical. One cannot understand the Court’s refusal to issue an injunction to prevent enforcement of the Texas statute without first reviewing the statute’s text.

Thus, as constitutional, and public law is one of the fields of study for which I underwent a comprehensive, eight-hour written examination on Wednesday, April 30, 1975, at the then-named Graduate School of Public Affairs of the then-named State University of New York at Albany (now named the Rockefeller School of Public Policy and the University at Albany, respectively) and who taught courses constitutional, administrative, and public law throughout the course of a thirty-three year college teaching career, permit me to take the time to methodically review the Texas statute itself and then to discuss the Supreme Court ruling that denied the issuance of a temporary injunction from its enforcement.

I. An Overview

Texas S.B. 8 is a morally and legally flawed mess that attempts to “do” something to save the innocent preborn by making it appear that it is somehow a different matter to kill a baby after the detection of a fetal heartbeat is detected than it is to kill a baby earlier. Indeed, it is considered "legal" to vivisect a living human being who is said to be "brain dead" and it is also perfectly legal to kill a living human being before his heartbeat can be detected. Quite a phenomenal world in which are living.

Moreover, the bill contains the sort of “medical emergency” loopholes that concede in practice, if not by statutorily granted “right,” that there are circumstances in which the directly intended execution of an innocent preborn child can be undertaken with moral impunity.

This is how Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and president of the American Life League, summarized the moral problems in S.B. 8 that will be elaborated upon at length in this commentary:

In the 1941 classic “Deep in the Heart of Texas,” the lyrics say in part: “The coyotes wail along the trail, deep in the heart of Texas.” These words seem quite appropriate given the new abortion law in the state. This past May Governor Abbott signed the flawed law known as the Heartbeat Law (Senate Bill 8), and last week it went into effect. Not even the Supreme Court wanted to stop it.

But the coyote—in this case, Planned Parenthood—finagled a way to be protected from the law just a matter of days after it went into effect.

A coyote, in case you missed the reference, is a vicious animal always on the prowl to devour its prey. Planned Parenthood fits the description nicely.

And as the Texas media wants you to know, “the bill bans abortions after whenever an ultrasound can detect what lawmakers defined as a fetal ‘heartbeat,’ which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy. Medical and legal experts say the term is misleading because embryos don’t possess a heart at that developmental stage.”

Bam! Not only do propagandists employ bad science and faulty reasoning, but they do it unapologetically. So let’s set the record straight.

According to science, not pro-aborts, an embryo can have a heartbeat that is detectable at six weeks. Further, every human embryo is a unique individual from the first moment of creation—including preborn children who do not have a detectable heartbeat.

The science is simple. Dianne Irving, PhD, writes: “Scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte-usually referred to as an ‘ovum’ or ‘egg’), which simply possess ‘human life,’ to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being.”

This is why categorizing human persons by their bodily functions such as a detectable beating heart makes no sense at all. Either someone is a human being or he is not!  

It is very clear that not only is the Texas law not a ban, but it is flawed in other ways as well. It permits violent death for babies who do not meet its phony definitions.

Abortion zealots are going nuts, even claiming that the Texas law will overturn Roe v. WadePresident Biden is calling the law the creation of a vigilante system!

Pro-life news, on the other hand, is calling the Texas law a “ban” and claiming that it is “the first state in America to ban abortions” even though it is clear that no such ban exists.

And while folks on both sides of this debate are doing their best to sow seeds of confusion, Planned Parenthood is working the courts. In fact, one district judge has already given Planned Parenthood protectiongranting “a temporary restraining order against an anti-abortion group, blocking it from suing abortion providers employed by Planned Parenthood, who are now at risk of facing legal action under a new law passed earlier this week.”

So here we are. Deep in the heart of Texas the coyotes will continue to kill their prey, and the babies will continue to cry out for justice. That is nothing to celebrate! (Deep in the Heart of the Texas.)

Yes, S.B. 8 is just another “pro-life” bill that makes it appear that the civil law can only protect innocent preborn life when a heartbeat is detected even though the bill stipulates that human life begins at fertilization.

Now, before proceeding with a review of basic principles, it is important to explain that there is an important distinction between the word “fertilization,” which refers to the biological process of reproduction, and the word “conception,” which refers to creation of a new human being with a rational, immortal soul given unto him by God so that the new person can be baptized as a member of His true Church and thus enjoying the benefits of Sanctifying Grace in this life so that he can be ready die to and give Him honor and glory in Heaven after a lifetime, no matter how short or long, of glorifying Him as a member of the Church Militant on earth.

Dr. Paul Byrne discussed this distinction in a scholarly article:

It appears as though Professor Dianne Irving did not read my entire article. Words, like conception, have definition and meaning. The roots of words never change, no matter how distorted.

A true physician always is defined in relationship to the patient. A veterinarian is defined by beast and brutes. The embryologist is defined by a time period from the zygote to the fetus (8 weeks). The patient is a person. The person is an individual substance of a nature rational. Human life on earth is the substantial fact of the unity of soul and body. The formation of the body at the instant of conception manifests the person created by God. “The body, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine.”  Within the body of the mother, conception occurs and can be known to have occurred when the conceptus, (the baby at the one cell stage), is referred to as the zygote. When the conceptus is present within the body of his/her mother, we can know that the person is present. The hereditary characteristics of the mother and the father are contained in the sperm and egg and passed on to their children. In the zygote, the new person’s genetic material is now present. This new person is unique and unrepeatable. Through this knowledge we know that the true beginning of life on earth of this newly created human being has occurred at the instant conception takes place. The person is created from nothing in the Image and Likeness of God. The physician has the privilege of protecting and preserving the life of every person from its conception to its natural end. Much of the rest is in my article. I hope those interested in this important dialogue read my entire article, not only Prof Irving’s response.

Certainly twins, triplets and quadruplets are persons (and Louise Brown also). Recently I had the privilege of participating in the delivery and treatment of quadruplets. We can know that each of them is and has been a person since their conception. To infer anything that their origin is different from the origin of every other person is ridiculous and a play on words that is unfair to every twin, triplet, quadruplet, etc. And to the rest of us!

Professor Irving referred to Wilhelm His (1880-1885). She states, "It has been known for a hundred years that the beginning of fertilization is the beginning of sexually reproduced human beings." This helps to explain why Professor Irving is not on the same page that I am. A human being is not reproduced, much less to identify the beginning of a person exactly at the point of the “beginning of fertilization” is simply making a statement, as specific as it is, that might or might not have anything to do with the presence of a person.

No argument on this subject would be valid unless we begin with the wonder of creation by God.  "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” Jeremiah 1:5. "Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb” Psalms 139:13.

When I testified against the legalization of abortion in Missouri in 1967, I presented arguments about identification of the person beginning with color of skin and eyes, fingerprints, chromosomes, DNA, etc. It was effective until Roe v Wade in 1973. It was correct to argue that way. The argument is still correct when going in a retrospective manner from the living person we know as ourselves and our friends. However, when going forward, we must begin with creation by God who creates from nothing. The body is formed. Please read my entire article again.

After the term "pre-embryo" was coined and after the misleading of trying to make implantation the beginning of human life, violating the sacred meaning of conception (what was invisible is now visible) is very worrisome. Many began using fertilization, (including myself), to identify the true beginning of human life. Even though well-meaning pro-life physicians and scientists succumbed to the influences of higher authorities within the scientific world, ‘what is true is always true even if nobody is accepting it, and what is false is always false even if the whole scientific community promotes it as accurate. Therefore, I wish to encourage Prof. Irving to go back to using the correct word, conception. When the conceptus (zygote, embryologic term) is present, then we can know that the person is present. After that Prof Irving and whoever else can do everything to protect and defend the life of the person. And when they say it is a person, I will be right there defending and protecting the life of that person--with them.

I readily admit that I am greatly influenced by the Incarnation of Christ, His living within the body of His mother, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I know the teachings of the Church. I can use my personal knowledge for images of early life of Jesus.

The 24th edition of Steadman’s Medical Dictionary states under the word Conception:  The act of conceiving or becoming pregnant; the fertilization of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatozoon.

“Contraceptive Technology’s” 18th edition, funded originally by the Rockefeller Foundation, John’s Hopkins and other of the same……admit under the heading” FERTILIZATION AND IMPLANTATION”,  “A woman is most likely to conceive  if fresh sperm are present in the upper reproductive tract when ovulation occurs.

However, if I were to quote The Royal Spanish Academy dictionary, (the most respected dictionary of the Spanish speaking world, 1984 twentieth edition), their definition of the word conception is extremely clear: “Action and effect of conceiving.  2. Par excellence, that of the Virgin Mother of God.  3. Feast that annually the Catholic Church celebrates the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, December 8.”  This definition would shock the leadership of the medical profession, but as faithful Catholics, we find it perfectly accurate.

To infer and support a recently changed definition, primarily because the leadership of the scientific community has conveniently deemed it important to do so in order to circumvent laws that would have prohibited-research by special interest groups, from the true moment of conception to implantation, that is her prerogative, but at the same time, a major scientific blunder. If she wishes to discard the sacred word conception and change it to fertilization to fit and be accepted into the modern/liberal wishes of the secular scientific community, it is up to her and her conscience.  It is critical to remember that in the U.S. the Helms (1973) and Hyde (1981) Amendments prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to be used for abortions. However, the recipients of massive federal funding and special interest groups circumvented the mandate by redefining the beginning of life from conception to implantation. This allows the continuation of massive national and international funding of abortifacient birth control methods, morning after pills, post conception experimentation and population control under the guise of “Reproductive Health Programs”.

But as Catholics, not pseudoscientists, we must restrain from being absorbed and/or manipulated by special interests of immoral modern research scientists

There is a reason why Our Lady said to Bernadette: “I am the Immaculate Conception”, not the Immaculate Fertilization.

There is a reason why we say in the Apostles Creed:  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not fertilized by the Holy Spirit.

There is a reason why it is called “in vitro fertilization, “not “in vitro conception”.  Is it because one is Sacred and the other is human manipulation? (Dr. Paul Byrne, “More on Conception,” June 21, 2008.)

These are very important points as so many “pro-life” Catholics should take seriously. Language is very important, and the language used in Texas S.B. 8 is based upon the confusion of principles that has plagued the pro-life movement from its very beginnings as many well-intentioned people who made heroic sacrifices to defend the innocent preborn from execution by chemical and surgical means sought in many, although not all, instances to fight baby-killing on secular terms. To fight the devil on his terms is always a losing proposition.

This is not to question the sincerity of many of those in the Texas House of Representatives or the Texas State Senate who voted for the bill, which, as will be explained below, is morally flawed. However, Texas S.B. 8’s deputizing private citizens to enforce a law only on civil, not criminal, ground, is a legislative novelty that is without precedent. The killing of a preborn baby is a crime before God, and it is the duty of a just government to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End. The protection of innocent life from the moment of conception until death is indeed a positive duty of all governments in every epoch of human history.

The law itself will not withstand judicial review after cases brought about it have been heard in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin and then, upon appeal, in the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana (the Fifth Circuit has a courthouse in Dallas, Texas, as well), and, finally, to the Supreme Court of the United States of America itself as there are only a few precedents for private citizens to enforce public law by means of initiating civil litigation against a party or parties who violate state law.

II. Reviewing Basic Principles of the Divine Law and the Natural Law

Before examining the text of Texas S.B. 8, it is very important to review basic principles of the Divine Law and the Natural so that readers will not get lost in the fog of legal and judicial positivism in the law’s text or of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the four dissenting opinions (Chief Justice John Glover Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan).

First, the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural Law apply to all men in all circumstances at all times without exception.

Second, civil law must be subordinate to and never in contradiction of the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural Law.

Third, the Fifth Commandment’s injunction “Thou shalt not kill” protects the inviolability of all innocent human from the first moment of conception until death without any exceptions.

Fourth, no institution of human governance—executive, judicial, legislative, administrative, regulatory—can ever legitimately take any action (executive decree, judicial ruling, legislations, administrative and/or regulatory decisions) that puts into question the inviolability of innocent life at any time for any reason.

Fifth, no institution of human governance has any authority from God or found in the Natural Law from reason alone to make “exceptions” to the inviolability of innocent human life.

Sixth, thus, it is never permissible for anyone to undertake any action that is based in the direct intention to kill an innocent human being.

Seventh, it is a positive duty of the civil authorities to protect the inviolability of all innocent human life without exception.

Eighth, as God is the Sovereign over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, no one may licitly undertake any action that intends to frustrate the natural end of that for which Holy Matrimony was instituted: the procreation of children, who must be welcomed with love and then educated in the truths of the Holy Faith.

III. Considerations of the Practical Order

First, modern civil governments, founded as they are upon a welter of errors wrought by Protestant rationalism and Judeo-Masonic naturalism, have made that which is inarguable—namely, the Sovereignty of Christ the King over men and their nations in all that pertains to the good souls—a matter of constant argument, debate, and division. Men are thus needlessly divided by error.

Second, as a result, therefore, a never-ending and always-mutating assortment of grave moral evils has spread into the hearts, minds, and souls of men, who, having become habitually addicted to these evils, have succeeded in enshrining them under cover of the civil law.

Third, as a general rule, therefore, even believing Catholics in public life who seek to limit these grave moral evils proceed to do so on false premises by making concessions in principle to the nonexistent “legitimacy” of so-called “exceptions” to, say, the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in order to accomplish some perceived good. By attempting to fight evil by acknowledging the “right” to do something that is forbidden by God’s Eternal Law, however, one concedes that the civil state can, for example, “permit” the direct, intentional killing of innocent human life in certain “hard cases.” Such concessions in principle enshrine and institutionalize certain grave evils as “rights” that simply do not exist in the objective order of things and thus add to the foul miasma of evil abroad in the world today.

