A Mutual Alliance in Behalf of Spiritual and Physical Death: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and George Soros

Although the quotation below has been included in a number of articles on this site since its inception in 2004 (and was included in several articles of the printed pages of Christ or Chaos between 1996 and 2003), I believe that it is worth repeating excerpts from the late Bishop Clemens von Galen's condemnation of Nazi eugenics laws and eugenicists applies equally well today. That is, what passes for the norm in modern medicine has been defined by the likes of George Soros is the “quality of life,” not the proper care that should be given to a living human being (see Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry):

It is a deeply moving event that we read of in the Gospel for today. Jesus weeps! The Son of God weeps! A man who weeps is suffering pain either of the body or of the heart. Jesus did not suffer in the body; and yet he wept. How great must have been the sorrow of soul, the heartfelt pain of this most courageous of men to make him weep! Why did he weep? He wept for Jerusalem, for God's holy city that was so dear to him, the capital of his people. He wept for its inhabitants, his fellow-countrymen, because they refused to recognise the only thing that could avert the judgment foreseen by his omniscience and determined in advance by his divine justice: “If thou hadst known . . . the things which belong unto thy peace!" Why do the inhabitants of Jerusalem not know it? Not long before Jesus had given voice to it: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13,34).

Ye would not. I, your King, your God, I would. But ye would not! How safe, how sheltered is the chicken under the hen's wing: she warms it, she feeds it, she defends it. In the same way I desired to protect you, to keep you, to defend you against any ill. I would, but ye would not!

That is why Jesus weeps: that is why that strong man weeps; that is why God weeps. For the folly, the injustice, the crime of not being willing. And for the evil to which that gives rise which his omniscience sees coming. which his justice must impose if man sets his unwillingness against God's commands, in  opposition to the admonitions of conscience, and all the loving invitations of the divine Friend, the best of Fathers: “If thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But then wouldst not!.: It is something terrible, something incredibly wrong and fatal. when man sets his will against God's will. I would) than wouldst not! It is therefore that Jesus weeps for Jerusalem.

Dearly beloved Christians! The joint pastoral letter of the German bishops, which was read in all Catholic churches in Germany on 26 June 1941, includes the following words.

“It is true that in Catholic ethics there are certain positive commandments which cease to be obligatory if their observance would be attended by unduly great difficulties; but there are also sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us; which we must carry out even if it should cost us our life. Never, under any circumstances, may a man, save in war or in legitimate self-defence, kill an innocent person.”

I had occasion on 6th July to add the followings comments on this passage in the joint pastoral letter:

“For some months we have been heating reports that inmates of establishments for the care of the mentally ill who have been ill for a long period and perhaps appear incurable have been forcibly removed from these establishments on orders from Berlin. Regularly the relatives receive soon afterwards an intimation that the patient is dead, that the patient's body has been cremated and that they can collect the ashes. There is a general suspicion, verging on certainty. that these numerous unexpected deaths of the mentally ill do not occur naturally but are intentionally brought about in accordance with the doctrine that it is legitimate to destroy a so-called “worthless life,” in other words to kill innocent men and women, if it is thought that their lives are of no further value to the people and the state. A terrible doctrine which seeks to justify the murder of innocent people, which legitimises the violent killing of disabled persons who are no longer capable of work, of cripples, the incurably ill and the aged and infirm!”

I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Munster, in the course of this week.

German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death”. No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the patient had in fact been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr Conti, no secret is made of the fact that indeed a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue.

Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the life of any person . . . and fails to inform the authorities or the person whose life is threatened in due time . . . commits a punishable offence”. When I learned of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of Munster Provincial Court and to the Munster chief of police by registered letter, in the following terms:

“According to information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital at Marienthal, classified as ‘unproductive members of the national community’, to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken".

I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police.

I had already written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect. The first transport of the innocent victims under sentence of death has left Marienthal. And I am now told that 800 patients have already been removed from the hospital at Warstein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will give you an example of what is happening. One of the patients in Marienthal was a man of 55, a farmer from a country parish in the Munster region I could give you his name who has suffered for some years from mental disturbance and was therefore admitted to Marienthal hospital. He was not mentally ill in the full sense: he could receive visits and was always happy, when his relatives came to see him. Only a fortnight ago he was visited by his wife and one of his sons, a soldier on home leave from the front. The son is much attached to his father, and the parting was a sad one: no one can tell, whether the soldier will return and see his father again, since he may fall in battle for his country. The son, the soldier, will certainly never again see his father on earth, for he has since then been put on the list of the “unproductive”. A relative, who wanted to visit the father this week in Marienthal, was turned away with the information that the patient had been transferred elsewhere on the instructions of the Council of State for National Defence. No information could be given about where he had been sent, but the relatives would be informed within a few days. What information will they be given? The same as in other cases of the kind? That the man has died, that his body has been cremated, that the ashes will be handed over on payment of a fee? Then the soldier, risking his life in the field for his fellow-countrymen, will not see his father again on earth, because fellow-countrymen at home have killed him.

The facts I have stated are firmly established. I can give the names of the patient, his wife and his son the soldier, and the place where they live.

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

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

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

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

The eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not lie.” How often is it shamelessly and publicly broken!

The seventh commandment: “Thou shalt not steal”. Whose possessions are now secure since the arbitrary and ruthless confiscation of the property of our brothers and sisters, members of Catholic orders? Whose property is protected, if this illegally confiscated property is not returned?

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

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

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

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

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

When Jesus came near to Jerusalem and beheld the city he wept over it, saying: “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies . . . shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” Looking with his bodily eyes, Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem, but the divine omniscience looked deeper and saw how matters stood within the city and its inhabitants:       “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings ” and ye would not!" That is the great sorrow that oppresses Jesus's heart, that brings tears to his eyes.   I wanted to act for your good, but ye would not!

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

Christians of Munster! Did the Son of God in his omniscience in that day see only Jerusalem and its people? Did he weep only over Jerusalem? Is the people of Israel the only people whom God has encompassed and protected with a father's care and mother's love, has drawn to Himself? Is it the only people that wou1d not ? The only one that rejected God's truth, that threw off God's law and so condemned itself to ruin?

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

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

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

That in prayer and sincere penitence we should beg that God's forgiveness and mercy may descend upon us, upon our city, our country and our beloved German people.

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

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

O most Sacred Heart of Jesus, grieved to tears at the blindness and iniquities of men, help us through Thy grace, that we may always strive after that which is pleasing to Thee and renounce that which displeases Thee, that we may remain in Thy love and find peace for our souls!

Amen. (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

Anyone who does not think that the situation in Nazi Germany that was described so clearly and condemned so forcefully by the late Bishop Clemens von Galens i 1941 obtains in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world at the present time is spiritually blind. We are living through the precise situation now as that described and condemned by Bishop Clemens von Galens.

Please do yourself a favor and re-read the late bishop's remarks again.

Bishop von Galens's remarks resonate with Catholic truth and serve as prophetic warnings to us not to trust in the diagnoses and judgments of doctors who have accustomed themselves to lying and killing, something that is especially the case as a result of everyone in the medical industry having to undergo “training” in the ethos of “palliative care.” Patients are evaluated now on a cost-benefit basis that dehumanizes them and permits medical “professionals” to start the processes, tailored to the “needs” of each person and carried out by conditioning patients and their families to accept the “inevitable,” of expediting their deaths in the name of “mercy” and “compassion.”

Bishop von Galens's sermon from the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost in 1941 also discussed the cogent point that it is easier for men to break the Fourth through Tenth Commandments under cover of law when they have violated the First through Third Commandments. Consider this passage once again:

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

Although admitting, as noted above, that the proximate causes for the astounding advances in evil that we have seen before our very eyes in the past fifty years is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century and the contempt that this has bred for His Deposit of Faith and the authority of His true Church, it is nevertheless also true that the astounding advances in evil that we have seen before our very eyes in the past fifty years have resulted at least in part as the result of a chastisement that God is permitting us to endure as a punishment for our failure to seek to restore all things in Him. How can we stop the advance of evil on the devil's own terms of naturalism, no less think and speak naturalistically about the state of disabled, dependent human beings?

Moreover, the heretic who has been the instrument of effecting a carnage to souls in the past sixty months, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has given his own personal stamp of approval to George Soros’s agenda to use “palliative care” as a means of providing those suffering from illnesses or a variety of “conditions,” including clinical depression and debilitating diseases of the bones and joints, a “pathway” to a “compassionate” end of their lives. The Argentine Apostate made this clear in an address he delivered on November 16, 2017, to the representatives of the World Medical Association (WMA) and the members of the so-called “Pontifical Academy for Life,” which he, Bergoglio, has staffed with confederates of George Soros’s funding of “palliative care” and at least who supports the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in the womb.

Before proceeding with an examination of a part of Bergoglio’s remarks, perhaps it is very relevant to ask the following question: Why was anyone associated with the World Medical Association permitted to co-sponsor a conference on “end of life” issues held in conjunction with the “Pontifical Academy for Life”?

You see, the World Medical Association has been on record with a resolution passed first in 1970, amended in 1983 and 1986, as respecting the “convictions” of doctors and patients who support baby-killing in those countries where “therapeutic abortion” was permitted under cover of the civil law:

  1. The WMA requires the physician to maintain respect for human life.
  2. Circumstances bringing the interests of a mother into conflict with the interests of her unborn child create a dilemma and raise the question as to whether or not the pregnancy should be deliberately terminated.
  3. Diversity of responses to such situations is due in part to the diversity of attitudes towards the life of the unborn child. This is a matter of individual conviction and conscience that must be respected.
  4. It is not the role of the medical profession to determine the attitudes and rules of any particular state or community in this matter, but it is our duty to attempt both to ensure the protection of our patients and to safeguard the rights of the physician within society.
  5. Therefore, where the law allows therapeutic abortion to be performed, the procedure should be performed by a physician competent to do so in premises approved by the appropriate authority.
  6. If the physician’s convictions do not allow him or her to advise or perform an abortion, he or she may withdraw while ensuring the continuity of medical care by a qualified colleague. (World Medical Association Declaation on "Therapeutic Abortion.)

A bit of time will be spent on these sophisms.

First, there is never any dilemma when a woman discovers that is carrying a child. There is no “decision” to be made, There is only love to give to the fruit of her womb, no matter the condition of the child or whether he is considered to be a “burden.”

Second, an expectant mother can never be in “conflict” with her child, who belongs in her womb by virtue of the power that God Himself has given to his rational creatures to continue the human species.

Third, the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law can never be repealed. Even the pagan Cicero, who was killed about sixty years before the birth of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, understood this was so:

True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. And he who does not obey it flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. And by so doing he will endure the severest penalties even if he avoid the other evils which are usually accounted punishments. (Cicero, The Republic.)

Cicero had it almost entirely correct. Almost. He was wrong in asserting that the natural law does not need any "other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience." He lived before the Incarnation and before the founding of the true Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Cicero thus did not know that man does need an interpreter and expositor of the natural law, namely, the Catholic Church. Apart from this, however, Cicero understood that God's law does not admit of abrogations by a vote of the people or of a "representative" body, such as the Roman Senate in his day or the United States Congress or state legislatures, et al. in our own day.

Pope Pius XI explained in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, the Natural Law is authoritatively explicated by Holy Mother Church even though it can be known by human reason and is thus not, unlike the Divine Positive Law, her exclusive possession:

The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. She has never maintained that outside her fold and apart from her teaching, man cannot arrive at any moral truth; she has on the contrary more than once condemned this opinion because it has appeared under more forms than one. She does however say, has said, and will ever say, that because of her institution by Jesus Christ, because of the Holy Ghost sent her in His name by the Father, she alone possesses what she has had immediately from God and can never lose, the whole of moral truth, omnem veritatem, in which all individual moral truths are included, as well those which man may learn by the help of reason, as those which form part of revelation or which may be deduced from it  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

The leaders and the membership of the World Medical Association do not care about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as it is part of a global effort to impose their embrace of the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings upon all nations, thereby ignoring not only the Sovereignty of God over men and their nations and the sovereignty of those nations whose civil leaders seek to obey Him, not them.

Consider the “emergency resolution” passed by the WMA in October of 2009 to condemn the criminalization of surgical killing of innocent preborn children in the country of Nicaagua:

Legislative changes in Nicaragua (Articles 143, 145, 148 and 149 Law No. 641, revised Penal Code) criminalise abortion in all circumstances; including any medical treatment of a pregnant woman which results in the death of or injury to an embryo or fetus; and This legislation may have a negative impact on the health of women in Nicaragua country.

This legislation

  • may have a negative impact on the health of women in Nicaragua country.
  • could result in preventable deaths of women and the embryo or fetus they are carrying.
  • places physicians at risk of imprisonment if they break this law, and at risk of suspension from medical practice if they fail to follow the Nicaraguan Ministry of Health’s 2006 Obstetric Protocols, which sometimes requires treatment of a pregnant woman that is contrary to the legislation.

THEREFORE, the World Medical Association urges the Nicaraguan government to repeal the above legislation. (World Medical Association "Emergency Resolution" on legislation against abortion in Nicaragua.)

Remember, nothing is ever “settled” for the Judeo-Masonic agents of Antichrist that have been let loose in the world as a result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King unless it is “settled” on their terms without any dissent. These agents of Antichrist are absolutely relentless in their campaigns to advance one moral evil after another and they are equally relentless in their efforts to silence and stigmatize anyone and everyone who opposes what they believe to be “enlightened” healthcare policies.

It should come as no surprise that those who are trained to kill innocent babies in their mothers’ wombs and to accept this as a necessary part of “women’s health care” should seek to declare living humans “brain dead” and/or to be participants in expediting their deaths by means of a variety of “cocktails,” most using some combination of Ativan, Haldol and morphine, via intravenous, IM or patch-on-skin means in the name of “palliative care,” whether provided at home, in a hospice, in a nursing home or a hospital. Medical “professionals” today resolve any “doubt” in favor of death, not life as Pope Pius XII demanded.

Healthcare professionals encounter many aspects of human diversity when providing care, including different variations of human sexuality.

A large body of scientific research indicates that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality without any intrinsically harmful health effects.

As a consequence homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s official diagnostic manual in 1973. The World Health Organisation (WHO) removed it from the ICD in 1990 following a similar process of scientific review. The Pan American Health Organization (WHO) states: “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”

Direct and indirect discrimination, stigmatisation, peer rejection, and bullying continue to have a serious impact upon the psychological and physical health of people with a homosexual or bisexual orientation. These negative experiences lead to higher prevalence rates of depression, anxiety disorders, substance misuse, and suicidal ideations and attempts. The suicide rate among adolescents and young adults with a homosexual or bisexual orientation is, consequently, three times higher than that of their peers.

This can be exacerbated by so-called “conversion” or “reparative” procedures, which claim to be able to convert homosexuality into asexual or heterosexual behaviour and give the impression that homosexuality is a disease. These methods have been rejected by many professional organisations due to a lack of evidence of their effectiveness. They have no medical indication and represent a serious threat to the health and human rights of those so treated.


The WMA strongly asserts that homosexuality does not represent a disease, but rather a natural variation within the range of human sexuality.

The WMA condemns all forms of stigmatisation, criminalisation and discrimination of people based on their sexual orientation.

The WMA calls upon all physicians to classify physical and psychological diseases on the basis of clinically relevant symptoms according to ICD-10 criteria regardless of sexual orientation, and to provide therapy in accordance with internationally recognised treatments and protocols.

