No Court Has Jurisdiction Over Any Innocent Human Life

Given the fact that the father of Alfie Evans, whose court-permitted execution by officials at Alder Hey NHS Trust in Liverpool was completed at 2:30 a.m. yesterday, Saturday, had read a prepared statement on Thursday, April 26, 2018, the Feast of Saints Cletus and Marcellinus and the Feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel, that asked supporters of his son’s right to live cease polemics so that a “relationship” could be established with hospital staff, I decided to wait a few days before writing this commentary to see if Alfie would be moved to Ospitale Bambino Gesu in Rome, Italy. It was with great sadness that I discovered this morning, Saturday, April 28, 2018, the Feast of Saint Paul of the Cross and the Commemoration of Saint Vitalis and, in some places, Saint Louis de Montfort, that Alfie had died. His court-sanctioned execution has taken place.

As has been noted so many other times on this site, the case of Alfie Evans, like that of Charlie Gard last year, only made the news because his parents wanted to save his life. Countless are the cases of children in similar circumstances to those faced by Alfie Evans an Charlie Gard whose parents accept the word of the “medical professionals” without question. The supposed “medical professionals,” however, are well-trained emotional manipulators who are superbly adept at wearing emotionally distraught people, including, of course, patients in the cases of adults, into succumbing to the monstrous utilitarian schemes that include killing innocent human beings “in their best interests.”

The proximate root causes of the triumph of the utilitarian spirit that reduces the worth of an innocent human life to a callous cost-benefit ratio as determined by amoral pagans and ratified by equally amoral jurists have been reviewed on this site repeatedly, including in Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and A Mutual Alliance in Behalf of Spiritual and Physical Death: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and George Soros.  It should be noted further that the executions of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans have taken place in England, which has fallen into the moral abyss and has returned to its pagan past precisely because of King Henry VIII’s rebellion against papal primacy (see The Real "Brexit" Occurred In 1534). Modern England was born in the bloodletting of innocent Catholics who maintained their fealty to the Holy See and it has been sustained in the bloodletting of innocent human beings ever since.

Modern medicine, such as it is, is administered according to utilitarian considerations without any kind of regard for binding precept of the Natural Law, to say nothing of he Divine Positive law. Human beings are considered to “disposable.” Such a belief is but the logical result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King as theological relativism necessarily prepares the way for and must be supplanted eventually by utilitarianism, which is a species of moral relativism, and then practical atheism.

Pope Leo XIII explained the inevitable consequences of the Protestant Revolution that wind up producing a world of practical atheism:

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

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

The bloody revolution against the Catholic Faith begun by Martin Luther that begat Henry VIII’s bloody revolution against papal primacy and thus the Catholic Faith in thoroughly Catholic England a scant seventeen years later opened the door wide to agnosticism and atheism. Those who remove the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church as the foundation of order with the souls of men and thus within their nations will find themselves worshiping at the altars of every false “ism” imaginable.

The English Protestant Revolution help to bring about the rise of John Locke’s liberalism and, one hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin’s evolutionism, which played an important role in gaining support for Hegelianism (the evolution of ideas) and thus of Karl Marx’s denial of the existence of man’s immortal soul. It is a relatively short step from the belief in the disproved ideology of biological evolutionism to the practice of Social Darwinism and its enshrinement of government policies to weed out the socially and physically “unfit” and thus to lessen the supposed “economic burden” on taxpayers to support the “unwanted,” the infirmed and the indigent.

There is quite an irony in this as it was the case in England during the Middle Ages that the poor and the sick and the orphaned were cared for by Catholic monasteries and convents. Tenant farmers lived on the grounds of monasteries and convents, who were thrown off of the lands where their families had lived and farmed for generations after the lecherous, gluttonous drunkard King Henry VIII’s break from the true Church.