Fourth, to be sure, although men will always sin and thus cause problems for themselves, for others and for the common good, it is one thing to sin and then beg for God’s absolution in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is another thing to protest that what is sinful is “good,” no less a “human right,” and that the civil law must confer protection upon that certain evils that can be retarded ultimately only if men reform their lives in cooperation with the graces that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ won for them during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into their hearts of souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she is Who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Fifth, still and all, however, men must try to do what they can to limit grave moral evils under of cover of law. To this end, therefore, they may attempt in the case of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn to limit all killings without any exception within a given time frame while making it clear that is their firm determination to all such killings without exception from the moment of conception. A rightly formed public servant must understand that he can never “live with” some killing of innocent human beings; he must seek—and make clear to his constituents—that is his firm intention to end them all, and that includes contraceptive pills and devices, “brain death”/human organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings, “palliative care”/“hospice,” “assisted suicide”/“physician suicide,” “quality of life” medical “care” and the mandating of vaccinations that are derived, no matter how remotely, from the cell lines of aborted babies and/or are designed to change one’s genetic composition.

Pope Pius Leo XIII explained the general principles of seeking to limit evils in the modern world in his encyclical letter on human liberty, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888:

The Church most earnestly desires that the Christian teaching, of which We have given an outline, should penetrate every rank of society in reality and in practice; for it would be of the greatest efficacy in healing the evils of our day, which are neither few nor slight, and are the offspring in great part of the false liberty which is so much extolled, and in which the germs of safety and glory were supposed to be contained. The hope has been disappointed by the result. The fruit, instead of being sweet and wholesome, has proved cankered and bitter. If, then, a remedy is desired, let it be sought for in a restoration of sound doctrine, from which alone the preservation of order and, as a consequence, the defense of true liberty can be confidently expected.

33. Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence.[10] But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. In this, human law must endeavor to imitate God, who, as St. Thomas teaches, in allowing evil to exist in the world, “neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills only to permit it to be done; and this is good.”[11] This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.

34. But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true — that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

35. And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free.

36. And now to reduce for clearness’ sake to its principal heads all that has been set forth with its immediate conclusions, the summing up in this briefly: that man, by a necessity of his nature, is wholly subject to the most faithful and ever enduring power of God; and that, as a consequence, any liberty, except that which consists in submission to God and in subjection to His will, is unintelligible. To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists. The form, however, of the sin is manifold; for in more ways and degrees than one can the will depart from the obedience which is due to God or to those who share the divine power. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum June 20, 1888.)

This having been acknowledged, however, civil laws that decriminalize” grave moral evils are no laws at all. This is the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church, something that Saint Thomas Aquinas explained in the Summa Theologiae, and that Pope Leo XIII discussed at great length in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work." Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Evil is evil, and it is never permissible to be indifferent about the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings no matter what is decided by the “people” in plebiscites or by executives, legislators, administrators, or judges. God is a majority of One, and contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies must one day undergo the corruption of the grave do not get to decide right and wrong.

Sixth, this having been established and noted, men of good will can disagree about the particular type of civil/criminal punishments that should be imposed upon malefactors who are found guilty in a duly constituted tribunal of heinous after the discharge and exhausting of the due process of the law. Men cannot disagree about what is wrong. However, they can disagree about how to punish those who do what is wrong, and it is here and here alone that legitimate debate and discussion may take place.

III. Considerations of the Ecclesiastical Situation at this Time

First, as has been noted so many thousands of times on this site, the triumph of the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, although only temporary, is the consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of 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.

Second, as Pope Leo noted in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1985, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899, and Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, Holy Mother Church has had to adapt herself to conditions that are unfavorable to her status as the Queen and Mistress of all nations. Thus, she has had to make use of various modern “liberties” without, as the “Second” Vatican Council did in Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, conceding the nonexistent “legitimacy” of those liberties. Nevertheless, however, Holy Mother Church has had to deal with the corruption of her children by those modern liberties and errors that have seduced them into viewing the Church through the eyes of “democracy,” “rights,” “majoritarianism,” and “egalitarianism” rather than viewing the world through the eyes of the true Faith.

Here is a brief review of Pope Leo XIII’s teaching in this regard:

The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority. (Pope Leo XIII, Longiqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

Pope Leo XIII also understood, however, that his teaching on the Christian Constitution of States (Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885) on the nature of human liberty (Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1884, and the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens (Sapientiae Christiane, January 10, 1890) were not being taught, by and large, by the American bishops while at the same time condemning secret societies (Masonic lodges, etc.) that were incompatible with the good of souls and thus of the civil state:

15. As regards civil affairs, experience has shown how important it is that the citizens should be upright and virtuous. In a free State, unless justice be generally cultivated, unless the people be repeatedly and diligently urged to observe the precepts and laws of the Gospel, liberty itself may be pernicious. Let those of the clergy, therefore, who are occupied with the instruction of the multitude, treat plainly this topic of the duties of citizens, so that all may understand and feel the necessity, in political life, of conscientiousness, self restraint, and integrity; for that cannot be lawful in public which is unlawful in private affairs. On this whole subject there are to be found, as you know, in the encyclical letters written by Us from time to time in the course of Our pontificate, many things which Catholics should attend to and observe. In these writings and expositions We have treated of human liberty, of the chief Christian duties, of civil government, and of the Christian constitution of States, drawing Our principles as well from the teaching of the Gospels as from reason. They, then, who wish to be good citizens and discharge their duties faithfully may readily learn from Our Letters the ideal of an upright life. In like manner, let the priests be persistent in keeping before the minds of the people the enactments of the Third Council of Baltimore, particularly those which inculcate the virtue of temperance, the frequent use of the sacraments and the observance of the just laws and institutions of the Republic.

16. Now, with regard to entering societies, extreme care should be taken not to be ensnared by error. And We wish to be understood as referring in a special manner to the working classes, who assuredly have the right to unite in associations for the promotion of their interests; a right acknowledged by the Church and unopposed by nature. But it is very important to take heed with whom they are to associate, lest whilst seeking aid for the improvement of their condition they may be imperilling far weightier interests. The most effectual precaution against this peril is to determine with themselves at no time or in any matter to be parties to the violation of justice. Any society, therefore, which is ruled by and servilely obeys persons who are not steadfast for the right and friendly to religion is capable of being extremely prejudicial to the interests as well of individuals as of the community; beneficial it cannot be. Let this conclusion, therefore, remain firm-to shun not only those associations which have been openly condemned by the judgment of the Church, but those also which, in the opinion of intelligent men, and especially of the bishops, are regarded as suspicious and dangerous. (Pope Leo XIII, Longinqua Oceani, January 6, 1895.)

In plain English, therefore, Pope Leo XIII was telling the American bishops that they had to correct the errors of Americanism that were corrupting the worldviews of Catholics in the United States of America, and to this end he minced no words in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899:

But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state.

In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men.

It is well, then, to particularly direct attention to the opinion which serves as the argument in behalf of this greater liberty sought for and recommended to Catholics.

It is alleged that now the Vatican decree concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff having been proclaimed that nothing further on that score can give any solicitude, and accordingly, since that has been safeguarded and put beyond question a wider and freer field both for thought and action lies open to each one. But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all. And further, those who avail themselves of such a way of reasoning seem to depart seriously from the over-ruling wisdom of the Most High-which wisdom, since it was pleased to set forth by most solemn decision the authority and supreme teaching rights of this Apostolic See-willed that decision precisely in order to safeguard the minds of the Church's children from the dangers of these present times.

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church's teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.

We, indeed, have no thought of rejecting everything that modern industry and study has produced; so far from it that we welcome to the patrimony of truth and to an ever-widening scope of public well-being whatsoever helps toward the progress of learning and virtue. Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benvolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

This telling passage from Pope Leo's Apostolical Letter to the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons, is a prophetic warning about the counterfeit church of conciliarism that would owe much of its origins to the heresy of Americanism:

For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive of and desire the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. (Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

Behold the fact that the Church desired by the Americanists in the Nineteenth Century has arisen, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that embraces the errors of Modernity while propagating them anew with a Modernist spin. As it is false of its very nature, conciliarism reflects the competing camps of the false opposites of “liberalism” and “conservativism” that exist in the world, and is thus doomed as everything else based on falsehoods, including the modern civil state that is designed the make the world safe for every “religion” except Catholicism and for everything that eschews the Natural Law in favor of moral subjectivism.

Quite specifically, you see, a nation that is not founded on right principles must degenerate into the barbarism of our present era, having no immutable teaching authority to guide it, choosing to be "guided" by the demigods of national founding fathers and/or by the shifting winds of majoritarian sentiment at any particular point in time. Contradiction and instability are bound to result, as we can see with great clarity today. It is very much beside the point to argue that the "founders" would have opposed this or that social evil. They premised the entire fabric of national life under the Constitution upon the false belief that men could sort out their differences by means of a cumbersome process of negotiation and debate in the national legislative process, believing that there was no single belief that could unite men and guide them in the pursuit of the common good as the supreme and eternal good each man was kept in mind. There is no way, therefore, for naturalists to use a naturalist Constitution to defend against various evils. Evil must win when man does not subordinate himself to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church and when men do not have belief in, access to or cooperation with Sanctifying Grace

Here is a summary of the major principles that explain why naturalism is incapable of providing the framework for social order and must yield to the forces of barbarism over the course of time:

1) There are limits that exist in the nature of things beyond which men have no authority or right to transgress, whether acting individually or collectively in the institutions of civil governance.

2) There are limits that have been revealed positively by God Himself in his Divine Revelation, that bind all men in all circumstances at all times, binding even the institutions of civil governance.

3) A divinely-instituted hierarchy exists in man’s most basic natural unit of association: the family. The father is the head of the family and governs his wife and children in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine positive law and the natural law. Children do not have the authority to disobey the legitimate commands of their parents. Parents do not have the authority to issue illegitimate and/or unjust commands.

4) Our Lord Himself became Incarnate in Our Lady’s virginal and immaculate womb, subjecting Himself to the authority of His creatures, obeying his foster-father, Saint Joseph, as the head of the Holy Family, thus teaching us that all men everywhere must recognize an ultimate authority over them in their social relations, starting with the family.

5) Our Lord instituted the Catholic Church, founding it on the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to be the means by which His Deposit of Faith is safeguarded and transmitted until the end of time. The Church is the mater, mother, and magister, teacher, of all men in all nations at all times, whether or not men and nations recognize this to be the case.

6) The Pope and the bishops of the Church have the solemn obligation to proclaim nothing other than the fullness of the truths of the Faith for the good of the sanctification and salvation of men unto eternity and thus for whatever measure of common good in the temporal real, which the Church desires earnestly to promote, can be achieved in a world full of fallen men.

7) It is not possible for men to live virtuously as citizens of any country unless they first strive for sanctity as citizens of Heaven. That is, it is not possible for there to be order in any nation if men do not have belief in access to and cooperation with sanctifying grace, which equips them to accept the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith and to obey God’s commands with diligence in every aspect of their lives without exception.

8) The rulers of Christendom came to understand, although never perfectly and never without conflicts and inconsistencies, that the limits of the Divine positive law and the natural law obligated them to exercise the powers of civil governance with a view towards promoting man’s temporal good in this life so as to foster in him his return to God in the next life. In other words, rulers such as Saint Louis IX, King of France, knew that they would be judged by Our Lord at the moment of his Particular Judgment on the basis of how well they had fostered those conditions in their countries that made it more possible for their subjects to get to Heaven.

9) The rulers of Christendom accepted the truth that the Church had the right, which she used principally through her Indirect Power over civil rulers by proclaiming the truths of the Holy Faith, to interpose herself in the event that a civil ruler proposed to do something or had indeed done something that violated grievously the administration of justice and thus posed a grave threat to the good of souls.

10) The Social Kingship of Jesus Christ may be defined as the right of the Catholic Church to see to it that the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law are the basis of the actions of civil governance in all that pertains to the good of souls and that those who exercise civil power keep in mind man’s last end, the salvation of his immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church. Civil leaders must, therefore, recognize the Catholic Church as the true Church founded by God Himself and having the right to reprimand and place interdicts upon those who issue edicts and ordinances contrary to God’s laws. (A summary of the points that I have made in my writing for the past thirty years.)

This is but a brief distillation of the points contained in the brilliant social encyclical letters of Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI, in particular, although Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX also contributed to their reiteration and explication. I have spent much time in the past twenty-five years or so illustrating these points with quotations from these encyclical letters, which contain immutably binding teachings that no Catholic may dissent from legitimately (as Pope Pius XI noted in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio in 1922).

The Modern State, including the United States of America, is founded on a specific and categorical rejection of each of these points. Consider the following:

1) Martin Luther himself said that a prince may be a Christian but that his religion should not influence how he governs, giving rise to the contemporary notion of “separation of Church and state,” condemned repeatedly by Popes in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

2) Martin Luther planted the seeds of contemporary deconstructionism, which reduces all written documents to the illogical and frequently mutually contradictory private judgments of individual readers, by rejecting the Catholic Church as the repository and explicator of the Deposit of Faith, making the “private judgment” of individuals with regard to the Bible supreme. If mutually contradictory and inconsistent interpretations of the Bible can stand without correction from a supreme authority instituted by God, then it is an easy thing for all written documents, including a Constitution that makes no reference at all to the God-Man or His Holy Church, to become the plaything of whoever happens to have power over its interpretation

3) The sons of the so-called Enlightenment, influenced by the multifaceted and inter-related consequences of the errors of the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt, brought forth secular nations that contended the source of governing authority was the people. Ultimately, all references to “God” were in accord with the Freemasonic notion of a “supreme intelligence” without any recognition of the absolute necessity of belief in and acceptance of the Incarnation and of the Deposit of Faith as it has been given to Holy Mother Church for personal happiness and hence al social order.