The WMA asserts that psychiatric or psychotherapeutic approaches to treatment must not focus upon homosexuality itself, but rather upon conflicts, which arise between homosexuality, and religious, social and internalised norms and prejudices.

The WMA condemns so-called “conversion” or “reparative” methods. These constitute violations of human rights and are unjustifiable practices that should be denounced and subject to sanctions and penalties. It is unethical for physicians to participate during any step of such procedures. (World Medical Association Statement on Human Deviance.)

In other words, religious beliefs that condemn perverse, unnatural acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are the problem, not the choice that people make to commit sins opposed to nature that are deadly to their souls and also to the health of their minds and bodies.

The aforementioned Dr. Joseph Nicolosi dispelled the homosexualist ideology, enshrined, of course, in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s misnamed Catechism of the Catholic Church, that the tendency to commit the sin of Sodom is acquired, not innate:

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” (Born That Way?)

Well, perhaps Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “Pontifical” Academy for Life, which he has filled with men and women who support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn, the entirety of the homosexualist agenda, draconian efforts to curb “man-made global warming” and to protect the lower species in the name of protecting “creation” and the extermination of the unwanted at any time in life under the guise of “palliative care,” invited the World Medical Association because of the statements it has issue, not in spite of them. This certainly appears to be the case, especially when one considers the very firm statement in support of “palliative care” that the World Medical Association has made, including the following one issued in October of 2011:

All people have the right to high-quality, scientifically-based, and humane healthcare. Therefore, receiving appropriate end-of-life medical care must not be considered a privilege but a true right, independent of age or any other associated factors. The WMA reaffirms the principles articulated in the WMA Declaration on Terminal illness and the WMA Declaration on Euthanasia. These Declarations support and complement the Declaration on End of Life Medical Care.

Palliative care at the end of life is part of good medical care. The need for access to improved quality palliative care is great, especially in resource-poor countries. The objective of palliative care is to achieve the best possible quality of life through appropriate palliation of pain and other distressing physical symptoms, and attention to the social, psychological and spiritual needs of the patient.

Palliative care may be provided at home as well as in various levels of health care institutions.

The physician must adopt an attitude to suffering that is compassionate and humane, and act with empathy, respect and tact. Abandonment of the patient when he or she needs such care is unacceptable medical practice.


1.  Pain and symptom management

1.1  It is essential to identify patients approaching the end of life as early as possible so that the physician can perform a detailed assessment of their needs.  A care plan for the patient must always be developed; whenever possible, this care plan will be developed in direct consultation with the patient.

For some this process may begin months or a year before death is anticipated. It includes recognising and addressing the likelihood of pain and other distressing symptoms and providing for patients’ social, psychological and spiritual needs in the time remaining to them. The primary aim is to maintain patients’ dignity and their freedom from distressing symptoms. Care plans pay attention to keeping them as comfortable and in control as possible and recognise the importance of supporting the family and treating the body with respect after death.

1.2  Important advances in the relief of pain and other distressing symptoms have been made. The appropriate use of morphine, new analgesics, and other measures can suppress or relieve pain and other distressing symptoms in the majority of cases. The appropriate health authorities must make necessary medications accessible and available to physicians and their patients. Physician groups should develop guidelines on their appropriate use, including dose escalation and the possibility of unintended secondary effects.

1.3  In a very limited number of cases, generally in the very advanced stages of a physical illness, some symptoms may arise that are refractory to standard therapy. In such cases, palliative sedation to unconsciousness may be offered when life expectancy is a few days, as an extraordinary measure in response to suffering which the patient and clinician agree is intolerable. Palliative sedation must never be used to intentionally cause a patient’s death or without the agreement of a patient who remains mentally competent. The degree and timing of palliative sedation must be proportionate to the situation. The dosage must be carefully calculated to relieve symptoms but should still be the lowest possible to achieve a benefit.

2.  Communication and consent; ethics and values

2.1  Information and communication among the patient, their family and members of the health care team is one of the fundamental pillars of quality care at the end of life. The patient should be encouraged to express his or her preferences regarding care, and his or her emotions and existential angst must be taken into consideration.

2.2  Ethically-appropriate care at the end of life should routinely promote patient autonomy and shared decision-making, and be respectful of the values of the patient and his or her family.

2.3  Physicians should directly discuss a patient’s preferences with the patient and/or the patient’s substitute health care decision maker, as appropriate. These discussions should be initiated early and routinely offered to all patients and should be revisited regularly to explore any changes patients may have in their wishes, especially as their clinical conditions change. Physicians should encourage their patients to formally document their goals, values and treatment preferences and to appoint a substitute health care decision maker with whom the patient can discuss in advance his or her values regarding health care and treatment. Patients who are in denial about the implications of their condition may not want to engage in such discussion at some stages of their illness, but should know that they can change their minds. Because documented advance directives are often not available in emergency situations, physicians should emphasize to patients the importance of discussing treatment preferences with individuals who are likely to act as substitute health care decision makers.

2.4  If a patient is capable of giving consent, care should be based on the patient’s wishes as long as preferences can be justified medically, ethically and legally. Consent needs to be based on sufficient information and dialogue, and it is the physician’s obligation to make sure that the patient is adequately treated for pain and discomfort before consent is obtained in order to assure that unnecessary physical and mental suffering do not interfere with the decision-making process.

2.5  The patient’s next-of-kin or family should be informed and involved in the decision-making process, provided the patient is not opposed to this. If the patient is unable to express consent and an advance directive is not available, the views of the health care substitute decision maker, appointed by the patient on care and treatment, must be considered.

3.  Medical records and medico-legal aspects

3.1  Physicians caring for a patient in the final stages of life must carefully document treatment decisions and the reasons for choosing particular procedures, including the patient’s and family’s wishes and consent, in the progress notes of the medical records. An adequate medical record is of the utmost importance for continuity and quality of medical care in general and palliative care in particular.

3.2  The physician must also take into account that these notes may serve a medico-legal purpose, e.g., in determining the patient’s decision-making capacity.

4.  Family members

It is necessary to acknowledge the importance of the family and the emotional environment of the patient. The needs of the family and other close caregivers throughout the course of the illness must be recognized and attended to. The heath care team should promote collaboration in the care of the patient and provide bereavement support, when required, after the patient’s death. Children’s and families’ needs may require special attention and competence, both when children are patients and dependents.

5.  Teamwork

Palliative care is usually provided by multiprofessional and interdisciplinary teams of healthcare and non-healthcare professions. The physician must be the leader of the team, being responsible, amongst other obligations, for diagnosis and medical treatment.  Continuity of care is very important. The team should do all it can to facilitate a patient’s wish to die at home, if applicable and possible.

6.            Physician training

The increasing number of people who require palliative care and the increased availability of effective treatment options mean that end-of-life care issues should be an important part of undergraduate and postgraduate medical training.

7.            Research and education

More research is needed to improve palliative care.  This includes, but is not limited to, general medical care, specific treatments, psychological implications and organization.  The WMA will support efforts to better educate physicians in the skills necessary to increase the prevalence and quality of meaningful advance care planning.


The care that a people give to dying patients, within available resources, is an indication of their degree of civilisation. As physicians representing the best humanitarian tradition, we should always commit ourselves to delivering the best possible end-of-life care.

The WMA recommends that all National Medical Associations develop a national policy on palliative care and palliative sedation based on the recommendations in this declaration. (World Medical Association Declaration on End-of-Life Medical Care.)

Those who remember “Chronicling the Adversary’s Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry” might recall that the “teamwork” mentioned in the WMA guidelines involves a joint effort on the part of those attending to a patient whose “quality of life” (emotional, medical, financial) is deemed to be such as to warrant an effort to convince him and his relatives to agree to a treatment of regime that will “ease” his pain by accustoming his body to increasingly higher doses of drugs that wind up rendering him unable to resist plans to transfer plans to move him to “hospice care” when the “time is right.” In plain English, of course, this is murder, and it takes place in almost every single hospital around the world, including those in the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Chaplains who are part of the “team” have the responsibility to condition the patient and his relatives to accept death and to make them feel “comfortable” about the treatment program that they have agreed to in consultation with the “healthcare professionals.”

It should be eminently clear that to anyone who has followed the words and actions of the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is personally committed to almost the entirety of the World Medical Association’s agenda, which coincides perfectly with that of the nefarious atheistic George Soros’s own healthcare agenda because Soros’s confederates have helped to shape it. This is why a few of those with ties to Soros and/or his organization have been appointed to “papal” councils. One cannot help but conclude that the address that “Pope Francis” gave on “end-of-life” issues on November 16, 2017, was drafted by those who are either confederates of the non-practicing Hungarian-born Soros or have been influenced by “educational” programs his people have devised in conjunction with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Regardless who drafted the “papal” address given four months ago now, the fact remains that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave anti-life forces a great boost when he endorsed the concept of “palliative care,” which is nothing other than a systematic effort to convince a patient and his relatives to be co-conspirators in his own execution in the name of “advanced” and “compassionate” healthcare. The Argentine Apostate is a willing, enthusiastic stooge of George Soros and all other globalists who are doing their part to complete the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King with the coronation of Antichrist’s system of One World Governance to which the One World Ecumenical Religion will be completely subordinate.

The salient part of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s November 16, 2017, gave a ringing endorsement to “palliative care,” thus negating and vitiating his rejection of “doctor assisted suicide” as palliative care is doctor performed homicide:

In the complexity resulting from the influence of these various factors on clinical practice, but also on medical culture in general, the supreme commandment of responsible closeness, must be kept uppermost in mind, as we see clearly from the Gospel story of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:25-37). It could be said that the categorical imperative is to never abandon the sick. The anguish associated with conditions that bring us to the threshold of human mortality, and the difficulty of the decision we have to make, may tempt us to step back from the patient. Yet this is where, more than anything else, we are called to show love and closeness, recognizing the limit that we all share and showing our solidarity. Let each of us give love in his or her own way—as a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother or sister, a doctor or a nurse. But give it! And even if we know that we cannot always guarantee healing or a cure, we can and must always care for the living, without ourselves shortening their life, but also without futilely resisting their death. This approach is reflected in palliative care, which is proving most important in our culture, as it opposes what makes death most terrifying and unwelcome—pain and loneliness. (Bergoglio Address to Soros Confederates.)

Interjection Number One:

This is a lie on several accounts.

First, “palliative care” does indeed shorten life because it is aimed to specifically to end the life of a human being whose “quality of life,” defined by those who assess his psychological stability, financial security, emotional “support system,” and the overall condition of physical health even if he is suffering only from a chronic illness and is not terminally ill. “Palliative care” provides a custom-designed “plan” that is proposed by the healthcare “team” in a supposedly “collaborative” consultation with patient, if he is able to speak or communicate for himself, and/or his designated healthcare “decision-makers. It is murder. Plain and simple.

Let me refresh your memories on this very important point by using material from “Chronicling the Adversary’s Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry:

The Big Enchilada

All roads lead to palliative care. The “third path” is totally committed to “upstreaming” or changing the American healthcare system so that palliative care is integrated with traditional care early onSee the table contrasting the present “old model” of end of life are with their expanded model. The traditional (old) view of palliative care was associated with volunteer hospice care for cancer patients. The current (new) view of palliative care is not only for cancer patients. See the diagram of Traditional and Current Views of Palliative Care. This diagram shows that the new view is to introduce palliative care at the time of diagnosis, and then increased the PROPORTION of symptom management “palliative” treatments to traditional “curative” treatments to the point of death. Note that palliative care includes a period of managed grief.

Eight Palliative Care Training Centers (PCLCs) are by Dr. Diane Meier’s Center to Advance Palliative Care. They are training people who work in all healthcare settings—hospitals, rehabilitation centers, nursing homes, assisted living centers, outpatient clinics, volunteer respite caregivers, volunteers at healthcare community centers,  . . . The lists goes on.

2001 to 2004, the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care, with the collaboration of four major care organizations and Partnership for Caring, develops an issues the National Consensus Project Guidelines.

In 2006, hospice and palliative medicine became an official medical subspeciality.

In 2007, the National Quality Forum established its National Framework and Preferred Practices for Palliative Care and Hospice Care. There are 38 Preferred Practices with 8 Domains. Here is one example:

Preferred Practice 22: Specialized palliative care and hospice care teams should include spiritual care professionals appropriately trained and certified in palliative care.

Put another way, they are educating your priests, ministers and rabbis. The Florida Clergy Ending-of-Life Education Enhancement Project is a model to educate the clergy about accepting hastened death.

For only four years—2008-2012—no palliative care fellowship is required for anyone to sit for the certification exam to become board certified.

Staring in 2013, only fellowship-trained palliative professionals are allowed to sit for the certification program. It is very significant that you can no longer be grandfathered in without official fellowship training!

In summary, they created the standards, got the specialty officially recognized, and now require that you complete one of their fellowships before you can even sit for the board exam—all in 12 years! (Institutionalizing Death by Palliative Care.)

In other words, utilitarianism is now “hard wired,” if you will, into the very fabric of the American healthcare industry. The Hippocratic Oath’s injunction to do no harm” has been replaced by an effort to carefully prepare an unsuspecting human being to accept a course of “treatment” that will conclude with his death. Such a course of “treatment,” of course, is offered by a “compassionate” “inter-disciplinary team” of “professionals” in white coats while clergymen of one sort or another assure them that “everything” is being done for them:

The palliative care team helps develop relationships. It is designed to promote and then help implement advance care planning. The team communicates risks and benefits of various "treatments" with an emphasis on “realistic” expectations, discusses the patient’s concerns—all with the objective of helping the patient develop goals of care. The underlying problem is that they emphasize supportive rather than “real” medical services, and they base their analysis on a quality of life index. The palliative care team will insert itself into the family dynamic and try to bring consensus that it is time to “let go”!

Under the direction of Dr. Diane Meier CAPC has become a well-oiled training and marketing machine. Among its projects was to develop a list of triggers for recommending palliative care consultation in the presence of a serious or chronic illness. This is an all-encompassing list that considers not only the medical state of the patient but the dynamic between the patient and the physician and also the family relationships. Several of those triggers indicate clearly how the new palliative care does not wait to enter at the end of life like it used to! The universe of hospitals and other care facilities presently under the influence of this new palliative care where a patient care team can be found, and the list of triggers for adult and pediatric patients to be referred for a palliative care consult is available at www.getpalliativecare.org. Practically everyone and their cousin will qualify. Here are a few examples of the triggers:

Declining ability to complete activities of daily living

Weight loss

Multiple hospitalizations

Difficult to control physical or emotional symptoms related to serious medical illness

Patient, family or physician uncertainty regarding prognosis

Patient, family or physician uncertainty regarding goals of care

Patient or family requests for futile care

DNR order conflicts

Use of tube feeding in cognitively impaired or seriously ill patients

Limited social support and a serious illness (e.g., homeless, chronic mental illness

Patient, family or physician request for information regarding hospice appropriateness

Patient or family psychological or spiritual distress

These triggers will introduce the palliative care process into patient populations which may be declining but are not dying. Note especially that those with limited social support and/or declining abilities are identified as ripe for palliative care. (Institutionalizing Death by Palliative Care.)

These are facts. To ignore these facts is to make oneself and one’s relatives vulnerable to a highly-sophisticated program of mental and emotional manipulation whereby one becomes conditioned to accepting the word of the “experts” as to what is in their best interests. Patients and their relatives are expected to sign on the dotted line upon the “recommendation” of the “professionals,” whose word must be taken at face value because the legal forms put in front of patients contain all manner of code words that enable them to be killed.