Father Edward Cahill provided a very good summary of the effects of King Henry VIII’s revolution in The Framework of A Christian State:

Results of the Plunder of the Church.—Not only is the Protestant Revolt mainly responsible for the unsocial character of Britain’s economic system but it was the immediate cause of much of the degrading pauperism that has disfigured British civilisation for the past four centuries. We have already alluded to the plunder of the Church and the alienation of the revenues devoted to charitable and educational purposes, which took place as a result of the religious revolt. This led directly to dreadful hardship in the case of the poor, to whose benefit most of the ecclesiastical revenue had previously been applied. The confiscated wealth, which according to the law under which the confiscations were carried out should have been to the service of the State, was in very large measure appropriated by lawyers, court favourites and other greedy and avaricious adventurers. These henceforth formed a new class of wealthy and unscrupulous plutocrats who in the following centuries dominated the political and social life of their several countries. Nowhere did these robbery of Church goods produce such disastrous results as in Ireland and Britain. In both these countries the Protestant Reformation laid the foundations secure and deep, of extreme individualistic capitalism, with its hideous counterpart of pauperism and oppression of the poor, which forms one of the chief characteristics of their social history during the following centuries. On this aspect of the question, Cardinal Gasquet writes:

“Viewed in its social aspect the English Reformation was in reality an uprising of the rich against the poor. . . . Those in place and power were enabled to grow greater in wealth and position, while those who had before but a small share of the good things of this world came in the process to have less. . . . The supposed purification . . . of doctrine and practice was brought about . . .  at the cost of driving a wedge well into the heart of the nation, which . . . established the distinction which still exists and the masses.” (Preface to Cobbett’s History of the Reformation, p. 6.)

The history of this lamentable revolution in England, by which the whole face of a great Catholic nation became permanently disfigured, the great majority of her once happy children plunged in ever-increasing degradation and misery, and her ideals and principles conformed to a non-Christian instead of a Christian standard, is graphically told by the Protestant writer Cobbett, in his History of the Protestant Reformation. “Never,” he writes, “since the world began was there so rich a harvest of plunder.” He tells how gold and silver, books and manuscripts, ornaments, paintings and statuary of priceless value equally with church, monastery and convent fell a prey to the satellites of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell:

“The whole country was thus disfigured: it had the appearance of a land recently invaded by the most brutal barbarians: and this appearance it has . . . even to the present day. Nothing has ever come to supply the place of what has been destroyed.” (Cobbett—History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, edited by Cardinal Casquet (Art and Book Co., London, 1899), chap. vii, no. 182.)

Explaining the social effects of the plunder of the Church, Cobbett writes:

“The Catholic Church included in itself a great deal more than the business of teaching religion . . . and administering the Sacraments. It had a great deal to do with the temporal concerns of the people. It provided  . . . for all the wants of the poor and distressed. . . .  It contained a great body of land proprietors, whose revenues were distributed in various ways amongst the people upon terms always singularly favourable to the latter. It was a great and powerful estate, and naturally siding with the people. . . . By its charity and its benevolence towards its tenants it mitigated the rigour of proprietorship, and held society together by the ties of religion rather than by the trammels and terrors of the Law. (Cobbett, History of the Protestant Reformation, chap. vii, no. 206.)

Dissolution of the Monasteries.—The dissolution of the monasteries, with the resulting confiscation of their property, immediately produced overwhelming distress amongst the multitudes who had been maintained by the resources that the religious bodies had administered. It proved disastrous also to the tenants on the monastic lands, which were probably more than 2,000,000 statute acres in extent. The tenants who had been accustomed to an easy and sympathetic mode of treatment at the hands of the monks, now passed under the power of harsh and exacting landlords. Rack-rents were too often exacted and the numerous exemptions and privileges to which the tenants had been accustomed were withdrawn.

Enclosures and Confiscations.—Again, the common lands, in which the poor of the neighbourhood had from time immemorial possessed common rights, were seized and enclosed in the lords’ demenses; and numberless other hardships, hitherto unknown, now began to press upon the people.

The wanton confiscation of the property of the guilds, hospitals and almshouses, unjust and indefensible even form the Protestant standpoint, was also disastrous to the interests of the poor. The destruction of the religious schools and colleges, in which so many children were educated free of cost, was still another blow. Even the introduction of married clergy, which diverted into another channel the energies and resources that would otherwise be expended on charity, aggravated further the lot of the poor.

Vagabondage in England.—Hence it was that the destruction of Catholicism in England gave rise to the sordid pauperism which has since disfigured English civilisation. Cobbett describes in his own eloquent and vigorous style how England, “once happy and hospitable, became a den of famishing robbers and slaves.” As a result of the plunder of the Church and the destruction of the institutions which had grown up under its influence, the country quickly became filled with the destitute. Immense numbers of these were drive to live as professional robbers. “There were,” writes Hume, “at least 300 or 400 able-bodied vagabonds in every country who lived by theft and rapine, and who sometimes met in troops to the number of sixty and committed spoil on the inhabitants.” As many as five hundred of this expropriated class were sometimes executed in a single year during the reign of Elizabeth.