4) The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not believe that it was necessary to refer all things in civil life to Christ the King as He had revealed Himself through His true Church, believing that men would be able to pursue “civic virtue” by the use of their own devices and thus maintain social order in the midst of cultural and religious pluralism. This leads, as Pope Leo XIII noted of religious indifferentism, to the triumph of the lowest common denominator, that is, atheism. 

5) As the Constitution of the United States of America admits of no authority higher than its own words, it, like the words of Holy Writ are for a Protestant or to a Modernist, is utterly defenseless when the plain meanings of its words are distorted and used to advance ends that its framers would have never thought imaginable, no less approved in fact. The likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., have no regard for the words of the Constitution or for the just laws passed by Congress, and Donald John Trump is plainly ignorant of most of the Constitution’s provisions as he is a man of “action” who is not prone to read, study, and reflect. He reacts to external stimuli, which got him into a whole lot of needlessly, self-made trouble during his presidency. We are governed by men who are contemptuous or law or wholly ignorant of it. Quite a state of affairs.

6) This is but the secular version of Antinomianism: the belief advanced by those who took the logic of Luther’s argument of being “saved by faith alone” to its inexorable conclusion that one could live a wanton life of sin and still be saved. Luther himself did not see where the logic of his rejection of Catholic doctrine would lead and fought against the Antinomians. In like manner, you see, the Constitutionalists and Federalists of today do not see that what is happening today in Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is the inexorable result of a Constitution that rejects Christ the King and the Catholic Church. These Constitutionalists and Federalists will fight time and time again like Sisyphus pushing the bolder up a hill. They will always lose because they cannot admit that the thing they admire, the Constitution, is the proximate problem that has resulted in all of the evils they are trying to fight.

A nation founded on false premises, no matter the "good intentions" of those whose intellects were misinformed by several centuries of naturalist lies and Protestant theological heresies and errors, is bound to degenerate more and more over time into a land of materialism and hedonism and relativism and positivism and utilitarianism and naturalism and paganism and atheism and environmentalism and feminism and barbarism. Many evils, including the daily carnage against the preborn, both by surgical and chemical means, continue to be committed in this country. American "popular culture" destroys souls and bodies both here and abroad. Full vent is given each day to a panoply of false ideas that are from Hell and confuse even believing Catholics no end as they try to find some "naturalist" hero or idea by which to win the "culture wars," oblivious to the fact that it is only Catholicism that can do so.

Third, the conciliar bishops, both those of whom were truly consecrated and those who were not, enabled, whether directly by words of praise for their alleged commitment to “social justice” or by abject inaction, pro-abortion Catholics in public life in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1983, and thus made it possible for those same reprobates and their successors in public life to become full-throated supporters of the homosexual collective’s agenda in behalf of perversity. We would not be faced with the likes of the self-anointed biologists, philosophes, and “theologians” such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi had those in the conciliar hierarchy exercised their duty to duly warn and then to excommunicate each and every Catholic in public life committed to the promotion of evils that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

As to the incompetent, cognitively challenged, venal, morally, intellectually, and theologically corrupt, serial appeaser of the enemies of the United States of America, pathological liar, egotist, narcissist, and abject plagiarist who likes to dwell in his basement in Wilmington, Delaware as his Department of State stands in the way of private efforts to rescue Americans he decided to leave behind and who are now effectively held by the Taliban in Afghanistan see State Department accused of holding up Afghanistan flights), suffice it to say that his recent “pronouncement,” contradicting his previous statements dating back to 1972, that he no longer believes that human life begins at conception (Biden Now Claims That Life Does Not Begin At Conception After Repeatedly Claiming It Did) is just another proof of the extent to which he has sold his soul to the adversary in order to curry favor with the pro-death crowd, which, as per usual, is itself indemnified in ways overt and subtle by the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (see  A Sly Devil: How Francis Secretly Undermines Doctrinal Opposition to Abortion while Appearing to Affirm It – Novus Ordo Watch. ). Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., is a total creature of Americanism and he has been indemnified by many, although far from all, of the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America up to the present time.

Fourth, in this regard, therefore, as has been in so many articles on this site, the conciliar hierarchy made a “strategic” decision in the 1960s to support legislation that conceded the nonexistent “right” of a mother

It is upon that false premise that the conciliar "bishops" have embraced a ready acceptance of the "right to life mother exception" in legislative proposals without even attempting to pressure supposedly pro-life members of various legislatures, including those in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, believing that doing so will help to convince "reasonable" people that they and the politicians they support are not "radicals" or "extremists," that such concessions are "necessary" to make in the realm prudence.

This is, of course, the exact same moral casuistry that gave us "natural family planning" and explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that has corrupted what passes for Catholic moral theology in so many places that high level officials in the Vatican itself can speak of "therapeutic" abortions as being within the moral law (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots).

Some tried very hard to warn the "bishops" as early as the first years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 2, 1973, that the acceptance of "exceptions" would lead to the further institutionalization of baby-killing under the cover of the civil law in the mistaken belief that some killings would be prevented.

One of those who did so was Mrs. Randy Engel, the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, who testified in 1974. before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the United States Senate Committee for the Judiciary. Mrs. Engel saw things with prophetic clarity: there could never be any compromise with the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and for this, of course, she has been hated by the "pro-life establishment" ever since:

I am Randy Engel, National Director of the United States Coalition for Life, an international research center and clearing- house specializing in domestic federal anti-life programs within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Agency for International Development. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the sub-committee today in order that I may express the views of the Coalition, its distinguished national and international board of advisors, some of whom have already testified at earlier Senate hearings on the Human Life Amendment, and that of thousands of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving on a day to day basis since the Coalition opened its offices almost two years ago.

Mr. Chairman, about four months ago, the Coalition filed with your office, the transcript of a speech made by Louise Tyrer , M.D. , Family Planning Division of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, before the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians' 12th Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesday, April 16, 1974, on the status of the various Human Life Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (Attachment A) According to Dr. Tyrer' s assessment of the Congressional scene there are two basic approaches. One - a "state's rights" approach which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion to the individual States. The second - which would guarantee the full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of fertilization. The "State's rights" approach she states, and correctly so, is unacceptable to the majority of Pro-Life people yet very attractive to the legislators because " it sought of takes the ones off their backs from making any decisions."

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling the hearings of this sub-committee by having Planned Parenthood physicians flood the sub-committee with requests to testify. This, Dr. Tyrer suggests would be politically expedient and politically NECESSARY for you Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments bottled up in sub-committee until you had gone through the election process in the Fall. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarrass you in any manner. Not because I fell Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment of the political realities of the Senate and House Committees dealing with the abortion issue or her assessment that stalling these subcommittee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to have a roll call vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time. But rather, because with few exceptions, almost every Senator and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to get rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least dump the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures.

This is not our affair - they say.

The massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children is not a federal matter - they say.

We are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1972 which is now the law of the land - they say.

Well, I am here Mr. Chairman to tell you and every other Senator and Congressman that like it or not - Abortion IS your affair. That the massive slaughter of unborn children in this country IS a proper matter of federal concern. Moreover that this Congress IS directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable right to life. Congress IS responsible because over the last ten years it has permitted an anti-life philosophy and anti-life programs and policies to become matters of NATIONAL POLICY , promoted and supported by tax dollars.

It is the Federal Government - at all levels - Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches - which has posed the greatest threat to unborn children in recent years. The Executive Branch because it has failed to correct the anti-life abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID and has permitted key anti-life leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director Population Bureau for Population and Humanitarian Affairs [and the man who coined the phrase "Natural Family Planning"] to remain in office. The Legislative Branch, because it has authorized legislation and appropriated funds year after year to initiate, promote and sustain anti-life programs in virtually every conceivable federal bureaucracy including the Office of Economic Opportunity, Office of Environmental Education, Office of Education, Department of Defense Office of Population Affairs (HEW), National Institutes of Health, Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service Social Security, MedicAID, Aid to Dependent Children, U.S. Information Agency Population Office(AID). Contraceptive Research Branch (NIH) Federal Communication Commission).

As I said the Supreme Court abortion decision was an inevitable one. All the cliches of that decision - terms like "unwanted children", "a woman's right to control her own body.", the population explosion stem from the Sangerite ethic. It represented the culmination of more than half a century of dedication and tireless efforts by the Sangerites and the Malthusians to convince the American public of the righteousness of the CAUSE and to elevate the SANGERITE-MALTHUSIAN philosophy to that of Public Policy .

This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in this book Breeding Ourselves to Death - the Story of the Hugh Moore Fund by abortion leader Lawrence Lader. In the section on gaining Congressional Support, former N.Y. Senator Kenneth Keating, then newly appointed National Director of the Population Crisis Committee tells about eating in the Senate Dining Room where he could spread the gospel of family planning among old friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. This fight to influence by other population control leaders in Congress goes on today.

But what does all this have to do with this subcommittee hearing on the Human Life Amendment? Simply this:

For more than a year the Hogan-Helms Human Life Amendment and similar bills have been buried in the House, where Representative Don Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate - hearings are dragged out month after month to get Senators and Representatives through the November watershed without a floor vote on such as the HLA.

Obviously there is no sense of urgency about the matter, with the exception of a handful of dedicated men, the Congress doesn't appear to be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes- from direct abortion payments (Medicaid-ADC; to the research development and promoting of new abortion techniques to the indoctrination of young children of an anti-life ethic appears to raise no particular concern at family planning authorization or appropriation hearings.

Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we will have a difficult time getting a Human Life Amendment passed by both Houses. of Congress and on its way to the states for ratification. My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment of the Federal Government including this Congress to the anti-life establishment, and briefly how such a commitment was obtained and at what price.

Mr. Chairman, this Congress OWES its vigorous support for a Human Life Amendment which would protect Human Life from conception until natural death to the American people. The Coalition would agree that the Hogan-Helms Amendment or the newer Roncallo Amendment would provide such protection.

Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, ignorance and its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life movement, it must bear its share of guilt for the 1972 Abortion decision, and its share of responsibility in seeing a Human Life Amendment is passed to protect the unborn child.

Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in this matter is very plain. As for our part, I believe the Coalition and the Pro-Life Movement in the U. S. will continue to fight at all levels - including the Halls of Congress and yes, even in Senate dining rooms - to educate and to promote an ideal that is as revolutionary in our day as the Sangerite ideal was fifty years ago. That ideal is based on the sanctity and innate goodness of all human life. (Full text of "Abortion : hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.)

Even though the efforts made by Mrs. Engel and others were valiant, we can see now with perfect hindsight that which was not understood by very many at the time: that these noble efforts were doomed to failure precisely because the "pro-life establishment," headed by the National Not-So-Right to Life Committee, rallied around the constitutional amendment that had been proposed by United States Senator James Buckley (C-New York; the "c" reflects Buckley's election in a three-way race in 1970 as the candidate of the Conservative Party of the State of New York) that permitted the "life of the mother" exception.

Only four American bishops, Timothy Cardinal Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John Cardinal Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These cardinals, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated, at least to a very large extent, by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expedience or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.

While there exists a division amongst the conciliar “bishops” at this time concerning the sanctions that should be imposed upon the likes of the feeble, senile, intellectually hollow, heartless, shameless heretic and subservient fool of statism, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., the very existence of such a division speaks volumes in and of itself about the state of apostasy that is rife in the conciliar sect, which has not been, is not now and can never be the Catholic Church.

Fourth,  despite their many different, the Jacobin/Bolshevik “bishops” in the United States of America (Blase Cupich, Sean O’Malley, John Stowe, Wilton Gregory, Robert McElroy, Joseph Tobin) and the Girondist/Menshevik “bishops” (Raymond Burke, who is still a powerful “conservative” force in the United States of America from his perch in the conciliar-occupied Vatican, Joseph Strickland, Thomas Tobin, who is no relation to Joseph Tobin, Jose Tomas Gomez, James Wall, Charles Cupich, David Ricken, Donald Hyden, Thomas Olmsted, Liam Carey, James Conley, Robert Vasa, Salvatore Cordileone, Michael Barber, Alexander Sample, John Doerfler, Samuel Aquila, Thomas Paprocki, Joseph Naumann), each of them is united in rejecting the clear teaching about the true purposes of civil governance as enunciated succinctly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time does nothing to detract from the immutability of the Catholic teaching explicated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X.

Indeed, the fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time is the result of the proliferation of a deliberate, planned attack by the adversary himself upon it by using the combined, interrelated errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry to uproot the Holy Cross as the foundation of personal and social order in Europe and to make sure it was not the foundation of such order here in the United States of America.

Father Denis Fahey made this exact point in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)   

The era of modernity has given us the likes of men who hated Christ the King such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Woodrow Wilson, each of whom helped to plant the seeds for the triumph of the deification of “man” and his “rights.” The degeneration has been such that we are now governed by various shades of statists who do not believe that it is necessary to govern according to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted to the Catholic Church for their authoritative explication.

Thus it is that men of good will, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, find themselves fighting endless rear-guard efforts on the devil’s terms by making immoral, unnecessary and ultimately counterproductive compromises with moral truth that only embolden the forces of darkness, who will always find allies among the supreme masters of sophistry in the Federal judiciary.

IV. Texas Bill S. B. 8

Texas Bill S. B. 8, which was the law at issue in the case of Whole Health v. Jackson, September 1, 2021, contains false premises, immoral exceptions, and is based upon judgments in the practical order that render its enforcement a moot matter

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.


           SECTION 1.  This Act shall be known as the Texas Heartbeat Act.

SECTION 2.  The legislature finds that the State of Texas never repealed, either expressly or by implication, the state never repealed tatutes enacted before the ruling in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), that prohibit and criminalize abortion unless the mother's life is in danger.