There is nothing “compassionate” about “palliative care,” which, as noted just above, is to be introduced in the very first stages of a patient’s medical care even if he is just going in for an annual check-up. Physicians and their “nurse practitioners” are now trained to ask certain questions, especially of the elderly—a category that includes me, of course, about whether they feel “safe” at home and whether they seem to be cognizant of their surroundings and can understand the questions that are asked of them.

I know.

I was asked these exact questions at a hospital emergency room on Friday, October 13, 2017, the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine and the hundredth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun during Our Lady’s final apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, when I was having chest pains, and was asked those same questions again before a scheduled colonoscopy on Monday, November 27, 2017, the Feast of the Miraculous Medal of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that did not take place because the potassium in my blood had been washed out during the course of preparing for the procedure. It was quite an education to see this deathcare system up close and personal as I knew exactly what they were doing.

It is, you see, this exact—and I mean exact—system of imposed death that takes place under the guise of “palliative care” that Jorge Mario Bergoglio endorsed four months ago even though he said that it was important for medical care neither to shorten life nor to “resist death futilely.”

Moreover, the medical industry is, noting a few exceptions here and there as there are good physicians and other healthcare professionals who are truly dedicated to curing sick patients rather than killing them off, the complete captive of the pharmaceutical industry, many of whose pills and potions are designed of their very nature to mask symptoms of medical problems. Some of these pills and potions, particularly pain-killers, have been proven to cause long-term medical problems, especially for the kidneys and the liver, thus requiring other drugs to be prescribed that have long-term side-effects of their own. Some of the pharmaceutical industry’s pills and potions kill people, and some kill people regularly.

Leaving aside the deaths caused by chemical abortifacients that are part of a worldwide genocide against the innocent preborn, many of the pharmaceutical industry’s pills and potions kill a certain percentage of people use them. The manufacturers know this, which is why liability payments to compensate survivors are structured into their annual budgets. In other words, the pharmaceutical industry knows that certain drugs can result in death while using those who are taking them as living human “guinea pigs” whose lives can be sacrificed in the time of “learning” more about how those drugs work.

The medical industry is now accustomed to introducing foreign bodies into human beings at birth and to subjecting people to a lifelong dependency upon vaccinations, some of which are filled with matter taken form aborted babies, and antibiotics that destroy our God-given immune system and cause all manner of systemic problems in the body over the course of time.

Mind you, I am not condemning conventional medicine en toto nor am I suggesting that it is wrong to use various prescription drugs that have proven to be effective and have been prescribed by a physician who practices under legitimate medical principles that are consonant with the binding principles of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. I rely heavily upon the advice of a fully Catholic physician in addition to that which I seek from time to time from Dr. Byrne, who is willing to provide advice to anyone who desire to contact him about medical treatment issues.

However, I can tell you even from my own experience as one who has been using diuretics to treat hypertension for forty years now, there are side-effects to pharmaceuticals. I am convinced Atenolol, which was prescribed for me by a cardiologist on Long Island in 1997, caused me to develop the irregular heartbeat (sinus rhythm block and accompanying "electrical" issues) that was diagnosed five months ago and that Hydroclorothiazide (and Metahydrin before it) caused both hypoantemia (low level of sodium in blood) and hypokalemia (lower level of potassium in the bloodstream).

Once again, though, it is important to remember that God has given us various non-pharmaceutical means to treat various illness and conditions, which is why I urge readers of this site to purchase and to read the late Maria Treben’s Health Through God's Pharmacy.

The second lie contained in “Pope Francis’s” endorsement of “palliative care” is that it is important for patients to secure help to deal with the “pain and loneliness” of death.

Catholics do not need the “help” of “palliative care” experts to deal with the reality of death as it is part of their sensus Catholicus to accept the sort of death that God the Father has prepared for them from all eternity to undergo as a punishment for sins, including their own, with all of its pains and sufferings and whenever and wherever it is to occur. It is with confidence, but never the sin of Presumption, that Catholics trust in the loving intercession and protection of Our Lady, she who is both our Queen of Mercy and our Mother of Perpetual Help, and Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Dying, the archangels, their own Guardian Angels and Patron Saints as they approach the moment of death. We are meant to be preparing for death throughout our lives, mindful of the rich treasury of prayers that Holy Mother Church provides in The Raccolta to do so and the fact that the faithful, meditative praying of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, which Saint Louis Grignion de Montfort reminds us is a sign of eternal predestination.

Death will bring pain and separation, but Catholics are supposed to accept pain and suffering as the means to sanctify and save their immortal souls as they remain completely confident that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He who is both our Divine Judge and our merciful Divine Redeemer, will provide us with the all the graces through the loving hands of His Blessed Mother’s loving hands as the Mediatrix of Graces that are necessary to use our pain and even the moment of death itself for His greater honor and glory and for our own sanctification.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not accept any of this as he is a Judeo-Masonic naturalist. Pain and suffering are to be fled or anesthetized, he believes, which is why “palliative care” is so attractive to him. In other words, he flees from the Cross of the Divine Redeemer to prefer the comforts of earthly analgesics that wind up making one a participant in his own execution over the course of time. Soros and his well-paid network of “professionals” have provided the naturalist from Argentina the perfect means to provide “relief” for those suffering from various physical and/or mental afflictions, which is why Bergoglio is more than happy to have provided his complete endorsement of “palliative care.”

The short of the matter is this: Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in the necessity nor the efficacy of redemptive suffering, which is nothing other than a manifest rejection of the following clear command of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[38] And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. [39] He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. (Matthew 10: 38-39.)

It should be remembered in this regard that the hideous demon of a human being from Argentina his hideous heretic and apostate could not even provide an answer to an orphaned twelve-year old girl in The Philippines why God had permitted her parents to be killed by Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) on November 8, 2013:

Tearfully recounting a young life as yet spent forced to forage for food from garbage and to sleep outside on cardboard mats, 12-year-old Glyzelle Palomar had a simple but profound question for Pope Francis.

"Why did God let this happen to us?" the young Filipino asked, covering her face with her hands as she sobbed.

Speaking on a stage in front of some 30,000 young people as part of a meeting between Francis and Filipino youth Sunday, Palomar's intense query visibly affected the pontiff.

Putting aside a text he had prepared for the occasion in order to respond directly to the young woman, Francis answered her with a 40-minute reflection on the nature of suffering, love, and service.

"The nucleus of your question almost doesn't have a reply," the pontiff said at first, pain clearly etched on his face as he mentioned that he had seen her tears.  (Jorge Struggles To Anwer Crying Girl's Question About Sufferings.)

Bergoglio’s answer was entirely understandable once one realize that he has no understanding of the Holy Cross when the supposed “pope,” who is the product of a Marxist worldview that seeks  “happiness,” “equality” and “social justice” in this mortal vale of tears by the use of statist schemes of confiscatory taxation as they enable, empower and embolden hardened sinners in their lives of moral reprobation. Bergoglio is indeed quite a tag team member of George Soros’s.

Mind you, the approach of death should be treated with the utmost sobriety as it is only at the Particular Judgment that we will truly see ourselves as God sees us and ratifies the eternal decree that is based on whether we die in a state of Sanctifying Grace with a true love of Him and perfect contrition for our sins as members of the Catholic Church, the only means given to men for their sanctification and salvation.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori explained the moment of the Particular Judgment as follows:

BELOVED Christians, of all the goods of nature, of fortune, and of grace, which we have received from God, we are not the masters, neither can we dispose of them as we please; we are but the administrators of them; and therefore we should employ them according to the will of God, who is our Lord. Hence, at the hour of death, we must render a strict account of them to Jesus Christ, our Judge. ”For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body as he hath done, whether it be good or evil." (2 Cor. v. 10.) This is the precise meaning of that”give an account of thy stewardship," in the gospel of this day. ”You are not," says St. Bonaventure, in his comment on these words, ”a master, but a steward over the things committed to you; and therefore you are to render an account of them." I will place before your eyes Today the rigour of this judgment, which shall be passed on each of us on the last day of our life. Let us consider the terror of the soul, first, when we shall be presented to the Judge; secondly, when she shall be examined; and thirdly, when she shall be condemned.

First Point. Terror of the soul when she shall be presented to the Judge.

"It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment." (Heb. ix. 27.) It is of faith that we shall die, and that after death a judgment shall be passed on all the actions of our life. Now, what shall be the terror of each of us when we shall be at the point of death, and shall have before our eyes the judgment which must take place the very moment the soul departs from the body? Then shall be decided our doom to eternal life, or to eternal death. At the time of the passage of their souls from this life to eternity, the sight of their past sins, the rigour of God’s judgment, and the uncertainty of their eternal salvation, have made the saints tremble. St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzia trembled in her sickness, through the fear of judgment; and to her confessor, when he endeavoured to give her courage, she said: "Ah! father, it is a terrible thing to appear before Christ in judgment." After spending so many years in penance in the desert, St. Agatho trembled at the hour of death, and said: ”What shall become of me when I shall be judged ?" The venerable Father Louis da Ponte was seized with such a fit of trembling at the thought of the account which he should render to God, that he shook the room in which he lay. The thought of judgment inspired the venerable Juvenal Ancina, Priest of the Oratory, and afterwards Bishop of Saluzzo, with the determination to leave the world. Hearing the Dies Iræ sung, and considering the terror of the soul when presented before Jesus Christ, the Judge, he took, and afterwards executed, the resolution of giving himself entirely to God.

2. It is the common opinion of theologians, that at the very moment and in the very place in which the soul departs from the body, the divine tribunal is erected, the accusation is read, and the sentence is passed by Jesus Christ, the Judge. At this terrible tribunal each of us shall be presented to give an account of all our thoughts, of all our words, and of all our actions. "For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil." ( 2 Cor. v. 10.) When presented before an earthly judge criminals have been seen to fall into a cold sweat through fear. It is related of Piso, that so great and insufferable was the confusion, which he felt at the thought of appearing as a criminal before the senate that he killed himself. How great is the pain of a vassal, or of a son, in appearing before an angry prince or an enraged father, to account for some crime which he has committed! Oh! how much greater shall be the pain and confusion of the soul in standing, before Jesus Christ enraged against her for having despised him during her life! Speaking of judgment, St. Luke says: "Then you shall see the Son of Man." (Luke xxi. 27.) They shall see Jesus Christ as man, with the same wounds with which he ascended into heaven. "Great joy of the beholders!" says Robert the Abbot, "a great terror of those who are in expectation!" These wounds shall console the just, and shall terrify the wicked. In them sinners shall see the Redeemer’s love for themselves, and their ingratitude to him.

3. "Who," says the Prophet Nahum, "can stand before the face of his indignation ?" (i. 6.) How great, then, shall be the terror of a soul that finds herself in sin before this Judge, the first time she shall see him, and see him full of wrath! St. Basil says that she shall be tortured more by her shame and confusion than by the very fire of hell. ”Horridior quam ignis, erit pudor." Philip the Second rebuked one of his domestics for having told him a lie. ”Is it thus," said the king to him, ”you deceive me?" The domestic, after having returned home, died of grief. The Scripture tells us, that when Joseph reproved his brethren, saying: ”I am Joseph, whom you sold," they were unable to answer through fear, and remained silent. ”His brethren could not answer him, being struck with exceeding great fear." (Gen. xlv. 3.) Now what answer shall sinners make to Jesus Christ when he shall say to them: I am your Redeemer and your Judge, whom you have so much despised. Where shall the miserable beings fly, says St. Augustine, when they shall see an angry Judge above, hell open below, on one side their own sins accusing them, and on the other the devils dragging them to punishment, and their conscience burning them within? “Above shall be an enraged Judge below, a horrid chaos on the right, sins accusing him on the left, demons dragging him to punishment within, a burning conscience! Whither shall a sinner, beset in this manner, fly ?"Perhaps he will cry for mercy? But how, asks Eusebius Emissenus, can he dare to implore mercy, when he must first render an account of his contempt for the mercy which Jesus Christ has shown to him?”With what face will you, who are to be first judged for contempt of mercy, ask for mercy?" But let us come to the rendering of the accounts.

Second Point. Terror of the soul when she shall be examined.

4. As soon as the soul shall be presented before the tribunal of Jesus Christ, he will say to her: ”Give an account of thy stewardship:" render instantly an account of thy entire life. The Apostle tells us, that to be worthy of eternal glory our lives must be found conformable to the life of Jesus Christ. ”For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his son ;...them he also glorified." (Rom. viii. 29, 30.) Hence St. Peter has said, that in the judgment of Jesus Christ, the just man who has observed the divine law, has pardoned enemies, has respected the saints, has practised chastity, meekness, and other virtues, shall scarcely be saved. ”The just man shall scarcely be saved." The Apostle adds: "Where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear ?" (1 Pet. iv. 18.) What shall become of the vindictive and the unchaste, of blasphemers and slanderers? What shall become of those whose entire life is opposed to the life of Jesus Christ?

5. In the first place, the Judge shall demand of sinners an account of all the blessings and graces which he bestowed on them in order to bring them to salvation, and which they have rendered fruitless. He will demand an account of the years granted to them that they might serve God, and which they have spent in offending him. "He hath called against me the time." (Lam. i. 15.) He will then demand an account of their sins. Sinners commit sins, and afterwards forget them; but Jesus Christ does not forget them: he keeps, as Job says, all our iniquities numbered, as it were in a bag. “Thou hast sealed up my iniquities, as it were in a bag." (Job xiv. 17.) And he tells us that, on the day of accounts, he will take a lamp to scrutinize all the actions of our life. ”And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps." (Soph. i. 12.) The lamp, says Mendoza on this passage, penetrates all the corners of the house that is, God will discover all the defects of our conscience, great and small. According to St. Anselm, an account shall be demanded of every glance of the eyes. ”Exigitur usque ad ictum oculi." And, according to St. Matthew, of every idle word. ”Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it on the day of judgment." (Matt. xii. 36.)

6. The Prophet Malachy says, that as gold is refined by taking away the dross, so on the day of judgment all our actions shall be examined, and every defect which may be discovered shall be punished. ”He shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold." (Mal. iii. 3.) Even our justices that is, our good works, confessions, communions, and prayers shall be examined. "When I shall take a time, I will judge justices." (Ps. Ixxiv. 3.) But if every glance, every idle word, and even good works, shall be judged, with what rigour shall immodest expressions, blasphemies, grievous detractions, thefts, and sacrileges be judged? Alas! on that day every soul shall, as St. Jerome says, see, to her own confusion, all the evils which she has done. ”Videbit unusquisque quod fecit."

7. ”Weight and balance are judgments of the Lord. ”(Prov. xvi. 11.) In the balance of the Lord a holy life and good works make the scale descend; but nobility, wealth, and science have no weight. Hence, if found innocent, the peasant, the poor, and the ignorant shall be rewarded. But the man of rank, of wealth, or of learning, if found guilty, shall be condemned. "Thou art weighed in the balance," said Daniel to Belthassar, ”and art found wanting." (Dan. v. 27.)”Neither his gold nor his wealth," says Father Alvares, ”but the king alone was weighed."