English Poor Laws.—This state of affairs—a direct result of the Protestant revolt—gave rise to the celebrated Elizabethan leglsation on pauperism, “as novel as it was harsh,” which for the first time standardized pauperism as distinct from poverty. The former was henceforth the status of those who, being destitute of the prime necessities of life, are maintained at the public expense in the parish poorhouses. They are no longer “God’s poor,” to whom as the special representatives of Him Who became poor for men’s sake, special sympathy and even reverence are due. They are now despised outcasts, the pariahs of society. They usually live, or are supposed to live, in the poorhouses, segregated form their wives and children, under a harsh discipline, deprived of the franchise and compelled to wear a special uniform.

The following extracts from Pelgrave will convey a general idea of the spirit which animated the English post-Reformation legislation on mendicancy and poverty:

“It was only towards the middle and end of the 16th century that measures against it [viz., mendicancy] were enforced, possibly in part owing to the sounder (sic) teachings of the Reformers on the subject. Then we find Southampton ordering that beggars should have their hair cut, and Parliament decreeing punishments on a progressive scale of severity. Whipping, branding, cutting off the gristle of the ear, even death, were the penalties assigned (!) . . . A Consolidating Act of 1713 lays it down that any person wandering about the country, on any one of a long list of pretences, is to be summarily arrested and removed to his settlement, or, if he have one, to be dealt with by the poor law authorities of the parish in which he is apprehened; but previously he may be flogged or set to hard labour, or committed for seven years to the custody of any person who will undertake to set him to work in Great Britain or the Colonies. By the Act of 1744 even women are to flogged for vagrancy and late as 1824 flogging is retained as punishment for “incorrigible rogues.” (Palgrave—Dictionary of Political Economy, vol. iii. Art “Poor Law” p. 154; also art. “Pauperism,” p. 81.)

Such was the spirit introduced by Protestantism into the legislative system of a country that was once the “Dowry of Mary.” (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 97-101.)

Consider this for a moment.

Henry VIII threw the poor off the lands on which their ancestors had lived for centuries, and that his wretched, murderous daughter, Elizabeth, by his partner in adultery and bigamy, Anne Boleyn, made sure when she acceded to the throne in 1558 that the penal laws he had enacted against the poor were enforced with vigor that can only be described as diabolically conceived. Modernity was founded on the blood of faithful Catholics, and it has been sustained on the blood of faithful Catholics ever since.

Protestant England abandoned “God’s Poor,” who were believed by the Calvinist strain of Protestantism to be accursed by God rather the subjects of our loving charity, and that abandonment would lead in time to the abandonment of the teaching that children are the natural fruit of human conjugal love. Children became seen as “burdensome” simply because they had been conceived, which, of course, resulted in the widespread acceptance of the surgical assassination of the preborn in their mothers’ wombs.

Those filled with disordered self-love and who think nothing of First and Last Things, not they have ever heard of First and Last Things, that is, will live only according to their own desires as seek “happiness” in all manner of sinful activity. There can be no place for the Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer in a world filled with men who are filled with disordered self-love, indeed, a world where most men think only of themselves. Escape must be found from the crosses of daily living. No place can ever be found for the possibility that it is necessary for sinners to suffer in this life so as to make reparation for their own sins. A world filled with men who believe that they are descended from apes will devolve into world filled with men who act like apes without realizing this to be case.

Alas, no matter how many powdered wigs or freshly-pressed jurist’s robes are donned by the apes of Modernity, who believe the powers of life and death over innocent human beings, they are going to have to reckon with Christ the King, Our Holy Redeemer, at the moment of their Particular Judgment.