First, as explained above, no institution of human governance has any authority with God to “decide” anything about the chemical or surgical execution of the innocent preborn other than to determine what penalties to imposed upon those who procure, preform, assist and/or abet such executions. The Supreme Court of the United States of America read a nonexistent “right to marital privacy” in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, to overturn a long unenforced Connecticut statute banning the sale of contraceptive pills and devices to married couples by claiming that the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights contained theretofore unknown “penumbras” (little shadows or emanations). This exercise in rank judicial positivism established the “precedent” that would be used nearly eight years later to establish a “right” to the killing of preborn children as a “constitutional right,” and this “precedent” carries more weight with the likes of Chief Justice John Glover Roberts than either the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law, to say nothing of the actual meaning of the Constitution itself.

Second, most of the state statutes in effect at the time that the Supreme Court of the United States of America announced its decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, contained one or more of the usual “hard case” exceptions that were used by baby-killing advocates in the 1960s as the emotional bludgeon of “fairness” and “equal access to ‘health care’” by noting that, in the practical order of things, the wealthy and the famous could always arrange to have their physicians claim that they had one or more conditions that met the states’ broadly defined rules for “exceptions” (violent bodily assault upon a woman’s purity, incest, the “life of the mother”).

For example, no matter how rare pregnancy is in  circumstances of violent assault—and it is fairly rare (see Dr. John Wlkie's defense of Akin's statement about the rarity of pregnancy in cases of violent assault), a bodily assault upon a woman's purity is a crime before God and man, an assault that may scar a woman for the rest of her life, but a crime that must be paid by the assailant not by the child conceived as a result of his assault. One never punishes a child for the crime of his father.

Indeed, even the late Associate Justice Harry Blackmun's footnoted comments, at footnote 54, in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Roe v. Wade. Blackman said that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of life, liberty and property could not be used by the State of Texas to proclaim the inviolability of the life of the preborn as the statute under challenge in Roe v. Wade admitted of an exception to that inviolability. How can a human life be inviolable in some instances but not in all?

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? (Text of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973.)

It is pretty bad when Harry Blackmun, who turned the Supreme Court of the United States of America into his own "temple of doom," if you will, noticed the inconsistency of opposing the surgical killing of preborn babies while "permitting" such killing in supposed "hard" cases while supposedly "pro-life" public officials, including the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the aforementioned Paul Davis Ryan, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry, boast of making such "exceptions" as matter of principle, not one of legislative expediency. No thought is ever given to excluding all surgical killings of the innocent preborn as mot so-called "pro-life" public officials are actually only less pro-abortion than those who want to kill babies on an unrestricted basis under the cover of the civil law.

Furthermore, the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneering champion of baby-killing who presided over 70,000 abortions between 1970 and 1974 before quitting for purely scientific reasons once the ulatrasound proved to him the humanity of the preborn baby (he converted to the conciliar structures in 1996), explained on many occasions that medical technology had advanced to such a degree that there is almost never a circumstance in which it is considered to be "medically necessary" to kill a preborn baby to "save" the life of his mother:

The situation where the mother's life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality.

Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: the birth of a healthy child. [Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives' State Affairs Committee, February 16, 1990.] (As found in a very good study written in 1994 by Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and president of the American Life League and Brian Young: Exceptions: Abandoning "The Least of My Brethren," as found at Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These Thy Brethren.)

Third, as Texas S.B. 8 contains the “life of the mother exception” (but not those for violent assault upon a woman’s purity, incest) that is mentioned at the beginning of its text, it is important to explain what was noted earlier in this commentary: namely, that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being under any circumstances.

No mother has any "choice" to be made between her own life and that of her preborn child. Although the improvements in medical technology have made it possible for expectant mothers with serious maladies to be treated in a manner that will permit a baby to be delivered at the point of viability, whereupon more aggressive treatment of a mother's condition can be undertaken, if possible and advised, it is still nevertheless the case that in those rare circumstances, which certainly do occur now and again, where a mother is faced with the possibility of sacrificing her own life so that her preborn baby can be born. A mother formed in the truths of the Catholic Faith knows that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ meant it when He said the following:

[12] This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. [13] Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15: 12)

A mother who knows the Catholic Faith understands that, as difficult as it can be to those steeped in emotionalism and sentimentality, she can, if she dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace, do more for her child from eternity than she ever could here on the face of this earth. Moreover, those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace are more perfectly united to us than they ever were on the face of this earth.

We must think supernaturally at all times. We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings. We would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. We must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.

God's law is not a matter of feeling, something that Pope Pius XII pointed out in his November 26, 1951, Address to the Association of Large Families.

Consider these very telling words from the early part of this address, begging your pardon that they are from a Google translation of the original text, which is in the Italian language:

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

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

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

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

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of motherNo, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the “life of the mother” exception in pre-Roe statutes, and so much for it in Texas S.B.8.

Yes, even though the intent of Texas S.B. 8 is to end abortion-on-demand, the plain fact of the matter is that the effect of their legislation would be return matters, at least for the most part, to where they stood before Roe v. Wade, that, is just a "little bit" of direct killing of the innocent would be permitted under cover of law. This is opposed to God's law and is thus immoral. All direct, intentional killing of the innocent is wrong in all circumstances.

Now, to the next part of Texas S.B. 8:

SECTION 3.  Chapter 171, Health and Safety Code, is amended by adding Subchapter H to read as follows:


(1)  "Fetal heartbeat" means cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac\.

(2)  "Gestational age" means the amount of time that has elapsed from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period.

(3)  "Gestational sac" means the structure comprising the extraembryonic membranes that envelop the unborn child and that  is typically visible by ultrasound after the fourth week of pregnancy.

(4)  "Physician" means an individual licensed to practice medicine in this state, including a medical doctor and a doctor of osteopathic medicine.

(5)  "Pregnancy" means the human female reproductive condition that: (A)  begins with fertilization;

Fourth, the conception of a child is not a “reproductive condition.” It is the natural fruit of the conjugal union that God has instituted for the procreation and education of children.

Fifth, as noted earlier, human beings are not beasts. The term conception must be used, not “fertilization.”

A minor point?

No., as Mrs. Randy Engel pointed out in article about the fallacy of “natural family planning” many years ago now, “In a war, words are weapons.” The enemies of truth know this, and it is sad that those intend to some good do not.

Back to the text of S.B. 8:

 (B)  occurs when the woman is carrying the developing human offspring; and

           (C)  is calculated from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period.

               (6)  "Standard medical practice" means the degree of skill, care, and diligence that an obstetrician of ordinary judgment, learning, and skill would employ in like circumstances.

                (7)  "Unborn child" means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

Sixth, once again, it is from conception until birth.

   Sec. 171.202.  LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The legislature finds,  according to contemporary medical research, that:

                  (1)  fetal heartbeat has become a key medical predictor that an unborn child will reach live birth;

Seventh, so what? Human life is inviolable from the moment of conception until natural death.        

                (2)  cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is formed in the gestational sac;

                  (3)  Texas has compelling interests from the outset of a woman's pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the unborn child; and

         (4)  to make an informed choice about whether to continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a compelling interest in knowing the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth based on the presence of cardiac activity.

Eighth, an expectant mother has no choice to make, only love to be given to the fruit of her womb, a baby. Everyone, including expectant mothers, must render obedience unto God.

Contraception is a denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony and the surgical execution of children is a defiance of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

Moreover, contraceptive pills and devices are abortifacients, and the fact that neither they nor even abortifacients such as RU-486, the human pesticide, are prohibited in S.B. 8 means that there is nothing to prevent an expectant mother from getting a prescription to do on her own what S.B. 8 means to proscribe in most cases by surgical means up to the first ten weeks of her pregnancy (Texas law prohibits direct abortifacients after ten weeks) is very telling:       


                (a)  For the purposes of determining the presence of a fetal heartbeat under this section, "standard medical practice" includes employing the appropriate means of detecting the heartbeat based on the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the woman and her pregnancy.

  (b)  Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman's unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.

Ninth, got a heartbeat, no execution. No heartbeat? Go ahead and kill. How is any of this related to truth even in the natural order of things. It is not given unto man to dispense with innocent human life because of illicit, unjustifiable, sophistic “determinations” that have no standing whatsoever in the hospital of the Divine Physician.

      (c)  In making a determination under Subsection (b), the physician must use a test that is:

                (1)  consistent with the physician's good faith and reasonable understanding of standard medical practice; and

                (2)  appropriate for the estimated gestational age of the unborn child and the condition of the pregnant woman and her pregnancy.

                   (d)  A physician making a determination under Subsection (b) shall record in the pregnant woman's medical record:

                         (1)  the estimated gestational age of the unborn child;

                         (2)  the method used to estimate the gestational age; and

                         (3)  the test used for detecting a fetal heartbeat, including the date, time, and results of the test.

Tenth, here are some antidotes to these so-called “determinations” as drawn from pagan sources:

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

The Roman playwright Juvenal, who lived in the early Second Century A.D. and was fierce hater of Christians, had this to say about the crime of the murder of innocent preborn children:

So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb. Ancient History Sourcebook: Juvenal: Satire VI

Even a proto-feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who organized the first "women's rights" conference in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, referred to abortion as "disgusting and degrading crime," going on to write:

When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library.)

Yes, it is possible by reason alone to come to recognize that a child, an innocent preborn human being, is the natural fruit of human conjugal relations. It is an accident if one falls down a flight of stairs. It is an accident if the motor vehicle one is driving goes out of control on an icy road. It is not an "accident" if a child is conceived as the result of human conjugal relations. To invade the sanctuary of the womb, therefore, in order to suck out, burn, slice or otherwise destroy a living human being is opposed to the very laws of nature itself. And if the child inside a mother's womb is not alive, why is it necessary to kill it? As to the child's humanity, you see, even secular science has proved that every fertilized embryonic human being has a distinctive DNA of his very own that does not change over the course of his life. All that is added, physically and temporally speaking, is time and nutrition.

As I said to an abortion advocate in a debate at Hofstra University, Hempstead, Long Island, New York, on the Feast of Saint Joseph, March 19, 1985:

"I will quit this debate right now if you can demonstrate to me which one of the cells in your body has a DNA structure different from the moment that you were conceived."

No true, objective biologist can deny the fact that a living, growing human being is created at the moment of conception. Ideologues can deny all arguments that can be advanced by means of reason and science, however, which is why arguing against abortion on the grounds of reason alone only takes one so far.

Indeed, it is precisely because of naturalism that we have abortion-on-demand and in most other countries in the "developed" world today. Naturalistic arguments are not going to end abortion-on-demand, although the use of scientific facts and basic Natural Law reasoning can be useful as tools to help people to see through some of the illogic of the pro-death arguments. Such arguments are merely "building blocks," if you will, to lead people to accept the simple fact that it is God Himself Who has ordained these immutable facts of nature that do not depend upon human acceptance for their binding force or for their validity.

Sec. 171.204.  PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH   DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT.  (a)  Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child as required by Section 171.203 or failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat.

   (b)  A physician does not violate this section if the physician performed a test for a fetal heartbeat as required by section 171.203 and did not detect a fetal heartbeat.

   (c)  This section does not affect:

         (1)  the provisions of this chapter that restrict or regulate an abortion by a particular method or during a particular stage of pregnancy; or

           (2)  any other provision of state law that regulates or prohibits abortion.

Eleventh, once again, the detection of a heartbeat in a preborn child is irrelevant to his absolute inviolability from any and all direct attacks upon his person.

The next part of Texas S.B. 8 deals with what is called an “exception for medical emergency.”


    (a)  Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.

    (b)  A physician who performs or induces an abortion under circumstances described by Subsection (a) shall make written notations in the pregnant woman's medical record of:

         (1)  the physician's belief that a medical emergency necessitated the abortion; and

          (2)  the medical condition of the pregnant woman that prevented compliance with this subchapter.

   (c)  A physician performing or inducing an abortion under this section shall maintain in the physician's practice records a  copy of the notations made under Subsection (b).

Twelfth, these terms are immoral as they sanction the direct, intentional killing of an innocent child.

Thirteenth, moreover, in merely practical terms, it is the height of folly to expect that those who kill babies routinely are going to pay any attention whatsoever to S.B. 8’s terms above. Baby butchers kill, and they will continue to kill under this “medical emergency” exception even in the unlikely event that it withstands constitutional challenges in the Federal court system, including the ultimate decision to rendered upon it by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Sec. 171.206.  CONSTRUCTION OF SUBCHAPTER. (a)  This subchapter does not create or recognize a right to abortion before a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Fourteenth, there is no right to abortion, whether chemical or surgical, at any time. Period.

           (b)  This subchapter may not be construed to:

                 (1)  authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;

Fifteenth, those who do have not learned to fear the just judgment of God upon their immortal souls need to be reminded that the participation in the direct, intentional killing of an innocent being will not go unpunished by the civil state. The nature of that punishment is subject to debate among men and good will. Illicit actions without consequences embolden malefactors, and laws without criminal sanctions are worthless.

Back to the text of S.B. 8:

                (2)  wholly or partly repeal, either expressly or by implication, any other statute that regulates or prohibits abortion, including Chapter 6-1/2, Title 71, Revised Statutes; or

                (3)  restrict a political subdivision from regulating or prohibiting abortion in a manner that is at least as stringent as the laws of this state.

Sixteenth, no unjust law is a law.


            (a)  Notwithstanding Section 171.005 or any other law, the requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208.  No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.

                   (b)  Subsection (a) may not be construed to:

                         (1)  legalize the conduct prohibited by this subchapter or by Chapter 6-1/2, Title 71, Revised Statutes;

                         (2)  limit in any way or affect the availability of a remedy established by Section 171.208; or

                         (3)  limit the enforceability of any other laws that regulate or prohibit abortion.