8. At the divine tribunal the poor sinner shall see himself accused by the devil, who, according to St. Augustine, ”will recite the words of our profession, and will charge us before our face with all that we have done, will state the day and hour in which we sinned." (Con. Jud., tom. 6.)”He will recite the words of our profession" that is, he will enumerate the promises which we have made to God, and which we afterwards violated. ”He will charge us before our face ;" he will upbraid us with all our wicked deeds, pointing to the day and hour in which they were committed. And he will, as the same saint says, conclude his accusation by saying: "I have suffered neither stripes nor scourges for this man." Lord, I have suffered nothing for this ungrateful sinner, and to make himself my slave he has turned his back on thee who has endured so much for his salvation. He, therefore, justly belongs to me. Even his angel-guardian will, according to Origen, come forward to accuse him, and will say: "I have laboured so many years for his salvation; but he has despised all my admonitions." "Unusquisque angelorum perhibet testimonium, quot annis circa eum laboraverit, sed ille monita sprevit." (Hom. lxvi.) Thus, even friends shall treat with contempt the guilty soul. ”All her friends have despised her." (Lamen. i. 2.) Her very sins shall, says St. Bernard, accuse her. “And they shall say: You have made us; we are your work; we shall not desert you." (Lib. Medit, cap. ii.) We are your offspring; we shall not leave you: we shall be your companions in hell for all eternity.

9. Let us now examine the excuses which the sinner will be able to advance. He will say, that the evil inclinations of nature had drawn him into sin. But he shall be told that, if concupiscence impelled him to sins, it did not oblige him to commit them; and that, if he had recourse to God, he should have received from him grace to resist every temptation. For this purpose Jesus Christ has left us the sacraments: but when we do not make use of them, we can complain only of ourselves. "But, ” says the Redeemer, “now they have no excuse for their sin." (John xv. 22.) To excuse himself, the sinner shall also say that the devil tempted him to sin. But, as St. Augustine says, "The enemy is bound like a dog in chains, and can bite only him who has united himself to him with a deadly security." The devil can bark, but cannot bite unless you adhere and listen to him. Hence the saint adds: ”See how foolish is the man whom a dog, loaded with chains, bites." Perhaps he will advance his bad habits as an excuse; but this shall not stand; for the same St. Augustine says, that though it is difficult to resist the force of an evil habit, ”if any one does not desert himself, he will conquer it with the divine assistance." If a man does not abandon himself to sin, and invokes God’s aid, he will overcome evil habits. The Apostle tells us, that the Lord does not permit us to be tempted above our strength. ”God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able." ( I Cor. x. 13.)

10. ”For what shall I do," said Job, ”when God shall rise to judge me? and when he shall examine, what shall I answer him” (Job xxxi. 14.) What answer shall the sinner give to Jesus Christ? How can he, who sees himself so clearly convicted, give an answer? He shall be covered with confusion, and shall remain silent, like the man found without the nuptial garment. ”But he was silent." (Matt. xxii. 12.) His very sins shall shut the sinner’s mouth. "And all iniquity shall stop her mouth." (Ps. cvi. 42.) There,, says St. Thomas of Villanova, there shall be no intercessor to whom the sinner can have recourse. ”There, there is no opportunity of sinning; there, no intercessor, no friend, no father shall assist." Who shall then save you? Is it God? But how, asks St. Basil, can you expect salvation from him whom you have despised?” Who shall deliver you? Is it God, whom you have insulted ?" (S. Bas., Or. 4, de Fen.) Alas! the guilty soul that leaves this world in sin, is condemned by herself before the Judge pronounces sentence. Let us come to the sentence of the Judge.  (Sermons for All the Sundays in the Year by St Alphonsus Liguori in .pdf format; a sermon on the death of the sinner is appended at the end of this article.)

The moment of the Particular Judgment is what should fill us with fear of Our Lord and His just judgment upon us even as we trust in Our Lady and Saint Joseph to assist us as we die. Quite to the contrary of what Bergoglio (who believes that everyone will be saved, perhaps excepting “rigid”—that is, faithful Catholics) said in his address four months ago, we should not fear physical suffering at any point in our lives, and we must especially embrace and thank God for it as we approach death as it is the most blessed means by which we can make a bit of reparation for our sins.

To support the anti-life, pro-death agenda of George Soros and the World Medical Association is evil. Pure and simple. Then again, there is very little actual evil in the world that has not been indemnified, if not endorsed outright by Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The next passage of Bergoglio’s address demonstrates that this wretched little man tried to make Pope Pius XII a witness in behalf of “palliative care”:

Some sixty years ago, Pope Pius XII, in a memorable address to anaesthesiologists and intensive care specialists, stated that there is no obligation to have recourse in all circumstances to every possible remedy and that, in some specific cases, it is permissible to refrain from their use (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis XLIX [1957], 1027-1033). Consequently, it is morally licit to decide not to adopt therapeutic measures, or to discontinue them, when their use does not meet that ethical and humanistic standard that would later be called “due proportion in the use of remedies” (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia, 5 May 1980, IV: Acta Apostolicae Sedis LXXII [1980], 542-552). The specific element of this criterion is that it considers “the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources” (ibid.). It thus makes possible a decision that is morally qualified as withdrawal of “overzealous treatment”.

Such a decision responsibly acknowledges the limitations of our mortality, once it becomes clear that opposition to it is futile. “Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2278). This difference of perspective restores humanity to the accompaniment of the dying, while not attempting to justify the suppression of the living. It is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment; from an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death. (Bergoglio Address to Soros Confederates.)

This is a distortion of what Pope Pius XII said in his Address to Anesthesiologists, November 24, 1957, the Feast of Saint John of the Cross and the Commemoration of Saint Chrysogonus. Our last true Roman Pontiff thus far before the eclipse that began nineteen days after his death on October 9, 1958, made a careful distinction between the removal of a ventilator under the moral principle of the double-fold effect (as outlined by the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, and by Holy Mother Church’s magisterium subsequently, the principle of the double-fold effect that it is morally licit to undertake an action that is good in itself even though it may result in an unintended but foreseen evil consequence; in this instance, you see, the removal of a ventilator to aid the involuntary function of a person’s body permits the body to perform according to its natural abilities, something that could result in death, which is not directly intended but foreseen as a possibility) and the deliberate, direct effort to end human life:

1. Does the anesthesiologist have the right, or is he bound, in all cases of deep unconsciousness, even in those that are considered to be completely hopeless in the opinion of the competent doctor, to use modern artificial respiration apparatus, even against the will of the family?

In ordinary cases one will grant that the anesthesiologist has the right to act in this manner, but he is not bound to do so, unless this becomes the only way of fulfilling another certain moral duty.

The rights and duties of the doctor are correlative to those of the patient. The doctor, in fact, has no separate or independent right where the patient is concerned. In general he can take action only if the patient explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, gives him permission. The technique of resuscitation which concerns us here does not contain anything immoral in itself. Therefore the patient, if he were capable of making a personal decision, could lawfully use it and, consequently, give the doctor permission to use it. On the other hand, since these forms of treatment go beyond the ordinary means to which one is bound, it cannot be held that there is an obligation to use them nor, consequently, that one is bound to give the doctor permission to use them.

The rights and duties of the family depend in general upon the presumed will of the unconscious patient if he is of age and sui jurist. Where the proper and independent duty of the family is concerned, they are usually bound only to the use of ordinary means.

Consequently, if it appears that the attempt at resuscitation constitutes in reality such a burden for the family that one cannot in all conscience impose it upon them, they can lawfully insist that the doctor should discontinue these attempts, and the doctor can lawfully comply. There is not involved here a case of direct disposal of the life of the patient, nor of euthanasia in any way: this would never be licit. Even when it causes the arrest of circulation, the interruption of attempts at resuscitation is never more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life, and one must apply in this case the principle of double effect and of "voluntarium in cause." (Pope Pius XII Address to Anesthesiologists.)

The eminent neonatologist and uncompromising foe of the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death,” Dr. Paul Byrne, argues that the ventilator can no longer be considered as “extraordinary” means to sustain human life, noting that “God is more powerful than the machines.” There is no contradiction between Dr. Byrne’s judgment and the teaching of Pope Pius XII as the definition of what constitutes “burdensome” and “overzealous” treatment is subject to advances in medical technology. What was perhaps burdensome sixty years ago is no longer so in many cases. The principles enunciated by Pope Pius XII, which are completely Catholic, do not change, but the application of them in concrete circumstances according to the Catholic principle of Proportionality--which has nothing to do with "palliative care--and is subject to factors that a Catholic physician with a rightly-formed conscience who desires to be faithful to moral truth must take into very careful consideration. 

[As a quick note, the principle of proportionality teaches that This is called the moral principle of Proportionality, which teaches us that an otherwise good end would be inadvisable, if not illegitimate, to pursue if a reasoned determination is made than more harm than good would be done if a legitimate course of action was undertaken. The principle of Proportionality must not be confused with the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J.’s heretical principle of Proptionalism, which asserts that a preponderance of “good motives” and extenuating circumstances can make an objectively evil action licit to pursue. Even the conciliar Vatican condemned Proportionality in 1975, although it is precisely what a lay Jesuit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes and that serves as the basis of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016. Bergoglio paid lip-service to proportionality in his November 16, 2017, address, by quoting from the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church before vitiating that seemingly credible reference by endorsing "palliative care."]

What is unchanging, both medically and morally, however, is the simple fact that food and water, no matter how they are provided, ordinary care of a human being. It is not medical treatment and it is not “extraordinary” in any sense of that word. Human beings need the assistance of others to eat when they are newborn babies and they may need assistance at other times in their lives after an accident or a stroke or some other catastrophic health problem. The death of an innocent human being is the one and only thing that can result from denying him food and water. No one can undertake any action whose only end can be the death of an innocent human being. 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, does not believe that moral truths are objectively-based and exist outside of human independence of them. He believes that moral norms are subjectively-based and thus dependent upon societal conditions, which is why it is “necessary” for Catholics to engage in “dialogue” with others to understand their own specific beliefs about what constitutes morally ethical actions:

Within democratic societies, these sensitive issues must be addressed calmly, seriously and thoughtfully, in a way open to finding, to the extent possible, agreed solutions, also on the legal level. On the one hand, there is a need to take into account differing world views, ethical convictions and religious affiliations, in a climate of openness and dialogue. On the other hand, the state cannot renounce its duty to protect all those involved, defending the fundamental equality whereby everyone is recognized under law as a human being living with others in society. Particular attention must be paid to the most vulnerable, who need help in defending their own interests. If this core of values essential to coexistence is weakened, the possibility of agreeing on that recognition of the other which is the condition for all dialogue and the very life of society will also be lost. Legislation on health care also needs this broad vision and a comprehensive view of what most effectively promotes the common good in each concrete situation.

In the hope that these reflections may prove helpful, I offer you my cordial good wishes for a serene and constructive meeting. I also trust that you will find the most appropriate ways of addressing these delicate issues with a view to the good of all those whom you meet and those with whom you work in your demanding profession. (Bergoglio Address to Soros Confederates.)

The common temporal good concerning the treatment of innocent human life does not depend upon “differing world views, ethical convictions and religions affirmations.” Truth is not “discovered.” It is. It exists. It is up to men and their nations to recognize, accept and obey it. Those who defy the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Moral Law, the latter of which is knowable, albeit imperfectly, by human reason alone but whose meaning is taught authoritatively only by the Catholic Church, will suffer the consequences, both personally and socially, for doing so.

There is only one true religion, Catholicism, and Holy Mother Church does not enter into any kind of “dialogue” with the devil about “world views, differing religious affirmations and ethical convictions.”


Moreover, unlike “Pope Francis,” however, Pope Pius XII cared about the spiritual state of those whose deaths are judged by truly conscientious physicians, including anesthesiologists, to be approaching. This is why he stressed that no extraordinary means may be removed from a human being until and unless he has been given the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and, if possible, Holy Viaticum:

Where the administration of sacraments to an unconscious man is concerned, the answer is drawn from the doctrine and practice of the Church which, for its part, follows the Lord's will as its rule of action. Sacraments are meant, by virtue of divine institution, for men of this world who are in the course of their earthly life, and, except for baptism itself, presupposed prior baptism of the recipient. He who is not a man, who is not yet a man, or is no longer a man, cannot receive the sacraments. Furthermore, if someone expresses his refusal, the sacraments cannot be administered to him against his will. God compels no one to accept sacramental grace.

When it is not known whether a person fulfills the necessary conditions for valid reception of the sacraments, an effort must be made to solve the doubt. If this effort fails, the sacrament will be conferred under at least a tacit condition (with the phrase "Si capax est," "If you are capable," -- which is the broadest condition). Sacraments are instituted by Christ for men in order to save their souls. Therefore, in cases of extreme necessity, the Church tries extreme solutions in order to give man sacramental grace and assistance.

One will search in vain for any reference to the supernatural life of the soul in Bergoglio’s address four months ago. He misappropriated Pope Pius XII’s address to make it appear that he supported “palliative care,” which is a complete and dastardly lie as our last true Holy Father thus far made it clear that nothing can ever be done that causes or expedites the death of a human being, and he made it clear as well that physicians must err on the side of life whenever there is some doubt as to whether an unconscious patient is dead:

The question of the fact of death and that of verifying the fact itself (de facto) or its legal authenticity (de jure) have, because of their consequences, even in the field of morals and of religion, an even greater importance. What we have just said about the presupposed essential elements for the valid reception of a sacrament has shown this. But the importance of the question extends also to effects in matters of inheritance, marriage and matrimonial processes, benefices (vacancy of a benefice), and to many other questions of private and social life.

It remains for the doctor, and especially the anesthesiologist, to give a clear and precise definition of "death" and the "moment of death" of a patient who passes away in a state of unconsciousness. Here one can accept the usual concept of complete and final separation of the soul from the body; but in practice one must take into account the lack of precision of the terms "body" and "separation." One can put aside the possibility of a person being buried alive, for removal of the artificial respiration apparatus must necessarily bring about stoppage of blood circulation and therefore death within a few minutes.

In case of insoluble doubt, one can resort to presumptions of law and of fact. In general, it will be necessary to presume that life remains, because there is involved here a fundamental right received from the Creator, and it is necessary to prove with certainty that it has been lost. (Bergoglio Address to Soros Confederates.) It shoud be noted that some Catholics, such as Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of New York from April 15, 1939 to December 2, 1967, saw an "opening" in Pope Pius XII's address to advance "palliative care," which was not His Holiness's intention as he stressed that nothing could be done to directly intend death. Nevertheless, "Spelly" ran with the opening. See httpsSpellman and Palliative Care.)

Pope Pius XII did not endorse the false criterion of “brain death” that was invented eleven years later by a committee of physicians at the Harvard Medical School. Indeed, he clearly stated that the “removal of artificial respiration apparatus must necessarily bring about stoppage of blood circulation and therefore death in a few minutes.” The modern day Aztecs of the medical industry, however, have used the false, contrived standard of “brain death” to keep the vital organs of a supposedly “dead” person functioning so that their vital organs may be excised surgically for transplantation. The vital organs of a “dead” person are useless for transplantation. (Please see Appendix A for Mrs. Randy Engel’s interview with Dr. Paul Byrne that was published in The Michael Fund Newsletter and reprinted on this site in 2007.)

The facts about this are quite clear as a score or more of articles on this site have illustrated. To amplify them, however, consider the following case from three months ago: 

Minnesota, December 22, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Sheila Lewis was in a coma and hadn’t had anything to eat or drink for 12 days. Her family expected her to die, but instead she woke up and asked for a glass of water.

Now she'll be able to celebrate Christmas with her family.

On Labor Day, Sheila, a grandmother, began to rapidly lose her memory.  

“She could not grasp what day it was,” daughter Brandy Arends told Forum News Service. She says they “instantly” know something was very wrong.

Indeed, something was very wrong. 