The following words of Pope Pius XI, which are oft-quoted on this website, apply to the jurists and to the medical officials who consign the innocent of all ages—including the unborn, infants such as Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, children such as Jahi McMath, young adults such as Taquisha McKitty, adults such as the late Hugh Finn, the late Theresa Maria Schindler-Schiavo and Vincent Lambert at this time in France and countless hundreds of thousands whose deaths are “expedited” in hospices—to death at their say so:

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

Those were the words of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

These are the words, published on April 18, 2018, of the conciliar “bishops” of England and Wales in support of the “medical professionals” at Alder Hey NHS Trust and in support of the judge who refused Alfie Evans’s parents permission to take their own child to Ospitale Bambino Gesu:

Our hearts go out to the parents of Alfie Evans and our prayers are for him and with them as they try to do all they can to care for their son.

We affirm our conviction that all those who are and have been taking the agonising decisions regarding the care of Alfie Evans act with integrity and for Alfie’s good as they see it.

The professionalism and care for severely ill children shown at Alder Hey Hospital is to be recognised and affirmed. We know that recently reported public criticism of their work is unfounded as our chaplaincy care for the staff, and indeed offered to the family, has been consistently provided.

We note the offer of the Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome to care for Alfie Evans. It is for that hospital to present to the British Courts, where crucial decisions in conflicts of opinion have to be taken, the medical reasons for an exception to be made in this tragic case.

With the Holy Father, we pray that, with love and realism, everything will be done to accompany Alfie and his parents in their deep suffering. (English Apostates Affirm Alder Hey NHS.)

This is, pardon the expression, nauseating.


No court has jurisdiction over innocent human life.

No medical “professional” is morally free to take actions whose direct intention is and can only be the death of an innocent human being.

Then again, it is all too logical for the butchers of the innocence of souls to be in league with the butchers of men.

It is interesting the conciliar “bishops” of England and Wales issued their statement on Wednesday, April 18, 2018, the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, just hours after Jorge Mario Bergoglio met with Alfie Evan’s father, Thomas Evans. This could not possibly be a case of “Pope Francis’s” having sought to meet the “emotional needs” of Alfie’s parents while permitting his “bishops” in England and Wales to make their own statement in support of Alder Hey NHS and the nonexistent authority of an British judge to make a “decision” about whether Alfie Evan’s parents could take their own son to Italy for treatment and care, right?”

Talk about having it both ways:

Last Wednesday, just hours after Pope Francis tasked Italian prelate and former Vatican official, Bishop Francesco Cavina, with mediating relations between the Bambino Gesù hospital and the Holy See, to ensure Alfie’s transfer to Rome, the Bishops of England and Wales issued an official statement praising the judges and hospital for acting with “integrity” and “for Alfie’s good as they see it.” 

The bishops also rejected as “unfounded” media reports criticizing Alder Hey hospital, saying their chaplaincy consistently cares for the staff and offered help to the family. 

However, an internal memo from the Archdiocese of Liverpool leaked last week revealed that, while the archdiocese was offering support to Alder Hey doctors and hospital staff, they did not meet with the family on the grounds that “they are not Roman Catholic.”  

Thomas and Alfie Evans are, in fact, both baptized Catholics, while Alfie’s mother, Kate James, is Anglican

It also emerged on Thursday that Archbishop Malcolm McMahon of Liverpool, and Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster, forced an Italian priest who was helping the family to return to his parish in London, leaving Alfie and his parents without spiritual care and support.

One notable exception to the silence was Bishop Philip Egan of Portsmouth, England, who on Monday expressed his support for Alfie and his parents, tweeting: “Let’s offer heartfelt prayers today for little Alfie Evans — now an Italian citizen — and his courageous parents. If there is anything at all that can be done, may the Lord enable us by His love and grace to effect it.” (UK "Bishops" Handling of Alfie Evans Case was an abject failure.)

Gee, what has happened to the spirit of “accompanying” Catholics in “irregular situations” as per the “teaching” of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016?

I suppose that there is “accompaniment” and then there is “accompaniment.” It just all depends on who is being “accompanied” as most of the conciliar “bishops” in England and Wales did not want to “accompany” Alfie Evans to demand the protection of his life from the butchers of “civilized” England.

Would the “bishops” of England and Wales have issued their horrific statement just hours after Bergoglio met with Thomas Evans without clearing it with their “pope” in advance?

I don't think so.

This is all too similar to Bergoglio’s meeting with former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom in secret, which it was supposed to remain until after his return to Rome from his pilgrimage Cuba and the United States and then, after Kim Davis made the meeting public, making it a point to have a photograph disseminated of him with a “homosexual couple” from Argentina.