              (a)  Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who:

                         (1)  performs or induces an abortion in violation of this chapter;

                         (2)  knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this chapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this chapter; or

                          (3)  intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

                 (b)  If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this  section, the court shall award:

                         (1)  injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter;

                         (2)  statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced in violation of this chapter, and for each abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter that the defendant aided or abetted; and

                          (3)  costs and attorney's fees.

                  (c)  Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this chapter.

                   (d)  Notwithstanding Chapter 16, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, or any other law, a person may bring an action under this section not later than the sixth anniversary of the date the cause of action accrues.

                   (e)  Notwithstanding any other law, the following are not a defense to an action brought under this section:

                          (1)  ignorance or mistake of law;

                          (2)  a defendant's belief that the requirements of this chapter are unconstitutional or were unconstitutional;

                         (3)  a defendant's reliance on any court decision that has been overruled on appeal or by a subsequent court, even if that court decision had not been overruled when the defendant engaged in conduct that violates this chapter;

                         (4)   a defendant's reliance on any state or federal court decision that is not binding on the court in which the action has been brought;

                         (5)  non-mutual issue preclusion or non-mutual claim preclusion;

                         (6)  the consent of the unborn child's mother to the abortion; or

                         (7)  any claim that the enforcement of this chapter or the imposition of civil liability against the defendant will violate the constitutional rights of third parties, except as provided by Section 171.209.

                   (f)  It is an affirmative defense if:

                         (1)  a person sued under Subsection (a)(2) reasonably believed, after conducting a reasonable investigation, that the physician performing or inducing the abortion had complied or would comply with this chapter; or

                          (2)  a person sued under Subsection (a)(3) reasonably believed, after conducting a reasonable investigation, that the physician performing or inducing the abortion will comply with this chapter.

                   (f-1) The defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense under Subsection (f)(1) or (2) by a preponderance of the evidence.

                   (g)  This section may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution.

                   (h)  Notwithstanding any other law, this state, a state official, or a district or county attorney may not intervene in an action brought under this section. This subsection does not prohibit a person described by this subsection from filing an amicus curiae brief in the action.

                   (i)  Notwithstanding any other law, a court may not award costs or attorney's fees under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or other rule adopted by the supreme court under Section 22.004, Government Code, to a defendant in an action brought under this section.

Seventeenth, already enjoined by a Travis County, Texas, judge.

         Sec. 171.209.  CIVIL LIABILITY:  UNDUE BURDEN DEFENSE LIMITATIONS.  (a)  A defendant against whom an action is brought under Section 171.208 does not have standing to assert the rights of women seeking an abortion as a defense to liability under that section unless:

                         (1)  the United States Supreme Court holds that the courts of this state must confer standing on that defendant to assert the third-party rights of women seeking an abortion in state court as a matter of federal constitutional law; or

                         (2)  the defendant has standing to assert the rights of women seeking an abortion under the tests for third-party standing established by the United States Supreme Court.

                   (b)  A defendant in an action brought under Section 171.208 may assert an affirmative defense to liability under this section if:

                         (1)  the defendant has standing to assert the third-party rights of a woman or group of women seeking an abortion in accordance with Subsection (a); and

                         (2)  the defendant demonstrates that the relief sought by the claimant will impose an undue burden on that woman or that group of women seeking an abortion.

                   (c)  A court may not find an undue burden under Subsection (b) unless the defendant introduces evidence proving that:

                         (1)  an award of relief will prevent a woman or a group of women from obtaining an abortion; or

                         (2)  an award of relief will place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman or a group of women who are seeking an abortion.

                   (d)  A defendant may not establish an undue burden under this section by:

                         (1)  merely demonstrating that an award of relief will prevent women from obtaining support or assistance, financial or otherwise, from others in their effort to obtain an abortion; or

                         (2)  arguing or attempting to demonstrate that an award of relief against other defendants or other potential defendants will impose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

                   (e)  The affirmative defense under Subsection (b) is not aailable if the United States Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), regardless of whether the conduct on which the cause of action is based under Section 171.208 occurred before the Supreme Court overruled either of those decisions.

                    (f)  Nothing in this section shall in any way limit or reclude a defendant from asserting the defendant's personal constitutional rights as a defense to liability under Section 171.208, and a court may not award relief under Section 171.208 if the conduct for which the defendant has been sued was an exercise of state or federal constitutional rights that personally belong to the defendant.

Eighteenth, mooted.

    Sec. 171.210.  CIVIL LIABILITY:  VENUE.

                  (a)  Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 15.002, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a civil action brought under Section 171.208 shall be brought in:

                         (1)  the county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred;

                         (2)  the county of residence for any one of the natural person defendants at the time the cause of action accrued;

                         (3)  the county of the principal office in this state of any one of the defendants that is not a natural person; or

                         (4)  the county of residence for the claimant if the claimant is a natural person residing in this state.

                  (b)  If a civil action is brought under Section 171.208 in any one of the venues described by Subsection (a), the action may not be transferred to a different venue without the written consent of all parties.


                   (a)  This section prevails over any conflicting law, including:

                         (1)  the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act; and

                         (2)  Chapter 37, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

                     (b)  This state has sovereign immunity, a political subdivision has governmental immunity, and each officer and employee of this state or a political subdivision has official immunity in any action, claim, or counterclaim or any type of legal or equitable action that challenges the validity of any provision or application of this chapter, on constitutional grounds or otherwise.

                   (c)  A provision of state law may not be construed to waive or abrogate an immunity described by Subsection (b) unless it expressly waives immunity under this section.

Nineteenth, this effort to indemnify the government of the State of Texas from the enforcement of a law passed by its state legislature and signed into law by its governor by placing said enforcement in the hands of private citizens has already been enjoined by a judge at the behest of nefarious baby Planned Barrenhood, which sued a pro-life organization, Texas Right to Life, to enforce the provisions of S.B. 8 on the initiative of any one of its members:

Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted Planned Parenthood’s request to bar the group Texas Right to Life and its associates from using the law’s first-of-its-kind enforcement mechanism — which incentivizes private citizens to sue any persons or entities that assists a woman with getting an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected — to sue the organization.

In a three-page order, Judge Gamble reasoned that S.B. 8 created a “probable, irreparable, and imminent injury” for Planned Parenthood and individuals in the organization’s employ if they are “subjected to private enforcement lawsuits” under S.B. 8.

“Money damages are insufficient to undo the injury to Plaintiffs, their physicians, and staff if the Defendants are not enjoined from instituting private enforcement lawsuits against Plaintiff under SB8. Further, money damages would be less complete, less practical, and less efficient than injunctive relief,” Judge Gamble wrote. “Conversely, the Defendants will not be harmed if the Court restrains them and anyone in active concert and participation with them from instituting private enforcement lawsuits under S.B. 8 against Plaintiffs, their physicians, and staff.”

As previously reported by Law&Crime, S.B. 8 is unique in its method of enforcement. The law creates a private cause of action for literally person to bring a lawsuit against anyone in Texas who “aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise . . . regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed.” The measure also allows successful S.B. 8 plaintiffs to “damages in an amount of not less than $10,000.” (Texas Judge Issues Restraining Order Blocking Anti-Abortion Group From Suing Planned Parenthood Under New Abortion Law.)

Thus begins the long series of legal battles that S.B. 8 has engendered. (The bill’s other provisions regard the various procedures to be used by those private individuals who choose to enforce its provisions and need not concern us here.)

As to Travis County District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble’s order, suffice it to say the judge is more concerned about the loss of Planned Barrenhood’s blood money than about the blood of the innocent preborn shed so wantonly at his various killing centers.

Yes, Judge Gamble, the defendants will be harmed as they are trying to save innocent lives as best they can under the terms of a morally flawed law that reflects the simple fact that nations not founded on Catholic principles must descend to the point of arguing about the inarguable and of witnessing citizens descend to such a point of barbarism as to offer a veritable sacrifice to the adversary of the innocent preborn in order to continue lives of hedonism that will lead to them spend all eternity with that deceiver in fiery abyss of hell.

The Justice Department is suing Texas over the state's new controversial restrictions on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced  Thursday.

Garland said the law is plainly improper both for its onerous restrictions on abortion access and for the provisions allowing state residents to sue anyone who aids or carries out restricted abortions.

"The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent," Garland said at a press conference.

"This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear," Garland said.

"If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas by other states and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents. nor need one think long or hard to realize the damage that would be done to our society if states were allowed to implement laws that empower any private individual to infringe on another's constitutionally protected rights in this way," he added. 

The move comes a week after the Supreme Court refused to block the state law, which would effectively ban most abortions, in a 5-4 ruling over the objections of the court's liberal wing and the Chief Justice John Roberts. The law went into effect on Sept. 1.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday afternoon in federal district court in Texas.

"The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review," the lawsuit reads.

he federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated."   

A spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) dismissed the legal challenge as a political ploy.

“The most precious freedom is life itself," said the governor's press secretary Renae Eze in an emailed statement.

"Texas passed a law that ensures that the life of every child with a heartbeat will be spared from the ravages of abortion. Unfortunately, President Biden and his Administration are more interested in changing the national narrative from their disastrous Afghanistan evacuation and reckless open border policies instead of protecting the innocent unborn. We are confident that the courts will uphold and protect that right to life,” the statement said.

Under the law, the abortion restrictions are enforced through civil litigation brought by private parties, who can be awarded up to $10,000 if their case is successful. That scheme creates liability not only for doctors and medical personnel who perform abortions but also for anyone who so much as drives a patient to obtain a restricted abortion.

That enforcement scheme also creates legal hurdles in court for those seeking to challenge the law, making it difficult to determine the correct parties to sue in order to block the law.

The administration's lawsuit asks for a court order nullifying the statute and prohibiting the state's officials and even private citizens from "implementing or enforcing" the law.

The Supreme Court's ruling last week incensed the Democratic Party and reproductive rights activists, with some warning that it had effectively overturned the court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision that found that women have a constitutionally protected right to obtain an abortion without excessive restrictions.

It also raised fears that Texas's success at the Supreme Court would open the door for a slew of Republican-controlled state legislatures to impose similar restrictions across the country.

"If another state uses the same kind of provisions to deprive its citizens of their constitutional rights ... we will bring the same kind of lawsuit," Garland said on Thursday. (Justice Department sues Texas over 'unconstitutional' abortion law.)

As I have noted so many times before, we are merely witnessing the descent of the formerly “free world” (which was not neve quite so “free” as it was yoked to the adversary by its embrace of a liberation, shall we say, from the sweet yoke of Christ the King, His Holy Cross and His Holy Catholic Church) into the abyss of totalitarianism that is the but one and only result that can come over the course of time from the anti-Incarnational, Protestant and Judeo-Masonic premises upon which it was founded and has become the shoals upon which  it has foundered.

Such is the insanity of a world turn asunder by falsehoods.

V. Whole Woman’s Health v. Austin Reeve Jackson

A world turned upside turn because of its revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King and His Catholic Church must, perforce, produces legal and judicial sophists who, they believe,  are bound to “legal precedents” that have no standing before the Divine Judge Himself, He Who is the very author of the law that is inscribed on human hearts and was given in positive terms to Moses and thence by Him to Holy Mother Church in the present economy of salvation.

Our legal and judicial sophists have bound themselves have bound themselves so tightly to the straitjacket of the written words of the Constitution, for example, that they believe themselves to be incapable of judging human law in light of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Men who are bound to the words of mere men and refuse to be guided in their deliberations by the eternal laws of God must find themselves hopelessly and bitterly divided on matters that are inarguable but have become fully arguable because of the foolishness of mere creatures who put themselves and their designs before the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity or the good of souls, including their own, upon which the entirety of social order either rises in justices or falls in the abyss of lawlessness and injustice.

It is with this in mind that it is now necessary for the purposes of this article to review each of the opinions delivered by six of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, starting with Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s decision for the Court not to enjoin Texas S.B. 8 in which Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Michael Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred. I will interject in various places throughout these opinions.

The application for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, to vacate stays of the district court proceedings presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied. To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunction, an applicant must carry the burden of making a "strong showing" that it is "likely to succeed on the merits," that it will be "irreparably injured absent a stay," that the balance of the equities favors it, and that a stay is consistent with the public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009); Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 66 (2020) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)). The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number One:

In other words, Justice Alito is saying that Texas S.B. 8 is an effort to undermine the “precedent” established in Roe v. Wade and that those challenging it have “raised serious questions regarding” its constitutionality.

However, as many, including this author, have noted over the past forty-eight years, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, a strong, unassailable case for the protection of all innocent human life can be made purely on constitutional grounds as the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, which is a vestige from the Magna Carta itself:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.)

Although the constitution’s first ten amendments were meant to be limitations on the power of the government of the United States of America (i.e., the Federal government) and not the state governments, most of which had their own state bills of rights, the questionable doctrine of “incorporating” or “applying” various provisions within the Bill of Rights to the state governments began in the case of Gitlow v. New York, June 8, 1925. The relevant passage in Gitlow, which involved the incorporation of the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” (seen any of that lately?) to the states by means of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, was stated as follows by Associate Justice Terry Sandford:

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press—which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress—are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. (Gitlow v. New York, June 8, 1925.)

Other than one’s duty, both privately and publicly, to worship the true God of Divine Revelation as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, the right to life is a fundamental right that was recognized by the Catholics who wrote the Magna Carta, 1215:

(XXVI.) Nothing shall for the future be given or taken for a Writ of Inquisition, nor taken of him that prayeth Inquisition of life or limb; but it shall be given without charge, and not denied.—

(XXIX.) No Free-man shall be taken, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in anyway destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.—To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice. (1215: Magna Carta (Latin and English))

Yes, a perfectly good case can be made for the defense of all innocent human life from conception until death on legal and constitutional grounds alone.