“She kept saying my brain is in a fog,” Chasity Brandt, another of Sheila’s daughters, shared with WDAY-TV’s Kevin Wallevand. She forgot her grandchildren’s names, then her daughters’ names, then her own name.

In short order, Sheila was taken to a Fargo hospital, but her condition only worsened.  She lost the ability to speak. Breathing and feeding tubes were put in. She was placed in the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit.

With no improvement, Sheila’s family eventually transported her to the Mayo Clinic. But even the Mayo Clinic’s expertise couldn’t help Sheila.

Arends said the “world-renowned doctors” at Mayo Clinic told her they had “never seen a case like” Sheila’s, according to a Twin Cities report. 

“They didn’t even know what they were dealing with,” the daughter added.

Sheila fell into a coma. She lay unresponsive for weeks. Arends explained that her mother’s condition was described as a “vegetative state.” 

Finally, the family decided to disconnect life support machines. 

“Nothing more we could do,” Arends told Wallevand. 

“We canceled plans and brought the kids down to say goodbye to grandma,” Brandt added.

After saying their goodbyes this side of eternity, Sheila was taken off life support. Her daughters planned her funeral, and bought black.

But Sheila didn’t die. Finally, comatose Sheila was brought to her daughter’s home under Hospice care.

Twelve long days – with no food, water, or oxygen assistance – went by. It had been six weeks since Sheila last uttered a word.

Then the miracle happened. Sheila asked for water.

“Did she just talk?” Brandt asked, according to Wallevand’s account. “Is she talking?”

Sheila not only awakened, but began to recover. When the Mayo Clinic heard about it, doctors asked to see Sheila.

“You are a miracle,” the experts said, according to Arends.  “They said that word – ‘miracle’ – is never thrown around, (but) that is what you are.”

Sheila and her entire family are especially celebrating Christmas this year. Their mother and grandmother is back. 

“I have always had faith, but more so now,” the Twin Cities quotes the beloved matriarch saying. “I am thankful I have been given this second chance.”

A YouCaring site receives donations to offset the cost of Sheila’s months of medical care, and treatment for newly discovered melanoma. (Comatose Woman Unexpectedly Awakens In Time for Christmas, Asks for Water.)

What was Dr. Byrne saying about God being more powerful than machines?

This is what is happening at present in the case of Alfie Evans in the United Kingdom:

He wants to live," his dad said outside court.

Little Alfie Evans has been in a coma with a mystery illness for a year and is under round the clock care at the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool.

The hospital says the toddler's condition is untreatable and he will eventually die and have applied to withdraw life support to let him die peacefully.

His family will be going to trial at the family court next year to try and buy him time to secure further treatment for Alfie at an Italian hospital which has offered help.

Speaking outside the High Court this afternoon, Alfie's father Thomas Evans said: "Months ago we were told he was coming to the end of his life, but he is still here.

"He is letting us know he wants to live

"I have been with him every single day for a year and I have seen him progress with his breathing, his movement, his growth and his health.

"He is still here and he is fighting."

Asked what he think will happen if Alfie is able to go to Italy he said: "I believe there is big potential. I can't say he is going to get better because he is very ill.

"But I am 90 per cent sure he will wake up. I see him every single day and I see life."

"It's a chance for him to step in my boots and see what I see every day. Alfie will show the judge everything he has got, and show him he has got life."

Asked if he thought the Alder Hey hospital had done enough for his son, Mr Evans said: "No, but I respect and appreciate them for everything they have done for him, but I don't think they have exhausted every option."

Alfie's is due go to trial at Liverpool family court on February 1, in the New Year. (Baby Alfie Still Alive.)   

This is the exact same situation that faced young Charlie Gard see Truth Is Not On the Side of GOSH and Its Conciliar Enablers and Finding Nuance Where There Is No Nuance to be Found), who was executed last year despite pleas made by both the president and vice president of the United States of America, Donald John Trump and Michael Richard Pence, to have him brought to this country so that he could receive proper medical care here.

Even “Pope Francis,” responding on an emotional level to the appeal of the late Charlie Gard’s parents and not on principle, said that the parents’ “wishes” should be respect. Ospitale Bambino Gesu, where our Lucy was treated for an ear infection on Saturday, May 21, 2005, was willing to take Charlie Gard in to provide him treatment.

Adding insult to injury, the conciliar “bishops’” conference of England and Wales issued a statement commending the killers at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for the “care” they gave to Charlie Gard after he had been put to death July 28, 2017:

(Vatican Radio) The parents of terminally-ill British baby Charlie Gard have ended their legal battle to take him from London to the U.S. for experimental treatment. The decision was announced on Monday after scans confirmed the 11 month old child had suffered from irreversible brain damage.

Following the decision, a spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales expressed deepest sympathy and prayers for the family.

In a statement, the bishops said “at this moment it is important to remember that all involved in these agonising decisions have sought to act with integrity and for Charlie’s good as they see it”.

Pope's heart touched by tragedy

Calling for Charlie’s parents to be given support and space “to find peace in the days ahead”, the bishops said: “Their farewell to their tiny and precious baby touches the hearts of all who, like Pope Francis, have followed this sad and complex story. Charlie’s life will be lovingly cherished until its natural end”.

Praise for Great Ormond Street Hospital

The bishops added that “the professionalism, love and care for severely ill children consistently shown at the Great Ormond Street Hospital is also to be recognised and applauded”. 

The Gard family’s lawyer said that Charlie’s father and mother would hold talks with doctors at the hospital about how to end the baby’s life- support treatment. Charlie was born with a rare genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. (English and Welsh Apostates Praise Those Who Sought to Kill Off Charlie Gard.)


Please see Truth Is Not On the Side of GOSH and Its Conciliar Enablers for the antidote to this horrific exercise in moral equivocation.

Alfie Evans’s case may very well wind up with his execution, although we must storm Heaven that this will not happen.

The facts, though, look bleak as Alfie’s parents are appealing another appeal to an English court system that has about as much regard for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural as does, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: lfie Evans has been living in a coma for an entire year after being struck down with a mystery illness.

The 22-month-old was born perfectly healthy but in his first seven months missed numerous developmental milestones, his family said.

He started making "jerking, seizure-like movements" and was taken to the doctors, but his parents were told he was was "lazy and a late developer", the family claim.

But he caught a chest infection that caused seizures and was placed on life support at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool in December 2016.

Medics are baffled over little Alfie's mystery condition but some experts believe he might have a mitochondrial condition - the same as Charlie Gard.

After he was admitted to Alder Hey, his parents were told he wasn't going to make it - but he fought back to beat the infection and started breathing on his own.

But he caught another chest infection and had to go back on a ventilator when he began having more chronic seizures.

Alfie is described as being in a "semi-vegetative" state and doctors at Alder Hey have said it is in his best interest to stop "mechanical ventilation".

On March 6, 2018, three judges upheld the decision to turn off his life support, against the wishes of his parents Kate James and Tom Evans.

But his devastated parents made a last ditch appeal to the highest court in the land to keep the stricken tot's life-support machine on.

Kate and Tom Evans should learn next week whether Supreme Court justices will analyse the case.

The couple must first clear an initial legal hurdle and persuade Supreme Court justices that they have a case worth arguing.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman on Tuesday said justices had received a written application from the couple.

She said justices would probably decide whether the couple had a case worth arguing during the week starting Monday March 19.

The spokeswoman said justices might make that decision after considering written arguments or may stage a hearing where the merits of the couple's case could be debated.

Judges have heard that Alfie, who was born on May 9 2016, is in a "semi-vegetative state" and has a degenerative neurological condition doctors had not definitively diagnosed.

They say the Bambino Gesu hospital would give him a tracheotomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) to allow him to be fed through his stomach.

But representatives at Alder Hey argued that Bambino Gesu has a similar belief that care for Alfie should be palliative - effectively meaning Alfie's life support machine would be switched off.

On February 20 Justice Hayden ruled at the High Court that ventilation treatment should be withdrawn from Alfie.

He said: "I am satisfied that continued ventilatory support is no longer in Alfie's interests."

Following the High Court's ruling in February that doctors could take Alfie off life support his dad said his son had been sentenced to "the death penalty".

Speaking on the steps of London's High Court he added: "My son has been sentenced to the death penalty. The system has worked against us.

"I'm not crying because I know how wrong they are, I know how strong my boy is doing. He is strong, he is comfortable."

An appeal to the ruling made by Mr Justice Hayden will be heard in London on March 1.

Alfie's family have released a video, shown below, of the tot chewing on his mother's finger and sucking on a dummy.

His aunt, Sarah Evans, claims that this means Alfie's condition has improved and proves that the ill toddler is "very aware" of his surroundings. (Latest Alfie Evans High Court Ruling.)

We must pray for Alfie Evans and his parents, who are themselves victims of the moral relativism let loose in once proudly Catholic England as a result of King Henry VIII’s rebellion against the true Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. England is suffering today because, as I wrote nearly two years ago now, The Real "Brexit" Occurred In 1534 (this article provided a detailed examination of the long-lasting effects of the Protestant Revolution there).

Tragically, another baby in England, Isaiah Haastrup, was put to death on Thursday, March 8, 2018, the Feast of Saint John of God. Once again, the English court system and the European Court of Human Rights upheld the nonexistent “right” of doctors to snuff out his innocent life in a cruelly barbaric manner:

Isaiah Haastrup, the profoundly brain-damaged baby boy at the centre of a right-to-life legal battle, has died, his father has said.

Doctors removed him from life-support on Wednesday after a last-resort appeal to the European court of human rights (ECHR) was refused on Tuesday. He received only palliative care after his extubation. 

His father, Lanre Haastrup, and mother, Takesha Thomas, both 36 and from south London, had unsuccessfully fought an application by King’s College hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from their son, aged one, who had been on life support since birth.

A high court judge ruled on 29 January it was in Isaiah’s best interests for treatment to be withdrawn. Doctors said he could not move or breathe independently and had profoundly depressed consciousness after suffering catastrophic brain damage through being deprived of oxygen at birth,

His parents were denied permission to appeal to the court of appeal, and an 11th hour appeal to the ECHR was ruled inadmissible on Tuesday.

Treatment was withdrawn at 1pm on Wednesday, according to Isaiah’s father, and he died shortly before 8pm.

Haastrup told the Guardian: “Isaiah was extubated at 1pm and breathed on his own till 7.50pm before he died. This was completely different from the three minutes the experts told the court he [would] breathe due to his injury.

“He demonstrated that he wanted to live and can breathe on his own, and could have been weaned off the ventilator. I am so proud of him.”

A spokesman for the King’s College hospital trust said the thoughts of staff were with Isaiah’s parents. “Isaiah Haastrup suffered an irreversible brain injury following a rare and life-threatening obstetric emergency during his mother’s labour,” said the spokesman. 

“Since birth he had been fully dependent on life support with no prospect of improvement, and throughout we actively sought to engage and involve Isaiah’s parents in his care.

“The best interests of our patients must always come first. The trust always provided Isaiah with the very best care, and the decision to apply to the court to withdraw treatment was only made after careful consideration and after consultation with the family.

“In Isaiah’s case, the high court ruled that overwhelming expert and independent medical opinion supported the declaration sought that withdrawing treatment was in his best interests.

“Subsequently, neither the court of appeal or the European court of human rights reversed the original decision of the high court.”

He added: “We recognise that this has been an extremely difficult time for Isaiah’s family as well as those involved in his care since birth. As Mr Justice MacDonald wrote in his judgment ‘no one can imagine the emotional pain of the parents’.

“The thoughts of everyone at the trust are with them.” (Baby Isaiah Hasstup Dies After Life Support Removed.)

There is quite an irony in all of this.

Judges in the supposedly “civilized” United Kingdom are disposing of human life in the exact same manner as were the Nazi judges whose consigning of innocent human beings to death on grounds of eugenics and race was condemned in no uncertain terms by Bishop Clemens von Galen in the sermons cited at the beginning of this commentary. Obviously, judges around the world, including most especially, of course, right here in the United States of America, are acting in the same manner, but it is nevertheless interesting that the leaders of the land where Catholic blood flowed freely under the reign of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I have long believed themselves to be “morally superior” to other nations when the truth is that they are even more barbaric than the Nazis who enforced Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws.

Indeed, it was a year after those Nuremberg Laws had been promulgated in 1935 that King George V was “euthanized” by the Royal Physician, Lord Dawson, because he (a) wanted to end the king’s suffering and (b) he wanted the king’s death to make the front pages of the morning newspaper. To quote the late Jack Paar, “I kid you not”:

LONDON, Nov. 27— As he lay comatose on his deathbed in 1936, King George V was injected with fatal doses of morphine and cocaine to assure him a painless death in time, according to his physician's notes, for the announcement to be carried ''in the morning papers rather than the less appropriate evening journals.''

The fact that the death of a reigning monarch had been medically hastened remained a secret for half a century until the publication today of the notes made at the time by Lord Dawson, the royal physician who recorded that he administered the two injections at about 11 o'clock on the night of Jan. 20, 1936. That was scarcely an hour and a half after Lord Dawson had written a classically brief medical bulletin that declared, ''The King's life is moving peacefully toward its close.''

That ''close'' came in less than an hour after the injections. Lord Dawson, according to his notes, had already taken the precaution of phoning his wife in London to ask that she ''advise The Times to hold back publication.''

In Windsor Castle Archives

''A Peaceful Ending at Midnight,'' said the headline the next morning in the newspaper that was deemed to be the most appropriate vehicle for major announcements to the nation.

The Dawson notes, now preserved in the archives of Windsor Castle, were first examined by the physician's biographer, Francis Watson, when he prepared a volume that appeared in 1950, five years after Lord Dawson's death. At the request of the physician's widow, the biographer said today, he simply omitted any reference to the euthanasia that had taken place at Sandringham Castle.

It was Mr. Watson, now 79 years old, who filled in the omission in an article in a journal called History Today that went on sale here this morning. ''Perhaps I should have included it in the book at the time,'' he said. ''Lady Dawson did not want it in the book and I quite readily agreed. I didn't think it appropriate.''

Queen's Reaction Not Known

The reaction of Queen Elizabeth II, the granddaughter of Lord Dawson's patient, could not be learned. ''It happened a long time ago,'' the spokesman at Buckingham Palace told callers, ''and all those concerned are now dead.''

Lord Dawson's notes assert that he had been told by Queen Mary and the Prince of Wales - the playboy son who was to become Edward VIII and, less than a year later, would abdicate and become the Duke of Windsor - that they did not want the King's life needlessly prolonged if his illness was clearly fatal. There is no indication that the King himself had been consulted.

It is not clear from the notes how explicit Lord Dawson was in the exchange he reported with the Queen and Prince about the method of ending the King's life, or whether this conversation had been initiated by the family or the physician. But there is circumstantial evidence, in a speech Lord Dawson delivered in the House of Lords in a debate on euthanasia 10 months later, to suggest that the discussion could have been prompted by the doctor.

'Mission of Mercy'

The royal physician spoke against a bill that would have legalized the practice but he did so without condemning euthanasia. Instead, describing it as a ''mission of mercy,'' he argued it was a matter best left to the conscience of individual physicians rather than official regulators.

''One should make the act of dying more gentle and more peaceful even if it does involve curtailment of the length of life,'' he told his fellow peers. ''That has become increasingly the custom. This may be taken as something accepted.''

Calling for a ''gentle growth of euthanasia,'' rather than a removal of all restraints by legislation, Lord Dawson went on to say, ''If we cannot cure for heaven's sake let us do our best to lighten the pain.''