To refresh your memories on this score, therefore, let me take you back down Christ or Chaos memory lane to what I wrote at the time:

It is now eminently clear that “Pope Francis” did not arrange the meeting with Kim Davis and that he was embarrassed for his “gay friends” after the fact of its becoming public, which is why the Press Office of the Holy See, ever quick to do “damage control” these days, let it be known that the “merciful” Argentine did initiate a meeting with a “gay couple” from Argentina that took place in the same Vatican Embassy on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, the day before he met with Kim Davis at the insistence of “Archbishop” Carlo Mario Vignano.

Kim Davis and small entourage, which included her Catholic mother (to whom she, an “Apostolic Christian,” handed the Rosary beads that Bergoglio had given her as a standard practice at such meetings) and Matthew D. Staver, were not permitted to take “selfie” photographs or to record any video of her meeting with “Pope Francis” at the Vatican Embassy. There were no such restrictions on the “gay couple,” which included one of Bergoglio’s former students from Argentina.

Here is a report on the meeting with that so-called “gay couple”:

VATICAN CITY — Ever since it became public that Pope Francis met in Washington with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, the questions have been swirling: Why did he meet with her, and was it meant as a political statement?

As it turns out, the Vatican said on Friday, the pope did not mean to endorse Ms. Davis’s views. It also said he gave her no more than a typical brief greeting, despite what her lawyer described.

Instead, the Vatican said that Francis gave only one “real audience”: to someone later identified as one of his former students, Yayo Grassi, a gay man in Washington who says he brought his partner of 19 years to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington for a reunion. They even shot video.

The disclosure, after the Vatican’s unusual attempt to correct the impressions left by Francis’ meeting with Ms. Davis, added to days of speculation about whether Francis intended to send a message on the place of gays in the church, or conscientious objection, and whether his advisers had fully briefed him on Ms. Davis, or had their own agenda.

The Vatican spokesman emphasized that the meeting with Ms. Davis was arranged by the office of the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington, not by anyone in Rome — including the pope.

“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released Friday morning.

On the other hand, Mr. Grassi, a 67-year-old caterer, told The New York Times that he and the pontiff have known each other since the 1960s, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the future pope was then called, taught him literature and psychology at the Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepción, a Jesuit high school in Santa Fe, Argentina.

Mr. Grassi said that he had resumed contact with the future pope years later, when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires. He also visited the pope at the Vatican in September 2013, and later contacted his office to ask for an audience in Washington.

“Once I saw how busy and exhausting his schedule was in D.C., I wrote back to him saying perhaps it would be better to meet some other time,” Mr. Grassi said. “Then he called me on the phone and he told me that he would love to give me a hug in Washington.”

Mr. Grassi said that he had been accompanied by his partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, as well as four friends, and that the meeting took place at the Vatican Embassy on Sept. 23 — a day before Ms. Davis met the pope.

Mr. Grassi said that Francis had told him to arrange the visit through the office of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio, or envoy, in Washington.

It was a private meeting, for about 15 to 20 minutes, in which I brought my boyfriend of 19 years,” Mr. Grassi said. His boyfriend, Mr. Bagus, worked on a video that was posted online that showed Francis hugging Mr. Grassi and the others.

Mr. Grassi said the meeting was purely personal. “I don’t think he was trying to say anything in particular,” Mr. Grassi said. “He was just meeting with his ex-student and a very close friend of his.”

Late on Friday, the Vatican confirmed the meeting. “Mr. Yayo Grassi, a former Argentine student of Pope Francis, who had already met other times in the past with the pope, asked to present his mother and several friends to the Pope during the Pope’s stay in Washington, D.C.,” Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement.

“As noted in the past, the pope, as pastor, has maintained many personal relationships with people in a spirit of kindness, welcome and dialogue,” the statement added.

Earlier on Friday, the Vatican said that Archbishop Viganò had arranged the pope’s meetings in Washington, including the one with Ms. Davis.

The news of the meeting with Ms. Davis was disclosed late Tuesday night by Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, at the same time it was reported on the website of Inside the Vatican, a conservative publication edited by an American who has covered the Vatican for years.

For nearly eight hours, Vatican officials refused to confirm or deny that the meeting had occurred, before finally confirming it on Wednesday afternoon.