Alas, as has been noted so many hundreds upon hundreds of times on this site, a constitution that admits of nothing higher than its own text for its interpretation and application is as malleable in the hands of judicial positivists (those declare that something is so because they have declared it be so) is Holy Writ in the hands of Protestants and Modernists. Lacking an ultimate arbiter in all that pertains the good of souls, upon which the fate of men and their nations depend, contingent beings will engage in all manner of deconstructionism to read own ideological predilections into written documents in order to accomplish ends clearly in violation of their text.

The constitutionality of Texas S.B. 8 is truly immaterial as the very fact that men in a supposedly “civilized” nation have to resort to various legal strategies to protect the inviolability of innocent human life that has been made fully violable by other men intent on enshrining the sort of offerings to Moloch that were condemned as follows in Sacred Scripture:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: [2] Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: If any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers, that dwell in Israel, give of his seed to the idol Moloch, dying let him die: the people of the land shall stone him. [3] And I will set my face against him: and I will cut him off from the midst of his people, because he hath given of his seed to Moloch, and hath defiled my sanctuary, and profaned my holy name. [4] And if the people of the land neglecting, and as it were little regarding my commandment, let alone the man that hath given of his seed to Moloch, and will not kill him: [5] I will set my face against that man, and his kindred, and will cut off both him and all that consented with him, to commit fornication with Moloch, out of the midst of their people.

[6] The soul that shall go aside after magicians, and soothsayers, and shall commit fornication with them, I will set my face against that soul, and destroy it out of the midst of its people. [7] Sanctify yourselves, and be ye holy because I am the Lord your God. [8] Keep my precepts, and do them. I am the Lord that sanctify you. [9] He that curseth his father, or mother, dying let him die: he hath cursed his father, and mother, let his blood be upon him. [10] If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife, let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress.

[11] If a man lie with his stepmother, and discover the nakedness of his father, let them both be put to death: their blood be upon them. [12] If any man lie with his daughter in law, let both die, because they have done a heinous crime: their blood be upon them. [13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 1-15.)

The whole barbaric ethos of Modernity is based upon the unlimited fulfillment of carnal desires, whether in marriage or out of it and whether natural or unnatural, with impunity. Anyone who gets in the way, including the natural fruit of the means of human generation, must be disposed of at will.

I return now to Associate Justice Alito’s decision for the Court:

But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden. For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselvesCalifornia v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our interventionClapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013) ("threatened injury must be certainly impending" (citation omitted)). The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas's law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 163 (1908). Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application. In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants' lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Two:

Well, as noted just above, a Travis County District Court Judge, Maya Guerra Gamble, went ahead and enjoined Texas S.B. 8 on September 3, 2021, the Feast of Pope Saint Pius X, just two days after the Court’s decision in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, September 1, 2021, the Feast of Saint Giles, thus stopping private citizens from enforcing its terms until the case is heard on appeals in Texas and makes its way into the Federal court system thereafter.

All this to try to reverse an ethos of killing that began at the state level in the 1960s after fifty years of mainstreaming the Sangerite mentality of contraception and pleasure-seeking.

What’s so difficult about “Thou shalt not kill”?

Well, evidently quite a lot when one’s whole country is founded on a rejection of the Catholic Church as the sole means of human salvation and thus the sole foundation of a just and enduring social order.

All right, it is now to move on to Opus Dei’s own John Glover Roberts, the ever-calculating institutionalist who has been Chief Justice of the United States of America since September 29, 2005:


     The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.

     The State defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante--before the law went into effect--so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner. Defendants argue that existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention, and they may be correct. See California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). But the consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the State takes effect. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Three:



Texas S.B. 8 is an end-run to indemnify the State of Texas for its enforcement, and this legally problematic.


However, what “consequences, “pray tell,” is Chief Justice Roberts concerned about? The possibility, however remote, that some preborn children might be saved from surgical execution under an unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional legal regime established by the Court on January 22, 1973.

It used to be a maxim of jurisprudence that legislation had to go into effect before an actual case involving from it could be adjudicated. In recent decades, however, courts are being asked to render what amounts, at least in a de facto sense, to “advisory opinions” in advance of the enforcement of a particular piece of legislation.

Thus, the very man who twisted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ObamaDeathCare, in order to declare it be constitutional when it was patently unconstitutional, is concerned about “judicial process” now, refusing to give Texas S.B. 8 the sort of deference that he gave to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the combined cases National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 28, 2012. Now, you see, Chief Justice Roberts needs the “guidance” of the District Court of Appeals to answer “difficult” questions:

We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions--at least preliminarily--in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals. We are also asked to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral argument. These questions are particularly difficult, including for example whether the exception to sovereign immunity recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), should extend to state court judges in circumstances such as these.

     I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs' claims.

     Although the Court denies the applicants' request for emergency relief today, the Court's order is emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue. But although the Court does not address the constitutionality of this law, it can of course promptly do so when that question is properly presented. At such time the question could be decided after full briefing and oral argument, with consideration of whether interim relief is appropriate should enforcement of the law be allowed below. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Two:

I have said this before, and I will say it again: John Glover Roberts is a prisoner of institutionalism, and he will not vote in this case or in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, arising from the bill passed by the state legislature of the State of Mississippi on March 19, 2018 (MS HB 1510), that bans “most” abortions after a preborn child after his fifteenth weeks of development within the sanctuary of his mother’s womb, to overturn Roe v. Wade. John Roberts is concerned about “precedent” and about preventing any schemes to “pack” the Court, not about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law nor the Natural Law.

All right, it is time to take a brief look at the dissenting opinions, starting with the second-ranking Associate Justice, the fully pro-abort named Stephen Breyer:

     JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

     The procedural posture of this case leads a majority of this Court to deny the applicants' request for provisional relief. In my view, however, we should grant that request.

     I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN. Texas's law delegates to private individuals the power to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion during the first stage of pregnancy. But a woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during that first stagePlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 846 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 164 (1973)And a "State cannot delegate . . . a veto power [over the right to obtain an abortion] which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy." Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 69 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we have made clear that "since the State cannot regulate or proscribe abortion during the first stage . . . the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person . . . to prevent abortion during that same period." Ibid. The applicants persuasively argue that Texas's law does precisely that. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Five:


As noted earlier in this commentary, the supposed “constitutional right” to execute babies by chemical and surgical means was invented by the seven justices (Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and Lewis Powell, five of which had been appointed by Republican presidents—Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell) who voted to overturn the State of Texas’s conditional ban on abortions in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973. Stephen Breyer is living a judicial fantasy land wherein the desired results dictate the rationale for justifying that which is unjustifiable before God and men.

Returning now to Associate Justice Stephen Breyer:

     The very bringing into effect of Texas's law may well threaten the applicants with imminent and serious harm. One of the clinic applicants has stated on its website that "[d]ue to Texas' SB 8 law," it is "unable to provide abortion procedures at this time." Planned Parenthood South Texas, https: / / / planned - parenthood-south-texas. And the applicants, with supporting affidavits, claim that clinics will be unable to run the financial and other risks that come from waiting for a private person to sue them under the Texas law; they will simply close, depriving care to more than half the women seeking abortions in Texas clinics. See, e.g., App. to Application 105, 148-150, 178-179. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Six:

“Imminent and serious harm.”


A loss of blood money?

A loss of Planned Barrenhood’s ability to traffic in human bodily organs for the ghoulish practice of medical “experimentation.”

The loss of human bodily organs and tissue as “flavor additives” in foods and beverages?

The loss of human “refuse” to be incinerated for energy production purposes in Oregon?


Here is a reminder of the barbaric practice in Oregon that was stopped, or so we are supposed to believe, after it was exposed in the following report seven years ago:

An incinerator in Oregon has been ordered to stop burning medical waste to power homes after it was discovered aborted babies from Canada were part of materials being used for energy. Apparently, this has been going on for years and it is common practice in Canada to mix "waste" baby parts in with cancer and other materials.

An Oregon county commission has ordered an incinerator to stop accepting boxed medical waste to generate electricity after learning the waste it's been burning may include tissue from aborted fetuses from British Columbia.

Sam Brentano, chairman of the Marion County board of commissioners, said late Wednesday the board is taking immediate action to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries at the plant that has been turning waste into energy since 1987.

"We provide an important service to the people of this state and it would be a travesty if this program is jeopardized due to this finding," he said in a statement. "We thought our ordinance excluded this type of material at the waste-to-energy facility. We will take immediate action to ensure a process is developed to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries."

Kristy Anderson, a British Columbia Health Ministry spokeswoman, told The Associated Press that regional health authorities there have a contract with a company that sends biomedical waste, such as fetal tissue, cancerous tissue and amputated limbs, to Oregon, where it's incinerated in the waste-energy plant.

Last month, it was discovered nearly a dozen hospitals in the United Kingdom were burning aborted babies, along with trash, to fuel government run hospitals.

British health officials are responding to a news program's report that accuses some hospitals of incinerating aborted and miscarried fetuses, in some cases as part of a system for heating the facilities.

The TV news program Dispatches on Channel 4 in the U.K. reports that 10 National Health Service (NHS) hospital trusts have admitted burning the remains as "clinical waste" alongside trash, while two other facilities disposed of the remains in incinerators that generate power for heating, multiple British news organizations including the BBC and the Telegraph reported.

Reports said that in the past two years alone, at least 15,500 fetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts. In some cases, mothers were told that the remains were cremated.

Absolutely horrifying and tragic. (Horrifying: Bodies of Aborted Babies Burned to Power Homes in Oregon.)

Don’t kid yourselves, good readers. This sort of horrific practice is probably going on all over the world.

Or, then again, perhaps Justice Breyer is concerned about the “harm” to universities whose “scientists” “collect” aborted babies for their own so-called “experiments”:

CATELLO, Idaho (AP) — Police say the remains of roughly 50 fetuses found at a Pocatello, Idaho, funeral home were part of a biological collection that Idaho State University provided to the funeral home for cremation in 2017.

The fetuses and at least 12 other decomposing bodies were discovered at the Downard Funeral Home after a state health inspector alerted police. Investigators have been working to identify the remains.

The business was previously in charge of donating cadavers to Idaho State University for scientific study, but the relationship ended last year after the university had stopped receiving donations for a time. On Thursday, ISU spokesperson Stuart Summers said in a statement that the fetuses recovered from Downard Funeral Home were part of a decades-old biology collection showing fetal development, and that the collection had been brought to the funeral home for cremation four years ago, the Idaho State Journal reported.

The university decided to have the collection cremated after the Idaho Legislature passed a law in 2016 banning public institutions from using fetal or embryonic tissue or stem cells for research or study. The majority of the collection had been donated to ISU before 1981, Summers said.

Police have identified about half of the bodies found at the home, but are asking for the public’s help identifying the rest of them.

The sister of one woman whose remains were found at the funeral home said she felt betrayed and heartbroken after learning her sister was never cremated.

Eva Bode told that her sister, Charlotte Ann Mygrant, died in August after suffering a heart attack while incarcerated at the Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center. Bode lives in Virginia, so when the Portneuf Medical Center called to ask her where she wanted her sister’s body sent, Bode went with the hospital’s recommendation.

Bode spoke with Downard Funeral Home owner Lance Peck that day, and said he assured her that her sister’s wishes to be cremated would be fulfilled and that the ashes would be mailed to her. But when she later called to find out when her sister’s ashes would be arriving in Virginia, she said Bode first said he needed to check with the local post office, and later didn’t return her calls.

She discovered the investigation last week when she went online to look for an alternate phone number for Peck.

“This is stuff you only see on TV. I was very upset because Lance made me feel like he was really genuine, caring and really taking care of this,” Bode says. “To find this out on the internet was unbelievable.”

A phone number for Peck could not be found and calls to the funeral home went unanswered Friday. (Fetuses found at funeral home were university collection. For a discussion about the immoral practice of cremation, which remains forbidden by the Catholic Church, please see Conciliar Vatican Continues to Permit Cremation.)

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer can hide behind the façade of an immoral judicial decision from forty-eight years ago, but he will not be able to hide from the just judgment of Christ the King, in Whose Sacred Divinity he does not believe, when he dies if does not repent and then convert to the true Faith beforehand.

Jurists such as Stephen Breyer have consciences that are completely dead to the horror of the moral crimes they justify, crimes that kill innocent human being and that harms their mothers physically, emotionally, and most importantly, supernaturally.

We have permitted those whom a law threatens with constitutional harm to bring pre-enforcement challenges to the law where the harm is less serious and the threat of enforcement less certain than the harm (and the threat) here. See Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U. S. 383, 392-393 (1988); Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979); see also Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 164 (2014) (finding substantial threat of future enforcement where statute permits " 'any person' " to file a complaint and "the universe of potential complainants is not restricted").

     I recognize that Texas's law delegates the State's power to prevent abortions not to one person (such as a district attorney) or to a few persons (such as a group of government officials or private citizens) but to any person. But I do not see why that fact should make a critical legal difference. That delegation still threatens to invade a constitutional right, and the coming into effect of that delegation still threatens imminent harm. Normally, where a legal right is " 'invaded,' " the law provides " 'a legal remedy by suit or action at law.' " Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803) (quoting 3 W. Blackstone Commentaries *23). It should prove possible to apply procedures adequate to that task here, perhaps by permitting lawsuits against a subset of delegatees (say, those particularly likely to exercise the delegated powers), or perhaps by permitting lawsuits against officials whose actions are necessary to implement the statute's enforcement powers. There may be other not-very-new procedural bottles that can also adequately hold what is, in essence, very old and very important legal wine: The ability to ask the Judiciary to protect an individual from the invasion of a constitutional right--an invasion that threatens immediate and serious injury.

     As THE CHIEF JUSTICE writes, this Court should not permit the law to take effect without assuring the applicants (and the respondents) an opportunity first and fully to make (or to refute) these and other arguments supporting the request for an injunction.