Biographer Is 'Appalled'

Similar reasoning was reflected in the notes he made after the King's death. ''It was evident,'' the physician said, ''that the last stage might endure for many hours, unknown to the patient but little comporting with the dignity and the serenity which he so richly merited and which demanded a brief final scene.''

If Lord Dawson ever imagined that future and more enlightened generations would hail his intervention, he would have been severely disappointed by the reaction here today to Mr. Watson's disclosures.

''In my opinion the King was murdered by Dawson,'' said Kenneth Rose, a biographer of George V, who said he was ''appalled'' by the news. Sir Douglas Black, a past president of the Royal College of Physicians, said Lord Dawson appeared to have committed an ''evil'' act for the sake of a ''marginal'' good - the announcement of the King's death in The Times.

Harold Brooks-Baker, the publisher of Burke's Peerage, said it was impossible to imagine Queen Mary condoning the ending of her husband's life. ''Religion and duty ruled her life,'' he said. ''She did not marry for love but for duty and went to church several times a week. Ordinary pleasures played no part in her life as she did not believe in the easing of life, even in death.''

The King, who was 71, had been in failing health for some months with a chronic bronchial complaint, but his final illness was brief. It was only four days before his death that the Queen sent for Lord Dawson. On the morning of his last day, he managed a 10-minute meeting with his privy counselors. The King's Last Words

After his death, it was reported that his last words had come in the form of a question to his private secretary. ''How is the Empire?'' he was said to have asked. But Lord Dawson's notes report a subsequent exclamation, which came after dinner when he was injected with a small dose of morphine to enable him to sleep more easily. ''God damn you,'' the King said, according to the notes, as he fell asleep.

Later that evening, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, prayed at the bedside of the unconscious King. Once the Archbishop retired, Lord Dawson prepared the fatal injections, consisting of three-quarters of a gram of morphine and one gram of cocaine. Ten months later, the Archbishop followed Lord Dawson as a speaker in the euthanasia debate in the House of Lords, praising the speech the royal physician had just given.

Euthanasia still has not been legalized in Britain. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society said today that it had not yet decided what, if anything, it wanted to say about the death of King George V 50 years ago. (Secret Is Out: Lord Dawson Killed King George V.)

What was considered appalling in England over thirty-one years ago now is the accepted “norm.” After all, according to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and most of the conciliar revolutionaries, “ethical considerations” are never fixed in time, and they have changed in England and around the so-called “civilized” world in the past eighty years ago as a result of what Lord Dawson wanted, namely, the “gentle growth of euthanasia,” that most men applaud the “medical interventions” that “expedite death.”

The widespread acceptance of “palliative care” is the result of gradual, almost imperceptible series of changes, starting with contraception and surgical abortion, that have so anesthetized human consciences to accept the direct, intentional killing of innocent human life as “merciful,” “compassionate,” “necessary,” and “morally justified.”

Yes, the “gentle growth of euthanasia” has given way to its aggressive implementation in the so-called medical industry around the world, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has once again shown himself to be an agent of Antichrist by crowning Christ the King anew with a mystical crown of thorns by paying his obeisance to a fellow servant of the demons, George Soros, and his well-paid, carefully trained programmed “team” of confederates.

Several Distinctions and Qualifications

Now, it is important to make some careful distinctions as so many Catholics have fallen prey to the merchants of death, who have cleverly manipulated them into believing that it was “necessary” to “let go” of their loved ones and to do nothing to question the “process” or to intervene to stop it.

First, the spiritual and emotional duress that patients and their loved ones experience during times of illness, injury and disability is exploited by the merchants of death in a variety of cleverly-devised manners. Indeed, each member of the “disciplinary team” reinforces a common message of proselytizing in favor of the “process,” but they do so by shrewdly measuring the patient’s condition and the “readiness” of the relatives to “accept” their plans uncritically. As noted in the study quoted above, the “team” endeavors to build “trusting relationships” with patients and relatives to “help” them during the different stages of the “process.”

Second, this use of emotional manipulation means that those who have consented to the “process” without realizing that they were being convinced to become enablers of the willful killing of an innocent being cannot beat themselves over the head once they come to realize what how they were used by the merchants of death.

Thus is it that we can never judge the subject culpability of anyone involved in this monstrous system of death, least of all the relatives of victims who did not realize how they were being manipulated and/or who never understood that it is morally impermissible to cause or to hasten the death of an innocent human being. God alone knows the subjective culpability of the souls of those who believe, albeit erroneously, that they were acting in good faith despite participating or consenting acts that are gravely evil in the objective order of things.

To be sure, the conciliar revolutionaries bear great culpability, objectively speaking, for systematically robbing Catholics of the inability to use right moral principles in matters of life and death. Correction, these revolutionaries bear great culpability, objectively speaking, for systematically robbing Catholics of the sensus Catholicus. Period. 

The conciliar revolutionaries have made it much easier for Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to be swayed by the pull of the sentimentality and emotionalism that is entirely unfettered in this world of Protestant rationalism and Judeo-Masonic naturalism. This is all the more difficult because of the fact that those Catholics who participate in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service are not receiving Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in Holy Eucharist as this service is invalid and offensive to God nor do they have access, at least in most cases, to true priests to actually absolve them of their sins. It is the paucity of the superabudnance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces, coupled with the revolutionary overthrow of Catholic doctrine on Faith and Morals, that has made Catholics attached to the conciliar structures more suspectible than ever before to the pull of sentimentality and emotionalism of the sort used today in "palliative care" in our system of death.

Consider these words of Father Edward Leen in Why the Cross?

For men, as a rule, have but shown themselves too eager to manage their own temporal affairs. They resent what they call the Church's interference. This resentment culminates in a deliberate exclusion of the Church from the councils of peoples. Even at the best of times, when States were not yet professedly secularist, what jealousy was always manifested with regard to the action of the Church in secular matters! How slow men were to take her advice! How her efforts for procuring the temporal welfare of men were hampered, thwarted and positively resisted!

The gradual silencing of the voice of Christianity in the councils of the nations is the evil cause of the chaotic conditions of modern civilized life. This issue was inevitable. For though the Church's wisdom is primarily in the domain of things of the world to come, yet she is wise, too, with regard to the things of the world that is. She is not for the world, and yet she is able and even ready to act as if she were equipped specially to procure the temporal good of men.  [See Maritain, St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 134.] She is able and willing to give men directions in temporal matters, which, if followed, will result in temporal prosperity. She is too wise to promote unrealizable Utopias, from which all suffering and toil will be banished. She can give prudent directions how to devise measures for the mitigation of inevitable hardships and the elimination of unnecessary evils. If rulers and ruled alike listened to her voice, the authentic voice of Christianity, what a change would come over the world! It would not cease to be a vale of tears but would cease to be a vale of savage strife. It would not become an earthly Paradise but would become an earth where man's dreams of a satisfying order of things could be realized. (Father Edward Leen, Why the Cross?, originally published by Sheed & Ward in 1938, and republished in 2001 by Scepter Publishers, Princeton, New Jersey,  pp. 14-15.)

Third, none of the documentation above is to suggest that it is impossible to receive good medical care from devoted professionals who have the true spiritual and temporal good of patients and their relatives at heart. Such an inference from the documentation provided in this commentary would be wrongheaded and unjust. There are many dedicated physicians and nurses and other healthcare professionals who are aware of the system of death and who attempt to treat rather than to kill living human beings. There also places, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, that advertise the cost of their procedures and are operated by solid professionals, many of them Catholic, who practice medicine according to sound medical principles and while observing the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Nonetheless, however, the system of death that has overtaken the healthcare industry as a result of the hijacking of palliative care by the very same people who support the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn babies is hard for the average person to recognize clearly and to reject unequivocally, and this is exactly how the adversary has arranged things as he desires the death of human beings in this life and in the next so that he can torment them for all eternity in hell after the Particular Judgment. One must be very careful, therefore, and make sure to consult with Catholic medical professionals who understand the reality of the system of death that has become institutionalized in the American healthcare system.

Fourth, priests have the obligation to inform themselves about the system of death and to realize that it is (a) designed to kill living human beings; (b) based upon a shifting-narrative and definition of what constitutes “natural death”; (c) designed to make ordinary care to a human being seem “extraordinary” and thus so burdensome that there is no moral obligation to provide it; (d) to anesthetize reality by “staging” the act of killing over the course of time as the circumstances and the patients and their relatives require in the judgment of the “interdisciplinary team.”

Killing is killing, and it is not act of “compassion” for relatives to consent to their being executed by “professionals” in white coats who want to “accompany” them while a loved one is in a very clever process of a carefully-programmed execution. No priest can be any part to this whatsoever, not unless he can justify being on the same side as George Soros and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that is, and they do not have the teaching of Christ the King and good of soul in mind, do they?

Fifth, it is imperative to reject so-called "living wills." Although I have include it in the body of several other articles, an article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review twenty years ago attested to the dangers of these "living wills."

Dr. Paul Byrne worked with a Catholic attorney to devise a set of Advance Medical Directives that each person who reads this site should read and then sign in front of witnesses other than family members as the form requires to be legally binding even upon the merchants of death. Also attached is a declartion to receive the Last Rites of the Catholic Church by a traditional priest. These documents are linked at: Advance Care Directives. I have executed these directives for myself, making it a point to provide them to each healthcare facility that I have visited in recent months. So should the readers of this site as we do not know when some sort of medical incident may occur.

We Must Lift Our Minds and Hearts to Christ the King as  His Consecrated Slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary

We must lift our minds and hearts to Heaven as we embrace the Holy Cross, ever conscious of the price that Our Lord paid to redeem us thereon, a price that was shared by His Most Blessed Mother as she stood so valiantly under It. We do not not need hospice or end-life "counseling" sessions. We need the Holy Cross and Our Most Blessed Mother. Period!

Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B., explained how deeply we must always united ourselves to Our Lord's sufferings:

Christ and His members must be one. They must walk the same road, not only during the liturgical service, when they are lifted up together in the mysteries of the sacrifice, but also in every event of life. Christ welcomed suffering, and accepted it freely; He did not flee the hardships of life. He makes suffering in us, His members, serve the spirit; He uses it as a means of freeing us from the world and all that is temporal and thus raises us from things of his world to the thins that are eternal.

Now, during Passiontide, we must begin to live and treasure pain and suffering. In the cross, in suffering, in or crucifixion with Christ, we shall find salvation. For Him and with Him we should bear all the slight injustices committed against us. For Him we should suffer freely and willingly the unpleasant and disagreeable things that occur to us. But our faith is weak. We flee from from the cross instead of holding it dear, instead of loving it and welcoming it our as Savior did.  (Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B., The Light of the World, Volume I, B. Herder Book Company, 1954, p. 595.)

Father Leen made a similar point in the conclusion of Why The Cross?

Why God should have decreed that the obedience of His Son should be expressed through the awful sufferings of the Passion, when it might have been expressed in a ritual act involving no such pain, is a secret of His inscrutable designs. All we can now is that the sacrifice of Calvary was decreed out of a merciful regard for man.

St. Thomas, while not pretending to solve this great mystery of pain, shows how, practically, the dreadful sufferings of Christ on Calvary aid man to profit by the salvation that these sufferings have merited for him. He points out that, though from the very beginning of His conception Jesus merited the divine life of grace for men, yet their remained obstacles to their profiting to the grace so won for them. The Passion was directed toward the removal of those obstacles.

Calvary brings home to men in a vivid way the great gravity of sin and the terrible tribulation that awaits it. The Passion, bringing home to the imagination, as well as to the mind, the loathsomeness of sin and the chastisement that it merits, act as a powerful deterred from evil. Calvary, by its example, encourages that heroism which is often demanded of men if they are to prove faithful to God in times of great trial and temptation. Above all, it moves men to the love of God, Who, in surrendering Himself to death on their account, gives such a convincing proof of His love for them. Love is, in final account, the great force in life, for love alone can inspire that sacrifice which is the price of unwavering fidelity to the Lord.

Every Christian who proves himself faithful in his vocation will deduce form his own experience the wisdom of the divine decree. He will learn by practical experience that it is only through contemplating with faith the sufferings of the Man-God that he nerves himself to abide in obedience to the Lord in spite of the hardships that such obedience so frequently entails. In a world that is ever at with Christ and His ideals, there is a constant call for heroism if one is to persevere to the end in loyalty to God. The Cross, is for the Christian, the standard that rouses his courage to withstand bravely the assault of the consequences with Christ, risen from the dead, “to walk in newness of life.”

Christ has traced for the Christian the path he most follow if he is to achieve himself and conquer happiness.

The life of Christ on earth was a career of conquest, closing in on the magnificent triumph of entry into heaven on the day of the Ascension. The Christian who wishes to share in Christ’s victory must be prepared to take active part in Christ’s struggle. He must, in other words, display, in conflict with the adverse forces within and without himself, the moral and spiritual qualities of his Leader.

The great obstacles to final success in this welfare of the spirit are the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life. If the Christian is to cleave his way to the peace that surpasseth all understanding, and the happiness which such peace gives, the concupsicences must be beaten down and reduced to a state of impotence. The poverty, chastity, and obedience of Christ are he weapons with which this result is achieved. These are the moral qualities of which Christ’s life was the sustained expression.

The Christian will catch a reflection of Christ’s noble distinction if he emulates Christ’s grand independence of men and things. His contempt for purely fictitious glory, and His utter disregard for any honor except that which comes of God’s approval bestowed on a man’s life and actions. He will capture something of Christ’s moral grandeur if, reproducing something of Christ’s chastity, he attains to that majesty of spirit over matter which leaves the will free to expand in the purest love for God and man. He will clothe himself with a measure of Christ’s serene sovereignty if, acquiring Christ’s humility, he brings his nature to its highest in harmonizing it completely with the mind and will of its Creator and Sovereign Lord. In this lies the achievement of perfect truth: through this the Christian attains the excellence that comes of the flawless realization of the divine ideal of manhood. Undeniably, all this involves bitter suffering for man’s fallen nature, but the follower of Christ must be ready to sacrifice with Him if he wishes ‘to be glorified with Him.’ (Father Edward Leen, S.J., Why the Cross?, originally published by Sheed & Ward in 1938, and republished in 2001 by Scepter Publishers, Princeton, New Jersey,  pp. 310-312.)

While death will come to us all at time that God has appointed for us from all eternity, we must be willing to suffer until the time of a true natural death, not one defined by the merchants of death, in a world of escapism that has rejected the necessity of redemptive suffering. We must be well-prepared to make a good death, which can occur at any time, of course, and to ready to make a good Confession of our sins to a true priest if God has granted us the grace to be conscious, alert and in full control of our rational ability to do so, something for which we must beg Our Lady every day. A lifetime of embracing suffering by uniting it to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as a member of His true Church is the only path to prepare as adequately as possible for the fearful moment of the Particular Judgment that will be rendered to us by Christ the King, our Divine Judge.

Protestantism has created a Christianity without the Cross. Judeo-Masonry has created a world without Christianity. The end result must be slavery to the "professionals" in a world of unspeakable savagery, and it is with that world of unspeakable savagery that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made his own "official reconciliation" by forging a mutual alliance with Geroge Soros to advance the forces of spiritual and physical death.