For Francis, the timing of the Davis controversy is not ideal. Beginning Sunday the Vatican is staging a critical three-week meeting of bishops and laypeople to discuss whether to recommend changing their approach to contemporary issues related to the family, like gay couples, single parents or whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained annulments should be allowed to receive communion.

That meeting, known as a synod, could become a showdown between liberals and conservatives. Francis has spent nearly two years trying to gradually build consensus and has repeatedly stated his desire for a more welcoming, merciful outreach — even as he has not signaled any willingness to change church doctrine.

News of his meeting with Ms. Davis buoyed Christian conservatives, who had been dismayed that the pope, in his emphasis on the poor, barely mentioned issues like abortion and homosexuality during his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia. It also puzzled and angered more liberal observers.

It also led observers of the Vatican to speculate about whether the encounter with Ms. Davis was a signal of support for her cause. Francis has emphasized that he strongly believes in conscientious objection as a human right, a position he reaffirmed on his plane ride home.

On Friday, the Vatican appeared to be distancing itself from Ms. Davis’s camp. Father Lombardi’s statement said that the brief meeting “has continued to provoke comments and discussion,” and that he was providing clarification “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”

The Vatican’s statement prompted reactions on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a phone interview on Friday, Mr. Staver said the meeting had been called by the Vatican.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

But at the Vatican on Friday, a spokesman, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the invitation had been extended by the nuncio’s office — not from Rome.

“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” said Father Rosica, who is working with the Vatican’s media office in advance of a major meeting of bishops that begins this weekend. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”

Father Rosica said of the controversy: “I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”

Mr. Staver, for his part, said he had been briefly introduced to Archbishop Viganò in April, when he spoke at a large rally in Washington againstsame-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

The Rev. James Martin, editor at large of the Jesuit magazine America, had cautioned in an article this week that the pope meets many well-wishers on his trips, and that news of the meeting with Ms. Davis had been manipulated.

“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin said in an interview on Friday. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct some gross misrepresentations of what had happened. It shows that Pope Francis met with many people on the trip, and that she was simply another person who he tried to be kind to.”

Father Rosica’s statement seemed to square with that account.

Asked on Friday if the Vatican press office had been unaware that Ms. Davis had met the pope, Father Rosica said: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”

A receptionist who answered the phone at the Vatican Embassy in Washington on Friday said, “The nuncio does not deny that the meeting took place, but would not make any further comment.”

She said the embassy did not have its own spokesman, and that no other officials there would comment.

Archbishop Viganò is turning 75 in January, the age at which bishops must submit a formal request to the Vatican asking for permission to resign. These requests are not automatically accepted, and bishops often stay in their appointments well past age 75. But if Archbishop Viganò is held responsible for what is seen as a grave misstep on an important papal trip, he is likely to be removed at the first respectable opportunity, according to several church analysts.

“Nobody in the Catholic Church wants another Regensburg,” said Massimo Faggioli, an associate professor of theology and director of the Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. He was referring to the backlash after Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’ predecessor, gave a speech in Regensburg, Germany, that appeared to denigrate Islam.

“This was not as serious as Regensburg, when Benedict read his own speech,” Dr. Faggioli said about the meeting attended by Ms. Davis. “But the pope has to be able to rely on his own system, and in this case the system failed him. The question is, was it a mistake, or was it done with full knowledge of how toxic she was?”

The meeting with Ms. Davis was clearly a misstep, Dr. Faggioli said, “because the whole trip to the United States he very carefully didn’t want to give the impression that he was being politicized by any side.”

He added, “And this thing is the most politicized thing that you can imagine.” (Before Clerk, an Antipapal Hug for a Gay Friend.)

I quoted this entire story to give readers a full appreciation of how far from the sensus Catholicus Bergoglio and his fellow travelers in the false religious sect of conciliarism are in the practical course of daily events. These apostates are so bereft of the Catholic Faith that their very first instinct is to indemnify wanton sinners and leftist ideologues while vilifying those who dare to criticize or make life “uncomfortable” for such people.