     For these reasons, and for the reasons stated by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, I dissent. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Seven:

By way of reiteration, no human being, whether acting individually on his own or in concert with others within the institutions of human governance, can make legitimate that which is illegitimate.

It was legal in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to imprison, experiment upon, torture, and execute “counterrevolutionaries” and/or all others deemed guilty of “thought crimes.”
It was legal in the Nazi regime of the Third Reich to imprison, experiment upon, torture, and execute anyone deemed to be “subhuman” in the eyes of the National Socialists—and they were socialists, by the way.

It is legal today in Red China to imprison, experiment upon, torture and execute anyone deemed to be opposed to the agenda of the Chinese Communist Party in general and the megalomaniac named Xi Jinping in particular.

It has been legal in the so-called “civilized” Western world to kill innocent preborn human beings since the 1960s, and it has become “legal” and “morally acceptable” to do away with them for a variety of utilitarian reasons by means of “quality of life,” the myth of “brain death”/vital organ vivisection and transplantation, “palliative care/“hospice, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged people, and a variety of other ways.

No, Stephen Breyer, there is no “right” before God do that which is wrong even if it has been declared to be a “constitutional right” by mere men who must answer to Him for the moral crimes they have committed as magistrates of the public weal:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

It is my most unfortunate task now to turn to the fourth ranking Associate Justice, Sonia Sotomayor:

     JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.

     The Court's order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State's enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents. Today, the Court belatedly explains that it declined to grant relief because of procedural complexities of the State's own invention. Ante, at 1. Because the Court's failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Nine:

Fifty years of federal precedents, Justice Sotomayor?

These “precedents” have no standing before God, and they have been invented solely to make wanton lust the defining standard of human existence in an era when the feminism born first of Eve and given new life during the French and, one hundred twenty-eight years later, the Bolshevik revolutions that have sought an “equality” that robs women of their dignity and that which is proper solely to a valid, ratified marriage of its sanctity.

This is nothing new, obviously, as there have six thousand years of men seeking to defy God by shedding innocent blood that begin with Cain when he slew his brother Abel:

[1] And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God. [2] And again she brought forth his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd, and Cain a husbandman. [3] And it came to pass after many days, that Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord. [4] Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat: and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings. [5] But to Cain and his offerings he had no respect: and Cain was exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell.

[6] And the Lord said to him: Why art thou angry? and why is thy countenance fallen? [7] If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it. [8] And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him.[9]And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? [10] And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth.

[11] Now, therefore, cursed shalt thou be upon the earth, which hath opened her mouth and received the blood of thy brother at thy hand. [12] When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth. [13] And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. [14] Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from thy face, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one, therefore, that findeth me, shall kill me. [15] And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him. (Genesis 4: 1-15.)

Husbands have battled wives, wives have battled husbands, parents and children have battled each other. King David himself was opposed by his own son Absalom. David, of whose own house Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born of His Most Blessed Mother, wept over his rebellious son's death because he was concerned over the state of the poor's soul when he died, knowing that he had rebelled against the Fourth Commandment itself:

[31] And when he bad passed, and stood still, Chusai appeared: and coming up he said: I bring good tidings, my lord, the king, for the Lord hath judged for thee this day from the hand of all that have risen up against thee. [32] And the king said to Chusai: Is the young man Absalom safe? And Chusai answering him, said: Let the enemies of my lord, the king, and all that rise against him unto evil, be as the young man is. [33] The king therefore being much moved, went up to the high chamber over the gate, and wept. And as he went he spoke in this manner: My son Absalom, Absalom my son: would to God that I might die for thee, Absalom my son, my son Absalom.  (2 Kings 18: 31-33.)

Your precious “precedents,” Sonia Sotomayor, fall into the category of all the state-sponsored crimes of the past. The innocent preborn are the invisible victims of a worldwide genocide that, at this writing, has taken over sixty-three million lives in the United States of America since 1965, not counting the hundreds of millions more killed by means of abortifacient pills and devices. The worldwide figure is a staggering 1.6 billion, and that is only since 1980, not before (see Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973). Your “precedents,” Madam Sotomayor, have been established and maintained with the blood of these invisible victims and the loss of so many countless numbers of souls for all eternity.

Penance is good, which is why I am compelled to return to Justice Sotomayor’s histrionic screed:

     In May 2021, the Texas Legislature enacted S. B. 8 (the Act). The Act, which took effect statewide at midnight on September 1, makes it unlawful for physicians to perform abortions if they either detect cardiac activity in an embryo or fail to perform a test to detect such activity. §3 (to be codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§171.201(1), 171.204(a) (West 2021)). This equates to a near-categorical ban on abortions beginning six weeks after a woman's last menstrual period, before many women realize they are pregnant, and months before fetal viability. According to the applicants, who are abortion providers and advocates in Texas, the Act immediately prohibits care for at least 85% of Texas abortion patients and will force many abortion clinics to close.

     The Act is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents. See, e.g.June Medical Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 5) (explaining that "the State may not impose an undue burden on the woman's ability to obtain an abortion" of a "nonviable fetus" (citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992); internal quotation marks omitted)). The respondents do not even try to argue otherwise. Nor could they: No federal appellate court has upheld such a comprehensive prohibition on abortions before viability under current law. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Ten:

It was only sixty years ago or so that law enforcement officials shut down abortion mills, which are now considered to be a “protected” class of “businesses” providing for women’s “reproductive health care,” except that (a) abortion is not “health care;” (b) no one is sovereign over the body of another innocent being; (c) a child belongs within the sanctuary of his mother’s womb; and (d) pregnancy is not a “illness.”

To the final part of Justice Sotomayor’s opinion:

     The Texas Legislature was well aware of this binding precedent. To circumvent it, the Legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the State could not. The Act authorizes any private citizen to file a lawsuit against any person who provides an abortion in violation of the Act, "aids or abets" such an abortion (including by paying for it) regardless of whether they know the abortion is prohibited under the Act, or even intends to engage in such conduct. §3 (to be codified at Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §171.208). Courts are required to enjoin the defendant from engaging in these actions in the future and to award the private-citizen plaintiff at least $10,000 in "statutory damages" for each forbidden abortion performed or aided by the defendant. Ibid. In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State's citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors' medical procedures.

     The Legislature fashioned this scheme because federal constitutional challenges to state laws ordinarily are brought against state officers who are in charge of enforcing the law. See, e.g.Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U. S. 247, 254 (2011) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908)). By prohibiting state officers from enforcing the Act directly and relying instead on citizen bounty hunters, the Legislature sought to make it more complicated for federal courts to enjoin the Act on a statewide basis.

     Taken together, the Act is a breathtaking act of defiance--of the Constitution, of this Court's precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas. But over six weeks after the applicants filed suit to prevent the Act from taking effect, a Fifth Circuit panel abruptly stayed all proceedings before the District Court and vacated a preliminary injunction hearing that was scheduled to begin on Monday. The applicants requested emergency relief from this Court, but the Court said nothing. The Act took effect at midnight last night.1

     Today, the Court finally tells the Nation that it declined to act because, in short, the State's gambit worked. The structure of the State's scheme, the Court reasons, raises "complex and novel antecedent procedural questions" that counsel against granting the application, ante, at 1, just as the State intended. This is untenable. It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry. Moreover, the District Court held this case justiciable in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion after weeks of briefing and consideration. 2021 WL 3821062, *8-*26 (WD Tex., Aug. 25, 2021). At a minimum, this Court should have stayed implementation of the Act to allow the lower courts to evaluate these issues in the normal course. Ante, at 2 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting). Instead, the Court has rewarded the State's effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the Court's precedents, through procedural entanglements of the State's own creation.

     The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.

     I dissent. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Eleven:

This is so palpably histrionic and lacking all judicial circumspection that it would disqualify Justice Sotomayor from any further role in the consideration of Texas S.B. 8 when it arrives on the Court’s docket again after cases involving it make their way through the state and federal court systems if we live in a just world. Then again, it is because we live in a manifestly unjust world that cases such as this involving a law that would, in actual point of fact, save very few lives given the “medical emergency” exception and that is based on a variety of false premises, be considered “necessary” to try to save lives that are being exterminated because of the decisions of mere human beings in contravention of the Divine and natural Laws.

Finally, it is time to deal with the dissent of Associate Justice Elena Kagan, the fifth ranking associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America:

     JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.

     Without full briefing or argument, and after less than 72 hours' thought, this Court greenlights the operation of Texas's patently unconstitutional law banning most abortions. The Court thus rewards Texas's scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State's behalf. As of last night, and because of this Court's ruling, Texas law prohibits abortions for the vast majority of women who seek them--in clear, and indeed undisputed, conflict with Roe and Casey.

Today's ruling illustrates just how far the Court's "shadow-docket" decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process. That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence. Yet the majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals--which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion--that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail. In all these ways, the majority's decision is emblematic of too much of this Court's shadow-docket decisionmaking--which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend. I respectfully dissent. (Whole Woman’s Health, et al., v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge, et al.)

Interjection Number Twelve:

Here we find more in the way of what passes for “judicial objectivity.” At least Associate Justice Samuel Alito said that Texas S.B. 8 presented “constitutional challenges,” and I would dare say that, in the final analysis, Associate Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh will join his mentor, John Glover Roberts, and find the law to be “unconstitutional” on a variety of procedural grounds. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have clearly made up their minds, and Roberts, although maintained an apparent judicial “impartiality” that is nothing other than jurisprudential sophistry.

Try this on for size Justice Kagan: Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. William Casey, June 27, 1992, are in conflict witvh moral truth even on the natural level, to say nothing of the supernatural level that is held to be of no account in the courtrooms of the so-called “civilized” Western world that have abandoned and thrown down the Orwellian memory hole the fact that their laws and judicial customs developed during the era of Christendom wherein men sought, despite their own sins and failings, to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End.

Once again, no one has the “right” to do that which is wrong.

This all having been noted, however, Texas S.B. 8 is not going to serve as the means to reverse Roe v. Wade, the consequences of such an outcome will be summarized once again immediately below, and it should go without saying that one of the reasons that many Catholics within the conciliar structures either support baby-killing or are completely indifferent about it is because their “hierarchy” itself is divided about how to deal with those in public life who have the blood of innocent babies on their hand. Senor Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself is on the side of the globalists and statists who just happen to support baby-butchering, and he is giving every indication that there is some “wiggle room” in his warped Modernist mind on “exceptions” to the killing of babies (see A Sly Devil: How Francis Secretly Undermines Doctrinal Opposition to Abortion while Appearing to Affirm It).

We are forever consigned to argue about the inarguable in a world devoid of the Social Reign of Christ the King and a due submission by men to His Holy Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls.

VII. Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Oganization

Despite the good intentions of various governors, legislators, and attorneys general at the state level in the United States of America, anything that is based upon false premises will accomplish little good in the long term other than raising false hopes that “something” is being done.

Texas S.B. probably will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America once the cases concerning it make their way through the Texas state court system and thence are heard upon appeal the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit. As the law already has been enjoined in Travis County District Court in Texas, all enforcement of it by private citizens will cease, and I rather doubt that this novel scheme of enforcement is going to withstand judicial review. Despite all the hysteria, therefore, S.B. 8 is not the sort of case that poses any kind of threat to the so-called “precedent” established in Roe v. Wade.

The case that does pose such a threat is the aforementioned Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which the Supreme Court of the United States of America agreed four months ago to hear in its 2021-2022 term that begins on October 4, 2021. The case itself has been docketed but not yet scheduled for a specific hearing date.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization poses a specific threat to Roe v. Wade because the question before the Court is this: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - SCOTUSblog). Obviously, the “pre-viability” standard is fallacious as all innocent human life is inviolable from the moment of conception.

Permit me to quote from part of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed by the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kanas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina filed in support of the petitioner, Thomas E. Dobbs, the State Health Officer of the State of Mississippi in the case of Dobbs v. Women’s Whole Health:

When setting the limit of the right to elective abortion at viability, Roe weighed only the bare interest in unborn life—the belief that unborn life has value and should not be aborted—against a complete prohibition on elective abortions. 410 U.S. at 163-64.

When reconsidering Roe, Casey again balanced only the States’ interest in potential life against the woman’s interests in terminating her pregnancy. 505 U.S. at 870-71. Neither case claimed to have considered all possible state interests that might warrant limitations on abortion. Thus, even if Mississippi’s law arguably prevented some previability abortions, that is not the end of the analysis. State interests other than the viability of the unborn child are sufficiently important to justify limiting the right to previability abortion, as some Justices have previously indicated.

Fetal pain is one such compelling interest. Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, found it “obvious” that “the State’s interest in the protection of an embryo . . . increases progressively and dramatically as the organism’s capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive, 11 and to react to its surroundings increases day by day.” Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 552 (1989) (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennen and Marshall, JJ., concurring in part) (cleaned up); see also id. at 569 (Stevens, J., concurring in part) (stating that the interest in protecting a “developed fetus” from “physical pain or mental anguish” is “valid”). Thus, multiple Justices that joined Roe agree that fetal pain and development are important considerations in measuring the State’s interests. If so, then States can enact measures to prevent developed unborn children from suffering the pain of being dismembered during an abortion. (20200720160750082_19-1392 Amicus Brief.pdf.)

This is all so much sophistry caused by a judicial system that can take no legal notice of the simple language of the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Sure, the existence of a preborn baby’s heartbeat or his ability to feel pain or his “viability” are all irrelevant to the objective truth that he enjoys inviolability because he has been conceived and endowed by God with a rational, immortal soul at the moment of his conception.