Father Robert Mader offered words of great inspiration eighty-five years the very country, Germany, where Bishop Clemens von Galen was to preach against the Hitlerian practices of eugenics, which involved the killing off of the feeble in body and in mind, most of which had originated during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, that have become accepted as normal and nature in the "developed" world at this time, including here in the United States of America:

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the Romans covered the places of hallowed memory to he Christian with rubble. The cave of the Holy Sepulchre was buried under such rubble, and over as well Golgotha pagan images and temples were erected in honor of Venus and Jupiter. For this reason the Christians did not go there anymore, in order not to be mistaken for idol-worshippers. Emperor Constantine ordered the temples and images torn down and the rubble carried away. After long and hard work the cave of the Holy Sepulchre was found. Not found away three crosses with nails were discovered, and along with them the superscription, which, however, lay separate from the cross.

Without doubt one of the these must be the Cross of the Savior, but there was no certain sign that would differentiate it from the crosses of the two thieves. This was given when a mortally il woman was suddenly cured by touching the true Cross. The Holy Cross was then encased in silver and precious gems, and a church was built over it, which according to Emperor Constantine's order was to be more magnificent than anything ever seen before. In memory of these events, the Church recalls the Finding of the Most Holy Cross on May 3, in order that on every day until the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (September 14), land and people with be blessed with a splinter, a particle of the Cross.

We have every reason to remember these events. Christianity is the religion of the Crucified One. In his first letter to the Corinthians the Apostle of the Nations, St. Paul, declares: "For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). St. Paul's preaching, no matter how many-sided it appears, always returns to the central Sun of Christendom: Jesus on the Cross, King of the World! Everything else is either a ray from this Sun, or it is nothing. In the Crucifix lies our entire dogmatic and moral theology, our entire teaching on faith and morals, our catechism. The Cross is our library. Every other book has value only inasmuch as the spirit of the Cross speaks in it.

Modernists have attempted to ban the old preaching of St. Paul, the Gospel of the Cross, to oblivion. The Cross means the teaching of the necessity of sacrifice and of grace, and this now lies under the rubble on which a new paganism has erected once again the pagan images and temples of Jupiter, Mercury, Venus and Bacchus--in other words, the absolutist state, capitalism, immorality, and addiction to pleasure. A certain superficial Christianity, which puts more value on being modern than on being Catholic and Biblical, and for which the imitation of the spirit of the times is more understandable than the imitation of Christ, has made itself a willing accomplice.

We have lost the Cross. We have a Christianity that no longer understands sacrifice and there is no Christianity or only a soulless version of Christianity. We need Constantines and Helens who will once again dig out the the Cross from under the rubble and make it their shrine and their sign, and who believe that the King's throne is the Cross.

The crucified King! In the family we must have a Finding of the the Most Holy Cross! The modern family has lost the crucifix, and in its place it has raised up the political hero, the artist, old pagan gods, nudity and the prostitute. The crucifix does not fit into the modern home. The modern living room preaches money-grabbing, pride, vanity, lasciviousness, laziness. The modern living room is the exaltation of the seven deadly sins. At least one is honest enough to feel the Cross no longer fits into this milieu and has got rid of it because in the long run the crucifix can only remain there where the spirit of the Crucified One remains, and the spirit of the Crucified is no longer there.

The spirit of the Crucified is the spirit of love and sacrifice, but the spirit of the modern family is the spirit of selfishness and enjoyment. The speech of the Crucified says: First the others, I come last! The speech of selfishness is: First I, then again I, the others come last! The Christian family is built on the notion of sacrifice and devotion. The concept of the Christian father is: Work from morning to evening for others. The concept of the Christian mother is: Care for others! Let the self always come last! The concept of the Christian child is: Respect, love, obedience. Father and mother first, only then I!

The notion of sacrifice is dying out in the modern family. The modern family is built upon the law of egotism. The modern family takes as its motto: "As much enjoyment and as little sacrifice as possible!" This is the source of Malthusianism. That is where characterless education comes from. And that is the doom of the family. Only the Cross and its sermon of self-discipline, self-denial and devotion can save the dying family. (Father Robert Mader, Cross and the Crown, edited and translated by Dr. Eileen Kunze, Sarto House, 1999, pp. 117-119.)

The myth of “brain death” and the practices of the modern "palliative care" industry are founded upon a rejection of the Holy Cross. So is most of modern medicine, especially for the chronically or terminally ill. We must embrace the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, not flee from It, the very instrument of our salvation.

May we always trust in the tender mercies of the Sacred Heart of Jesus as we fly unto It through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary so that we can embrace suffering with love, knowing that a safe and sure shelter awaits us in the love of these two Hearts if only we persevere until the end in states of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church.

We do not play God in life. We want to know, love and serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church so that He will greet us when we meet Him at the Particular Judgment with these consoling words:

Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25: 21.)

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now and the hour of our death.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

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

Saint Isidore the Farmer, pray for us.


Saint Maria de la Cabeza, pray for us.

Appendix A

Mrs. Randy Engel’s 2007 Interview with Dr. Paul Byrne on “Brain Death,” followed by commentary of mine from “Headless Corpses”

Editor: Dr. Byrne, how would you describe the body of a human being?

Dr. Byrne: A human person on earth is composed of body and soul. God creates the person. Biologically speaking, the body is composed of cells, tissues, organs and eleven systems, including three major vital systems. No one organ or system controls all other organs and systems. Interdependent functioning of organs and systems maintains unity, homeostasis, immune defenses, growth, healing and exchange with environment, e.g., oxygen and carbon dioxide. Life on earth is a continuum from its conception to its natural end. The natural end (true death) occurs when the soul separates from the body.

Editor: Most adults and children, even if they are not physicians, recognize signs of life, don’t they?

Dr. Byrne: Yes, of course. The vital signs of a living human being include temperature, pulse, blood pressure and respiration. Physicians, nurses and paramedics listen to the beating heart with a stethoscope. Patients in intensive care units have monitors to demonstrate the beating heart, blood pressure, respiration and oxygen in the blood.

Editor: What about the signs of death?

Dr. Byrne: Throughout the ages, death has been and is a negative, an absence – the state of the body without life. The soul has left the body and decomposition has begun. After death what is left on earth is a corpse. The remains are empty, cold, blue, rigid and unresponsive to all stimuli. There is no heartbeat, pulse or blood pressure. The patient has stopped breathing. There is poor color of the skin, nails, and mucous membranes. Ventilation will not restore respiration in a corpse. A pacemaker can send a signal but it cannot initiate the heartbeat in the corpse. Healing never occurs in a patient that is truly dead.

Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?

Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.

Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?

Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.

Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?

Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.

Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes.

Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?

Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?

Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.

Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?

Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.

Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”

Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain.

Editor: I know that there have been instances where young pregnant women have sustained serious head injuries, declared “brain dead,” and have given birth to a live child.

Dr. Byrne: That is true. With careful management, these “brain dead” women have delivered a live baby. In the longest recorded instance, the child was carried for 107 days before delivery.

Editor: Are there other uses for “brain dead” patients besides being the source of fresh vital organs?

Dr. Byrne: Legally, “brain dead” patients are considered corpses or cadavers, and are called such by organ retrieval networks. These “corpses” can be used for teaching purposes and to try out new medical procedures. Yet these same “corpses” are carrying unborn children to successful delivery. Certainly this is extraordinary behavior by a “cadaver!”

Editor: What if a potential organ donor does not meet the criteria for “brain death,” but has sustained certain injuries or has an illness suggesting that death will soon occur?

Dr. Byrne: Such cases have brought about the development of a what is called “non heart-beating donation” (NHBD), more recently labeled “donation by cardiac death” (DCD)–in which treatments considered extraordinary means, such as mechanical ventilation, are discontinued and cause the patient to become pulseless. As soon as circulation stops, death is declared.

Editor: Then what?

Dr. Byrne: This stopping of life supporting treatments is done in the operating room. After a few minutes–the time varies in different institutions–procedures to take vital organs begins.

EditorBut how can this be accomplished if the person declared to be dead, is truly dead?

Dr. ByrneIt can’t.

Editor: What about insurance coverage for “brain dead” patients?

Dr. Byrne: Hospitals allow them to occupy a bed and insurance companies cover expenses as they do for other living patients. If the patients’ organs are suitable for transplantation, any transfer of the patients to another hospital is covered by insurance. Insurance also covers the cost of life support, blood transfusions, antibiotics and other medications needed to maintain organs in a healthy state. This also applies to “brain dead” patients to be used in medical teaching facilities.

Editor: I know that the federal government has taken an active role in promoting so-called “living wills.” Has it also played a role in promoting vital organ donations?

Dr. Byrne: The federal government has, for reasons that are unclear, been deeply involved in promoting vital organ transplantation. For example, a federal mandate issued in 1998 states that physicians, nurses, chaplains, and other health care workers may not speak to a family of a potential organ donor without first obtaining approval from the regional organ retrieval system. If the potential for transplantation exists, a trained “designated requester” visits with the family of the patient first, including families that adamantly oppose organ donation. If someone at the hospital speaks to the family of the patient first, the hospital risks losing its accreditation and possibly federal funding.

Editor: Why the “designated requester”?

Dr. Byrne: That’s because studies show that these specialists have a greater success obtaining permission for organ donations from grieving family members. They are trained to “sell” the concept of organ donation, using emotionally-laden phrases such as “giving the gift of life,” “your loved one’s heart will live on in someone else,” and other similar platitudes, all empty of true meaning. Don’t forget that the donation and transplant industry is a multi- billion dollar enterprise. In 1996, Forbes Magazine ran an informative series on this issue, but as a rule it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain solid financial data. One thing, however, is clear: donor families do not receive any monetary benefit from their “gift of life.”

Editor: There appears to be a strong utilitarian aspect to vital organ transplantation.

Dr. Byrne: That is because the philosophy that inspires the practice is based on the error that man is an end to himself, and the sole maker with supreme control of his own destiny. Slavery bought, sold and treated enslaved persons as chattel. The human transplantation industry and the “bioethics” groups that promote vital organ transplantation also consider human beings to be chattel, that is, they can be used as a source of organs for transplantation. This utilitarian ethic should be rejected. “Brain death” and all forms of imposed death are contrary to the Natural Moral Order and against God’s Ordinance “Thou shall not kill.”

Editor: It is obvious that organ donation is a very serious matter – literally a matter of life and death for the potential donor and the family of a potential donor, and that everyone ought to be implicitly and explicitly informed about the true nature of so-called “brain death” and vital organ transplantation.

Would you review for our readers some of the questions they should ask themselves before signing an organ donor card or giving permission for a loved one to be declared “brain dead” in anticipation of organ transplantation?

Dr. Byrne: If there is any question in the mind of your readers as to the fact that “brain death” is not true death, perhaps they may want to ask themselves the following questions regarding “brain death” and vital organ transplantation:

· Why can health insurance cover intensive care costs on “bread dead” patients?

· Why do “brain dead” patients often receive intravenous fluids, antibiotics, ventilator care, and other life support measures?

· Is it right and just for physicians and “designated requesters” to tell families that their “bread-dead” loved one is dead when she or he is not dead?

· How can “brain dead” patients have normal body functions, including vital signs, if they are really dead?

· How can a “brain-dead” pregnant mother deliver a normal, healthy infant?

· Why does a ventilator work on someone declared “brain dead,” but not on a corpse?

· Why is it wrong to carry out the burial or cremation of a “brain-dead” person?

· Are persons who have been declared “brain dead” truly dead?

· If “brain-dead” persons are not truly dead, are they alive?

Editor: Thank you on behalf of The Michael Fund for providing this valuable information to our readership?

Dr. Byrne: Thank you for this opportunity to inform your readers about this vital issue of vital organ transplantation. If they don’t remember every thing that I have said, I hope that they will remember this one point: “brain death” is not true death. Instead of signing a donor organ card, I would encourage everyone to obtain a Life Support Directive. A free copy of this document is available from Citizens   (Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, From The Michael Fund Newsletter)

Droleskey text from “Headless Corpses”:

"Brain death" is dead. Those who hold onto this myth or who use it in any way to justify any case of vital organ transplantation to "save" the life of another human being have no claim on being any kind of moral authority to guide souls in accordance with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.

The future of our nation is not that of "one hundred twenty-five year-old headless corpses." Far from it. Patients are kept alive today only so long as their care is paid for and/or until it is deemed that they are "hot prospects" for "vital organ transplantation."

Permit me a brief word of explanation. 

Admitting full well that all manner of needless surgeries and procedures are recommended for people in their seventies and eighties solely because they have insurance monies, whether from private insurers or from Medicare or Medicaid or other government programs, to fund them. Those whose insurance monies run out and/or who have no such monies will not be kept alive by otherwise needless surgeries and procedures. Any person of any age is a "prospect" for vital organ transplantation if they find themselves in a hospital as a result of an accident or some catastrophic illness and are a "match" for someone on the list to receive such vital organs.  A nation of "one hundred twenty-five year-old headless corpses"? Hardly. Those in the medical industry who justify the killing of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs, whether by chemical or surgical means, are more than willing to kill human beings at any subsequent stage after birth.

After all, hospices are simply places where those with various terminal or chronic illnesses can be euthanized. The Jack Kevorkians who kill human beings there are considered to be merchants of "compassion" and "death with dignity," not what they are in God's eyes: murderers.

No brain damaged human being is a "headless corpse." Those who suffer from any kind of physical injury or congenital deformity are human beings to the point of their natural deaths, which are to be determined by the long-standing medical criteria listed by Dr. Paul Byrne in his interview with Mrs. Randy Engel of The Michael Foundation and the U. S. Coalition for Life. We are to perform the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy for such people as we see the suffering Christ in them. We would not starve or dehydrate Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to death. We would minister unto Him all ordinary care that that is necessary to sustain life, and food and water are, quite by the way, ordinary care no matter how they are delivered. Food and water are never any kind of "medical treatment." Never.

Delivering food and water to a living human being is not a "needless prolongation" of physical life, which, of course, is not an end in and of itself. We simply cannot violate the precepts of the Fifth Commandment to undertake any action whose immediate and sole end is the death of an innocent human being. It is that simple, and this is far, far different than recommending a ninety-year old patient with cancer undergo chemotherapy, something that is not required by the moral law and, an act that could indeed be viewed as a needless prolongation of life, especially in the case of one who has received the Sacrament of Extreme Unction at the hands of a true priest and is thus disposed sacramentally for the fearful moment of his own Particular Judgment.

Although cases of miraculous recoveries of patients who have been diagnosed as "hopeless cases" because of their alleged "brain death" or being in a "persistent vegetative state" are interesting to note, we do not base the provision of ordinary care to the brain damaged on the basis of such miraculous recoveries. Human beings are human beings in need of food and water until they die, and the only end that can result from the removal of food and water from a living human being is death, which can never be willed for an innocent human being. What such cases of miraculous recoveries of patients who have been diagnosed as "hopeless cases" do prove is that God is more powerful than the alleged "experts" in our contemporary medical industry who care nothing for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, to say nothing of the traditional Hippocratic Oath that was altered to accommodate this industry's embrace of baby-killing and vital organ transplantation.

Here is just one recent case:

DROMMONDVILLE, Quebec, July 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last week, Madeleine Gauron, a Quebec woman identified as viable for organ donation after doctors diagnosed her as “brain dead,” surprised her family and physicians when she recovered from a coma, opened her eyes, and began eating.

The 76-year-old woman was hospitalized at the Hospital Sainte Croix de Drummondville for an inflammation of the gums, which required a brief operation.  During her recovery, hospital staff gave the elderly woman solid food, which she had been unable to consume in her family home for some time, and left her unattended.  Choking on the food, she fell into a coma, after unsuccessful resuscitation.

Medical staff contacted her family, explaining to them that their mother was “brain dead,” with no hope of recovery.  Citing Gauron’s eyes as particularly viable, the doctors asked if the family would agree to organ donation.