Furthermore, the contention made by Dr. Massimo Faggioli that Jorge’s meeting with Kim Davis was not as bad as “Regensburg” is a remarkable concession that it was as “unacceptable” and “incendiary” for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to state even an attenuated version of the truth of Mohammedanism as being an irrational religion prone to violence in an address he gave Regensburg, Germany, on September 12, 2006, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, as it was for “Pope Francis” to have been put in the “untenable” position of meeting with the “toxic” Kim Davis. Any kind of opposition to the gaystapo agenda is considered to be an act of “violence” against a supposedly “legitimate” classification of human beings even though human identity is not based on one’s proclivity to commit any particular sin, less yet those that are unnatural and cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The conciliar Vatican went to extraordinary lengths to throw Carlo Maria Vignano, Kim Davis and Matthew Staver under the bus while celebrating the fact that Bergoglio (a) invited his former student, Yayo Grassi, and his “partner” in unnatural vice, Iwan Bagus, and (b) the video shows the false “pontiff” hugging both men and kissing them on their cheeks!

It is with this background in mind that one should remember that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who gave Thomas Evans a photo-opportunity with him as he, Bergoglio, expressed the “desire” that Alfie Evans could be moved to Ospitale Bambio Gesu and then arranged with subordinates to work on the matter, never once criticized the medical staff of Alder Hey NHS in the manner that he has used to not-so-obliquely blast President Donald John Trump as a “corrupt” leader because he is opposed to the George Soros agenda of globalism and open borders.

Bergoglio can work up and unleash rhetorical storms against those who are “climate-change deniers” and those who are not in favor of the most radical forms of income redistribution as a means to effect “social justice” and to “protect the environment.” He is also not at a loss for harsh words directed at “conservatives” within the counterfeit church of conciliarism who dissent from his Jacobin/Boshevik approach to implanting the “Second” Vatican Council exactly as Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI intended.

Ah, the false “pontiff” is ever so “nuanced” when it comes to matters such as the lives of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

Consider, for example, Bergoglio’s words of consolation offered to Alfie Evans’s parents upon news of the little boy’s death yesterday:

"I am deeply moved by the death of little Alfie. Today I pray especially for his parents, as God the Father receives him in his tender embrace," the Pope sent out via Twitter. (Bergoglio Tweets Condolences on Alfie Evans's Death.)

There was no condemnation of how Alfie Evans had died, less yet any words of criticism for the heartless butchers of Alder Hey NHS.

Consider also part of Bergoglio’s carefully constructed—I would even say Jesuitical—plea in behalf of Alfie Evans before his death and that of Vincent Lambert in France:

During that appeal Francis asked that everyone pray for "people, such as Vincent Lambert in France, little Alfie Evans in England, and others in different countries, who have been living, sometimes for a long time, in a condition of serious infirmity, (and are) medically assisted for their basic needs."

These "delicate situations," he said, are "very painful and complex. Let us pray that every sick person may always be respected in their dignity and cared for in an appropriate way for their condition, with the unanimous contribution of family members, doctors and other health-care workers, and with great respect for life." ("Pope" Appeals for Alfie Evans and Vincent Lambert.)

In other words, it was important for family members to work in collaboration with “doctors and other health-care workers” so that all would come to an agreement about how to respect a sick person’s dignity while providing care in an “appropriate way.”

Remember, good readers, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has endorsed “palliative care,” which, as noted earlier in this commentary, involves the health-care “team” working “collaboratively” with patients and their family members to come to an agreeable plan of treatment. A very important part of this “collaboration” to arrive at “unanimity” is the pressure brought to bear by those trained in the Soros Academy’s school of emotional manipulation.

Please note that Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not once invoke the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment’s words: Thou shalt not kill. What “Pope Francis” did not say is far more important than what he did say. His "desire" to help was based solely on the plea of his unmarried parents, who are themselves victims of both conciliarism and its embrace of false ecumenism, not upon objective principles. 

Objective truth, whether in the realm of Order of Grace (Redemption) or in the realm of the Order of Nature (Creation), is foreign to the mind of Modernists.

You read that right.

Objective truth, whether in the realm of the Order of Grace (Redemption) or in the realm of the Order of Nature (Creation) is foreign to the mind of Modernists.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s emotionally-laden appeals for Charlie Gard last year and for Alfie Evans and Vincent Lambert last year are far from these stunning, courageous words spoken by Bishop Clemens von Galen in 1941 while knowing full well that he, the Bishop of Munster, could be arrested at Adolph Hitler’s command at any time:

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! (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

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 Peter Martyr, O.P., pray for us.