For her part, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Lynn Fitch, filed a brief on behalf of the Mississippi State Health Officer, Thomas E. Dobbs, that asked the Court specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. William Case, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, June 26, 1992:

However this Court answers the question presented, it should reject the judgment below. At least it should reject a viability rule and uphold the Act. But the best resolution is overruling Roe and Casey and upholding the Act under rational-basis review. Only that approach will eliminate the grave errors of Roe and Casey, restore workability, pare back decades of negative consequences, and allow the people to address this hard issue. (Brief of Thomas E. Dobbs, filed by Lynn Fitch, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, 20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf (

Again, as well-meaning as this brief is (yes, I have read its text), it suffers from two basic flaws: (1) that the states have any role to play in permitting or restricting surgical baby-killing; and (b) that the “people,” whether acting through their elected representatives or on their own by means of a referendum or other plebiscite, can “decide” to permit, restrict, or eliminate surgical baby-killing.

No, the “people” are not sovereign.

No, state legislatures are not sovereign.

The plain fact of the matter is that there would be a never-ending battle in state legislatures each legislative session in those states that have passed laws to restrict most, although not all, surgical executions of the innocent preborn if the Supreme Court of the United States of America overturns Roe v. Wade, and that there are others that have “trigger laws” to assure that baby-killing up and including the day of birth remain in force in such an event.

VII. Concluding Remarks

This is no way to establish a just social order, especially when one considers that millions of people alive today blaspheme the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if not outrightly mock Him, His Most Blessed Mother, and His Holy Catholic Church, she who is our mother (mater) and teacher (magistra).

Impurity, indecency and immodest abound in so-called “modern” “culture.” Sins that once were considered shameful (fornication, adultery) and/or shamefully perverse (sodomy and its related vices) are celebrated widely throughout the nooks and crannies of “popular culture” and have been enshrined in laws and judicial decisions that are considered to be beyond criticism lest one be tarred and feather with the stigma of being “hateful” and “intolerant.” Children are corrupted in their families by television and the obscene language of their parents, and they are further corrupted by the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that are nothing other than vulgar, profanity-laced enticements to sin, yes, even to the point of believing that one can change the gender that God has given him. This is all considered quite “normal” and “natural” when it is abnormal and unnatural, thus undermining the very fabric of social order as countless numbers of souls are deceived into living on the devil’s terms prior to being tortured by him and their demons eternally for having done so.

Innocent human beings are being attacked randomly on the streets of American cities, and many of the perpetrators are allowed to get out on bail immediately thereafter and some do not even get prosecuted by George Soros’s “woke” bought-and-paid for district attorneys in those cities, which are now havens of such lawlessness that I, for one, find it remarkable that even those who know better continue to want to live in such places.

Innocent human beings are being killed by means of “brain death” for the purposes of vital human organ vivisection and transplantation. They are being killed by means of starvation and dehydration, and they are being killed off in hospices under the aegis of “palliative” or “comfort care” by various custom-designed “cocktails” that kill human beings at a rate determined by the “team” of “professionals,” who are well-trained to use all manner of emotional manipulative to convince the unwilling to “let go” and to experience “death with dignity.”

None of this would change if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and physicians will continue to defy the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony by prescribing abortifacients that can be filled at CVS or Walgreen’s or Walmart or your neighborhood supermarket’s pharmacy.

While, of course, we do not remain inert in the face of the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means, we can never make compromises with truth of any kind, supernatural or natural. We must state the truth clearly, and then leave it to others to accept or reject it as we pray to Our Lady for their conversion and as we seek, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, to do penance for our own many sins of omission and commission that have played their own quite important role in worsening both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant here on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Christ the King alone is Sovereign, and the very law that innocent human life is inviolable is inscribed on the very flesh of our hearts by God, Who has engraved it on the stone tablets that he gave Moses atop Mount Sinai:

And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal.

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin. (Exodus 20: 6-20.)

Everything else other than basing human law upon God’s eternal laws is sophistry, and despite all the verbiage about “rationality” and “compelling state interest” in the arguments made by those seeking to find some way only to “restrict,” not eliminate, all surgical killing of babies, to say nothing of ending all chemical assassinations of children, no one is truly rational unless he considers the fact that God’s eternal laws are the only “compelling interest” one needs to consider when assuring the protection of all innocent human life from conception to death.

Fallen men will always sin and they will always make excuses to commit sin and to remain in states of sin.


However, we can avoid sin by cooperating with the graces that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has won for us by shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Although the hour is very late, so late in fact that we may never live to see the restoration of all things in Christ the King during our lifetimes, we must continue, despite our own sins and failings, to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to Him and his true Catholic Church, which is not and can never be the heresy riddled conciliar sect that is replete with a so-called “pope” and “bishops” who celebrate the sins du jour with as much ready abandon as do the lords of the world and those who itching ears they always stand so ready to tickle.

We must take heed as we consider that, although He takes His time, God is just. Indeed, the seers of apparitions, on which, much like Our Lady’s apparitions in Garabandal, Spain, in 1961, Holy Mother Church has not ruled, in Heede, Germany, between 1937 during the height of Adolph Hitler’s so-called “Third Reich” were warned by Our Lady and then her Divine Son about the chastisements that human beings deserved for their wretched sins.

This what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told the seers at Heede in 1945 after His Most Blessed Mother had appeared to them between 1937 and 1940:

“Men have note listened to My Most Holy Blessed Mother when she appeared to them at Fatima, to exhort everyone to penitence. Now I, Myself, am coming in this last hour to warn and admonish mankind! The times are very serious! Men should at last do penance for their sins, turn away from their sins and pray, pray much in order the wrath of God may be mitigated. Particularly the Holy Rosary should be prayed very often. The Rosary is very powerful with God. Worldly pleasures and amusements should be restricted.

Men do not listen to My voice. They harden their hearts; they resist My grace. They do not wish to have anything to do with My Mercy, My Love, My merits. Mankind is worse than before the deluge. Mankind is suffocating in sin. Hatred and greed rule their hearts. This the work of the devil. They live in great darkness. All this is the work of satan. The world sleeps in a dense darkness…. This generation deserves to be annihilated but I desire to show Myself as Merciful.

Through the wounds that bled, Mercy will again gain victory over justice. My faithful souls should not be so asleep now like the disciples on Mount Olivet. They should pray without ceasing and gain all they can for themselves and for others.

Tremendous things are in preparation; it will be terrible as never before since the foundation of the world. All those who in these grave times have suffered so much, are martyrs and form the seed for the renovation of the Church. There were privileged to participate in My captivity, in My scourging, in My crown of thorns, and My Way of the Cross.

The Blessed Virgin Mary and the choirs of angels will active during these events. Hell believe that it is sure of the harvest, but I will snatch it away from them. I will come with My peace. Many curse me now, but these sufferings will come over mankind that they may be saved through it … Many expiate all they can for those who curse me Me now …

With a few faithful I will build up my Kingdom. As a flash of lightning this Kingdom will come … much faster than mankind will realize. I will give them a special light. For some this light will be a blessing; for others darkness. The light will come like the Star that showed the way to the wise men. Mankind will experience My love an My power … My beloved, the hour comes closer. Pray without ceasing. (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

Lest the skeptic doubt whether it is worthwhile to reflect on the apparitions of Our Lady and her Divine Son at Heede, Germany, it is good to consider what has been written in their defense:

It has been falsely reported that the Vatican rejected or even condemned the apparitions of Heede. While there has been no formal judgment issued about the apparitions or message, the Bishop of Osnabrück received a favorable report from two priests he sent to investigate. It was only after wonderful cures occurred that the parish priests and other clergy supported the seers (forbidding a public dance announced for October 21, 1945, in response to their warnings). A new parish priest, appointed by the Bishop at the time the apparitions commenced, declared that there are “undeniable proofs of the seriousness and authenticity of these manifestations.” Pilgrimages and devotions in honor of Our Lady of Heede have always been freely permitted. The history of the apparitions and messages has appeared in numerous publications bearing the Imprimatur of various bishops. Great caution is required on the part of the faithful, however, because of the flood of allegations of apparitions and supernatural messages plaguing the world these days. These phony apparitions almost always contradict the true Catholic Faith in some way. But in the apparitions and messages of Heede we find nothing contrary to the Faith; indeed, their similarity to the approved apparitions of Fatima, Lourdes and La Salette give good. (See Our Lady of Heede.)

I think that the content of the message that the seers at Heede received from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is quite valid, and it is even more relevant to our times today that they were given between 1937 and 1945, especially since Our Lord Himself warned a seer, Greta Ganseforth, about a dance that was to take place at school in Heede:

There was an occasion when a school dance was being prepared which apparently was going to exceed Catholic norms for modesty and decency. At the request of Jesus, Greta sought to have the dance cancelled or at least modified so that it would not be a dangerous occasion of sin for the youth. Greta even appealed to the parents of the students to not go against the warning from Jesus, who stated:

If they proceed with that dance, all involved will have to answer to Me at their Judgment.” (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

“Rock for Life,” anyone?

I do not think so, and the danced schedule to take place in Heede, Germany, in 1945 was about eight years or so before the appearance of the diabolical disturbance of the soul called “rock and roll” and its various mutations, each of which come straight from hell.

The narrative proceeds:

The dance for October 21, 1945, was cancelled. Along with this event and a number of other miraculous healings, other priests and clergymen finally believed. (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

It had been three years previously that Bishop Hermann Wilhelm Berning, the Prefect of Schleswig -Holstein, “made the following remarks” during a sermon delivered on July 23, 1942:

“From Heede came a rich blessing. I could see that Marian devotion dramatically increased—that sacramental life, in particular, has flourished dramatically in this parish.” (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

I believe that the warning of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ should sober us up from believing that there is anything short of Catholicism that can retard the evils of these days, evils that are caused what are in the objective order of things the Actual Sins of Men, leaving subjective culpability for them to God, Who alone judges individual souls, in world that has been deprived of the true teaching offices of Holy Mother Church and is devoid of the superabundance of Actual Graces caused by the spiritual barrenness of the conciliar sect’s abominable liturgical rites.

Indeed, most Catholics have never even heard of, no less read, this beautiful and moving summary of Catholic truth found in Pope Leo XIII's Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that has been oft-quoted on this site:

We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Having made war against the Social Reign of Christ King by its embrace of "religious liberty" and "healthy secularity--and blasphemed Him by means of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service, the counterfeit church of conciliarism has actually fed into the social evils it seeks to oppose as it robs Catholics yet attached to its structures of the means by which they can see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and thus come to a recognition that we must be uncompromisingly Catholic in thought, word and speech at a times and in all circumstances without any exception whatsoever. The conciliarists have robbed Catholics of the ability to look that the following statement of Pope Saint Pius X and to recognize the truth contained therein:

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.. . .

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.)

It is essential that Catholics come to recognize that the remote cause of all problems, whether personal or social, is Original Sin and that the proximate cause for our social problems today is Modernity's warfare against the Incarnation and thus against the Social Reign of Christ the King, a warfare that has been aided and abetted by conciliarism's warfare against the necessity of restoring Christendom as the foundation, although never an absolute guarantor, of course, of personal and social order.

Each family should, however, find some time today to pray an extra set of mysteries of the Rosary if possible to pray in reparation for abortion, both chemical and surgical, and for the conversion of those of who have had, performed, participated in or been supportive of abortion in any way, shape or form, remembering also to pray for the day that the United States of America will become the Catholic States of America. God will never "bless" a land that is responsible for the shedding of so much innocent blood under cover of law, a land that has spread, in the name of "civil and religious liberty," mind you, Protestant "churches" and Masonic "lodges" in formerly Catholic countries, taking many souls out of the true Church in the process, a country that has spread fashions and "entertainment" fare that have been responsible for the poisoning of so many souls

While it is important to continue to be a peaceful, prayerful presence in front of the abortuaries as we pray our Rosaries alongside our fellow traditional Catholics (we cannot participate in Catholic "ecumenical" events where the false "luminous mysteries" are prayed) and to do the work of sidewalk counseling for those who are so called, it is necessary first and foremost to build up the Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in our own souls, seeking to making reparation for our own many sins, especially those, if any, against the virtues of Chastity and Modesty, as the precondition for helping to plant a few seeds for the restoration for His Social Reign over us and our nations.

In addition to our daily Rosaries and the acts of reparation we make to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, who better to turn do in our efforts to restore the Faith in this time of barbarism in the world and apostasy and betrayal on the part of the Modernists than to our beloved Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful:

O Blessed Saint Joseph, tenderhearted father, faithful guardian of Jesus, chaste spouse of the Mother of God, we pray and beseech thee to offer to God the Father, His divine Son, bathed in blood on the cross for sinners, and through the thrice-holy Name of Jesus, obtain for us from the eternal Father the favor we implore (mention your petitions):

Appease the Divine anger so justly inflamed by our crimes, beg of Jesus mercy for thy children. Amid the splendors of eternity, forget not the sorrows of those who suffer, those who pray, those who weep; stay the Almighty arm which smites us, that by thy prayers and those of thy most holy Spouse, the Heart of Jesus may be moved to pity and to pardon. Amen.

No, Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right" or the naturalism of "populism," whether inchoate or fully developed. The "people" are not sovereign. Christ the King is sovereign. Everything else is a lie and an illusion

The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over thirteen millions of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith.

 Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that? Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith?

Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times.

Will we let her?

Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

The following words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

What can be a better description of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic constitutional regime in the United States of America?  

May the Rosaries we pray this day help to make reparation for the crimes of the baby-killers as well as for those of whose continue to kill the life of the soul and thus made more possible the daily war against all innocent human life, whether in the womb by means of chemical and surgical baby-killing or by the killing off of anyone after birth under the aegis of "brain death" or in the name of "compassion" by means of "palliative care." 

We can plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

We had better take heed of the warnings issued in Heede, Germany, and to be ever read to see beyond the headlines and thus to at everything through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith.

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Holy Name of Mary, save 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.