While supporting the possibility of donation, her shocked family first demanded further medical tests to prove Gauron was really dead. 

The next day, the family was astonished to learn that Gauron had awakened.  Shortly afterwards, she sat up in bed and ate yogurt.

“If we had decided to donate her organs, they would have killed her,” said her son.

“It makes no sense to treat people like that. Although she is 76 years old and is ill, she did not have to suffer all this,” insisted her daughter.

Madeleine Gauron is now able to eat, walk and talk, and immediately recognized her family. Her children have decided to take legal action against the hospital.

As anecdotes similar to Gauron’s continue to pile up, “brain death” as a legitimate diagnosis of actual death is increasingly being questioned by concerned family members and medical professionals, some of whom have charged that the “brain death” criteria was created simply to ensure that harvested organs are fresh.

Currently, more than half of Swedish intensive care nurses who care for purportedly brain dead patients have doubts about methods for establishing brain death, according to a recent survey released by Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg.

While regulations require Swedish physicians to ascertain brain death through particular clinical tests, further analysis in conjunction with brain x-rays are only done for select patients.

The author of the thesis, Anne Flodén, a registered nurse and researcher at the Institute of Health and Care Sciences, said the outcome of the study was problematic, indicating the need for clear guidelines surrounding the process of diagnosis and organ donation.

“This problem was raised by many of the ICU nurses in several of the studies,” said Flodén. “They were disappointed in the lack of structure and guidelines and are therefore calling for more support from management on these issues.” (Brain dead’ Quebec woman wakes up after family refuses organ donation.) 

Headless corpses? Not to God. And if not to God, my friends, I ask others who contend that such people as Madeleine Gauron, a "brain dead" woman who was being targeted for surgical execution as her vital organs would be dissected out of her body, then why to any one of us, no matter what supposed "expertise" that one alleges to have on this matter? Why to any one of us? Why? Why take the dishonest word of today's merchants of death and body snatchers and reject the expertise of Catholics such as Dr. Paul Byrne? Why align oneself with the conciliar revolutionaries, merchants of eternal death by means of apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges that offend Our Lord and deceive the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, who are themselves full-throated supporters of the myth of "brain death" and of the execution of innocent human beings by means of vital organ transplantation." Talk about disconnects!

I tried to explain to my students in the thirty years of my teaching political science at the college/university/graduate school levels that Our Lord has warned us about the dangers we face from the merchants of eternal and physical death. One of the quotes I used was from a colleague of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc:

It is worth noting, by the way, that the most sentimental people, who are loudest against the right to wage a just war, to execute a criminal, are just the people who are most likely to be in favour of ‘putting incurables out of their pain,’ which the commandment against murder most emphatically forbids. (Hilaire Belloc, Characters of the Reformation.)

Appendix B

Father Edward Leen's Introduction to Why The Cross?

A European politician once stated that Christianity had failed. It did not seem to him that his assertion needed proof. The actual condition of things in his ow country appeared to him to be ample justification for what he said. Yet the statement, so far from being indisputable, can be shown, on analysis, to betray a gross confusion of thought.

Christianity has not failed, for the simple reason that it has scarcely been tried. It certainly has not been tried on any extensive scale. It could be branded with failure, if having been guaranteed by its founder to be able to achieve certain definite results, it had been, when put to the test, found wanting. But it Christianity is but imperfectly or incompletely applied to the task of reducing to order the confused issues of human existence, it cannot be blamed for the relative chaos that results. If Christianity in its integrity was accepted by all and its principles were applied in efforts to solve the practical problems of life, peace and comparative happiness would be the result. If Christianity were put in practice for one entire day by all people throughout the whole world, then for that day the woes that afflict mankind would in great part have ceased.

Though all suffering and sorrow would not have ended (Christianity does not guarantee that it will put an end to distresses inherent to mortality and the fallen state of mankind), yet the earth would bear a not-too-remote resemblance to the Garden of Paradise. To dream of bringing about this happy state of affairs without applying the principles of Christianity to the unraveling of the tangled issues of human existence is to dream a dream that can never be realized. Many world leaders indulge this idle dream. It is not astonishing that the result of the political efforts of such dreamers is but to intensify that existing disorder and to make confusion worse confounded.

As has been said, Christianity cannot be accused of failure: it is mankind that can, with strict justice, be accused of failure, because, on the whole, man has failed to respond to the appeal of Christianity. It is more than doubtful if it can be maintained with any truth that, at any time, since the beginning of the Christian era, any body politic wholeheartedly accepted and applied the full Christian program in the organization and regulation of its life. Doubtless such an application has been made partially and, on occasion, even to some considerable extent. But the Christian philosophy of life, in its political and social aspects, was never given full and unhampered play in molding the public life of modern nations. There was a time when things were shaping towards this, more and less remotely. The condition of public affairs was satisfactory or unsatisfactory according to whether there was an approach to, or a falling short of, the Christian ideal.

What has been said of social groups in not universally true of individuals. There have been individual men and women who have given a wholehearted trial to Christianity and have not found it wanting. In their hands it has been a complete and triumphant success. There persons are known as saints. They have illustrated the annals of the Church in all ages. They understood Christianity to be what it actually is, a divinely fashioned instrument, made for the express purpose of transforming human nature. Christianity guarantees this result – if it is applied to the work. It asserts that it is equipped with ample resources to bring this process to a successful issue. It does not guarantee this result if inadequately used, or if ill used; and ill used it must be if it is not wholly accepted or if it is badly understood.

The saints accepted Christianity wholeheartedly. In their case there was no failure. They became exactly what Christianity guaranteed to make them, super-men in the highest sense of the term. They became transfigured with a transfiguration symbolized by that of Christ on the Mound. They became human beings – more human that the others, and yet human beings who diffused rays of the divinity. They are people who have permanently benefited mankind. Their spirit and their works survive them and serve as an enduring leaven in the mass of humanity. The good they did was not interred with their bones. They were eminently great, and Christianity was the source of their greatness. In others, be they individual persons or groups of persons, Christianity succeeds in a measure that corresponds exactly with the degree in which it is accepted. Unfortunately, to subscibe to Christianity is not the same thing as being integrally a Christian. To be this latter, one must accept the Christian standard of values. If this is not done fully, elements of disorder and distress necessarily invade the life of the individual and of society. The failure to achieve an existence that is satisfying must not, in these circumstances, be laid at the door of Christianity, but of those who profess Christianity, while forgetting Christian values in practice. This is not the failure of Christianity, but the failure of men to be Christians.

The life of the follower of Christ is bound to be filled with contradiction and inconsequence, unless he is clearly aware of what Christianity is for, what it guarantees to do, and what promises it hold out. Amide the clamor and tumult arising from social and economic disorders, the real message of the Gospel of Christ can, with difficulty, be heard. The enemies of Christianity – and many of them, very likely, are enemies only of what they conceive Christianity to be – attack it, either as being the cause of evils from which the nations are suffering or, at least, as not playing its due part in striving to remedy these evils. There is a certain amount of tragic irony in seeing Christianity blamed for those evils that have arisen from the abandonment of Christian principles. For from the corruption of the Christian social structure, resulting in the great schism of the sixteenth century, emberged those germs of economic theory and practice that have been in subsequent times so prolific in fruits of economic evil. Men were not aware at the time that, in replacing the living authority of Christ by private judgment, they were actually abandoning Christianity. They were not aware of the logical implications of their revolt. Retaining much of what materially belong to Christianity, they believed themselves to be formally Christians. The logical consequences of their premises, derived from their revolt, are becoming perfectly clear now. Their errors in doctrine reacted on the organization of human life in a way they could scarcely have foreseen. The economic, social, and political principles that formed from their dogmatic positions contained, in germ, the social, economic, and political evils that afflict civilization today.

When man has declined in spirituality; it is natural that he should find his material needs to be the most insistent and the most important. People feel far more intensely their economic than their spiritual distress. Aristotle acutely remarks that a person is prone to make happiness consist in a condition of things that is the direct opposite to a misery from which he happens to be, at the moment suffering. [Arist. Nich, Ethics, bk. 1, ch.2] To the dispossessed multitudes cut off from the sources of wealth by the operation of modern industrialism, happiness appears to lie in free access to the world's goods and secure possession of them. They are taught by their guides to believe that Christianity blocks the path to economic security and are roused to fierce anger against it. The folly and injustice of this attitude have just been pointed out. It is the extreme of perversity to blame Christianity for what has followed from the abandonment of Christianity. It is not Christians who are responsible for the woes that afflict humanity. It is men, who, whether they call themselves Christians or not, apply to the solution of life's problems and to the regulation of life's conduct principles that deviate from the principles taught by Christ. They are responsible to the exact degree of that deviation.

But this is not the only point to make. The defenders of Christianity in the ardor of their defense are prone to be drawn away into a position dictated by their adversaries. When, for instance, the Church is bitterly assailed for not remedying the economic evils, the Christian apologist hastens to point out all that the church has done in this sphere of action. What the Church has done and is doing is immense, undoubtedly. But it must not be forgotten that her primary concern is with spiritual and not with temporal values. Very willingly she leaves the sphere of temporal interests to be regulated by man's own thought and by man's own inventions. Social, political, and economic problems can be solved by the exercise of human reason and by the right use of human will. The Church, the living voice of Christianity, does not wish to supersede, but to stimulate, human activity. She contents herself with giving direction that will prevent the activity from taking courses she knows, with her divinely infused wisdom, will ultimately militate against man's good. She desires that man should himself exert his faculties to the full to secure, by human designing, a satisfactory arrangement of human affairs, and such a measure of temporal well-being as is feasible.

This attitude is not one of haughty aloofness from, or cold indifference to, men's earthly cares. It is dictated by a sovereign respect for those inborn possibilities of development, which can be evolved by man's use of his own powers. She has a notable precedent for it in the attitude of her Divine Founder. A contemporary of the Savior urged Him to leave aside for the moment His labors for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, and devote Himself to something more immediately practical, the settlement of an economic dispute.

“Master,” he said, “speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me.” Here there is a very characteristic situation. When things go to men's satisfaction, they are quite willing to dispense with the guidance of God. But when, left to their own resources, they have thoroughly mismanaged their affairs, then they turn to Him, that is, to His living voice on earth, to put order into the confusion they have created. More likely than not, they upbraid the Church and assail her as being responsible for the existing disorder. The Church could reply to the appeal and the calumny in the words of Jesus: “O man, who hath appointed me judge and divider over you?” [Lk 12: 13-14.]

For men, as a rule, have but shown themselves too eager to manage their own temporal affairs. They resent what they call the Church's interference. This resentment culminates in a deliberate exclusion of the Church from the councils of peoples. Even at the best of times, when States were not yet professedly secularist, what jealousy was always manifested with regard to the action of the Church in secular matters! How slow men were to take her advice! How her efforts for procuring the temporal welfare of men were hampered, thwarted and positively resisted!

The gradual silencing of the voice of Christianity in the councils of the nations is the evil cause of the chaotic conditions of modern civilized life. This issue was inevitable. For though the Church's wisdom is primarily in the domain of things of the world to come, yet she is wise, too, with regard to the things of the world that is. She is not for the world, and yet she is able and even ready to act as if she were equipped specially to procure the temporal good of men.  [See Maritain, St. Thomas Aquinas, p. 134.] She is able and willing to give men directions in temporal matters, which, if followed, will result in temporal prosperity. She is too wise to promote unrealizable Utopias, from which all suffering and toil will be banished. She can give prudent directions how to devise measures for the mitigation of inevitable hardships and the elimination of unnecessary evils. If rulers and ruled alike listened to her voice, the authentic voice of Christianity, what a change would come over the world! It would not cease to be a vale of tears but would cease to be a vale of savage strife. It would not become an earthly Paradise but would become an earth where man's dreams of a satisfying order of things could be realized.

But when all this has been said, it remains true that the sphere of activity in which the Church's efficacy is to be tested is not the sphere of economics. That is not her proper province. There, nothing more than relative success can attend human efforts, whereas, in that work which is properly belongs to Christianity to accomplish no failure can attend on its efforts. The function of Christianity is not to reform or devise economic or social systems: her function is to reform and to transform the economists themselves. The Church, the organ of Christianity, is well aware that a change in social conditions, unaccompanied by a change in the disposition of people, will only result in the substitution of one set of wrongdoers for another. “And the last state of men is made worse than the first.” [Mt 12: 45.] The Church undertakes to change people, not systems. She knows that if individuals become what they ought, systems will become what they ought. The dictum of her Divine Founder remains her own and voices her wisdom as well as her experience. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice and all these things shall be added unto you.” [Mt. 6: 33, LK 12:31]

There is so much clamorous abuse of the Church for not remedying social evils, that both her friends and her enemies gradually have their minds dulled to the apprehension of what the Church's essential function is in the world. But it must be repeated that the creation of satisfactory social conditions is far from being the primary, much less the only, aim of Christianity. What that aim is – what promises Christianity holds out to people – what it guarantees to effect for them-- what means and processes it offers for the realization of these hopes – what is the reason that these means and processes take the form that they actually assume – and finally, what a wondrous life, satisfying every desire and aspiration, it infallibly provides for all, if people will only consent to make use of the resources it puts at their disposal. In short, to set forth the real message of Christianity, its promises, its methods and its guarantees, is the purport of the following pages.

In Christendom today, conflicts regarding particular points of the Christian dispensation have come to an end. The battle in the realm of the spirit is now waged on a narrow front. It is the value itself of the Christian notion of human character and of the Christian ideal of life that is challenged. [See A. E. Taylor, The Faith of a Moralist (Gifford Lectures, 1926-1927), pp. 10-11.] the world is dividing itself rapidly into two hostile camps, one combating that ideal a outrance, the other defending it will what might be accurately termed a dogged tenacity. The protagonist of the Christian theory of human existence are rapidly shrinking in numbers They know that they are not fighting a losing battle, but they undergo all the agony of mind of men who feel that they are fighting against overwhelming odds. The fight cannot be lost, but the losses can be very heavy.

In this strife, where all Christian values are called in question, the vest vindication of the Christian ideal is its bold, uncompromising expression. Such an expression may not be without its effect on the enemies of Christianity, and may not be without its utility for those who are loyal to Christianity. It is possible that the sincere among the former have but a distorted idea of what they attack, and that many among the latter have an imperfect view of what they defend. Many are the misguided who in their revolt against the Christian ideal of human character and the Christian rule of life are in revolt not against that ideal itself, but against what they conceive it to be. It is hard to say how far Christians themselves are responsible for this state of affairs. Not only inadequacy in the practice of Christianity, but also a faulty presentation of its values, is apt to rouse antagonism in the sincere and the reflective. The Christian theory of life is so coherent, so logical, so simple yet so mysterious, so accommodated to the average person as well as to the most highly gifted and finally so soul-satisfying that, when adequately presented, it must readily recommend itself to all people of sincerity and good will. It alone among all other theories faces the problems offered by human existence and gives an answer to them. Contrasted with the Christian theory of life and life's experiences, all the theories that conflict with it and set themselves up in opposition to it must appear barren, ignoble, and utterly incapable of satisfying the ineradicable aspirations of the human spirit. On the other hand, for those who rally to the standard of Christ, a clear and explicit notion of what Christianity essentially means must have the effect of strengthening their hands and confirming their resolution in the defense of the values to which they give their allegiance. (Father Edward Leen, S.J., Why the Cross?, originally published by Sheed & Ward in 1938, and republished in 2001 by Scepter Publishers, Princeton, New Jersey,  pp. 9-17.)