Shifting Funding From One Evil Organization To Many Others

A group of well-meaning naturalists of the false opposite of the “right” held a press conference three days ago now, that is, on Wednesday, July 29, 2015, the Feast of Saint Martha and the Commemoration of Pope Saint Felix II and Saints Faustinus, Beatrice and Simplicissimus, to announce support for a bill that seeks to defund Planned Barrenhood while at the same time shifting that organization's funds to others that provide contraception and other “family planning services”:

( -- “This is not a political issue. This is not a partisan issue. It’s not even whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. This is an issue about our humanity,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Wednesday at a news conference where he and other  Republican senators called for a permanent ban on federal funding of Planned Parenthood.   

Sens. Joni Ernst (Iowa), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Scott,  Rand Paul (Ky.), John Cornyn (Texas), Jim Thune (S.D.), and Johnny Isakson (Ga.) all spoke in support of  Ernst’s legislation, introduced Tuesday, to prohibit all taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.

This bill would ensure that taxpayer dollars for women’s health are spent on women’s health . . . it would ensure we’re funding that and not subsidizing some scandal-plagued organization,” said McConnell.  

Sasha Bruce, senior vice president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, spoke against the bill: “Instead of protecting women’s access to the reproductive health care that they need, anti-choice senators are attempting to misappropriate vital funds. Let’s be clear: this legislation will hurt women and greatly limit our ability to access high quality affordable health care.”

Ernst said that under her bill, 100 percent of the funds denied to Planned Parenthood would go to other women’s health care providers. “I want to make clear that there will be no reduction in overall federal funding available to support women’s health,” she said.

It’s important to note that there are 9,000 community health center across the country which do everything that Planned Parenthood does, except for abortion,” said Sen. Rand Paul. “There’s absolutely no need for any public funding of Planned Parenthood. There’s no excuse for it, and we should end all funding for Planned Parenthood.”

S.1881 says that “state and county health departments, community health centers, hospitals, physicians’ offices, and other entities currently provide, and will continue to provide, health services to women. Such health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postpartum care, immunization, family planning services including contraception, sexually transmitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings and referrals.”

Many such entities provide services to all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and provide services in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved populations,” the bill states.

The efforts to defund Planned Parenthood come after the pro-life Center for Medical Progress released videos that appear to show Planned Parenthood officials negotiating the transfer of tissue and organs from aborted babies.

Cosponsors of the bill include Senators Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), and John McCain (Ariz.).

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation before they go on recess in the next few days. Republicans will need 60 votes to cut off the taxpayer money. (GOP Senators Support Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood: 'Not a Political Issue'.)

As well-meaning as United States Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and the others who support United States Senator Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) may be, their efforts to “frame” Ernst's legislation to defund Planned Barrenhood are both morally and strategically flawed.

The first—and very fatal—strategic flaw of these senators involves the use of the phrase “pro-choice” as this euphemism was coined by the pro-death movement to mask or anesthetize the reality of what each abortion, whether accomplished by chemical or surgical means, is the killing of an innocent being. No one has the moral right to “choose” to do anything that is evil. Human beings have the ability to choose to do evil, but they do not possess a moral “right” to do so. The use of this one phrase, “pro-choice,” concedes important rhetorical ground to the modern Aztecs, who clothe themselves in white medical gowns and surgical masks as they go about their bloody barbaric business. To attempt to placate so-called “moderate” voters by the use of the adversary's rhetoric accomplishes nothing other than to soothe the malformed consciences of those who refuse to see each and every baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means. There is nothing “civil” about the direct, intentional killing of any human being at any stage of his existence from the first moment of his conception until the moment of his death. Period.

Second, the “family planning” services that are provided by the nine thousand other “community health centers” are evil. To fund such programs is evil. To highlight support for the funding of such services is evil. It is evil to support, no less fund, act that deny the absolute Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage. Period.

Third, contraception, which Margaret Sanger, after all, sought to popularize a century ago during and after World War I, made the demand for surgical baby-killing inevitable. Divorce and contraception destabilized marriage and paved the way for abortion and the promotion of all manner of perversity under cover of law. This has resulted in the feminization of poverty, the rise of maladjusted children who spend most of their time in schools or day care centers or being shuttled back and forth between this or that step-family, rootlessness, violent crime, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol addiction and a variety of other social ills. This has also resulted in the acceptance of the so-called "lesser of two evils" to such an extent that the dose of the supposedly "lesser evil" becomes higher and higher in each succeeding election cycle, becoming indistinguishable ultimately from the supposedly "greater" evil. The odious Margaret Sanger's role in all of this was noted on this site most recently in Planned Barrenhood: Evil From Its Very Inceptions and Killing the Messengers Yet Again.

Catholics must not permit themselves to be agitated by every legislative effort that appears to “do something good” evil though based upon false premises. That so many Catholics continue to do so, however, is the result of their having been been subjected to one assault after another against their sensus Catholicus ever since the dawn of the Protestant Revolution, perhaps never more so than in the past century by the rapid advancements in the means of modern mass communications.

It was to blunt the advance of propaganda in favor of the "small family" and thus the inversion of the ends of marriage that Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, to reaffirm the Catholic Church's prohibition against any direct interference in the conception of a child and to remind everyone in the world that the primary end of marriage remained what it will be until the end of time: the propagation and education of children:

7. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]

18. Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Pope Pius XI made it clear that the secondary end of marriage, the mutual good of the spouses, was subordinate to the primary end, reiterating the truth that privileges of the married state belong by right to each spouse, neither of whom can deny the marriage right to the other arbitrarily and both of whom are able to exercise this right, or to refrain its exercise, without interfering with its natural end, the conception of a child:

19. The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded . . . .

59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.) 

This was not an endorsement of what is today called "natural family planning," only a reiteration of the plain truth that the marital right, subordinated to its primary end, cannot be denied arbitrarily by one spouse to the other and that it is permissible for married couples to use that right when new life cannot be brought forth. There was no discussion of "family planning" here at all, and none existed in the mind of Pope Pius XI.

Indeed, Pope Pius XI explained that confessors had to go to great lengths to counsel penitents not to surrender themselves to the propaganda in favor of contraception and the contraceptive mentality to which they were being exposed on an almost constant basis:

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

The “some” referred to by Pope Pius XI in paragraph fifty-six of Casti Connubii was the heretical and schismatic Anglican sect, which had endorsed the use of contraception by married couples when a “clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood exists at its Lambeth meeting several months before in 1930:

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community – Marriage.)

Far from following Pope Pius XI's advice to confessors to teach the truth about contraception, many priests and presbyters within the counterfeit church of conciliarism have used what they refer to as the “conscience solution” to the assuage the consciences of those who use contraception, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio's sympathies rest with that “conscience solution,” which he and others who support him refer to as a “pastoral solution,” on this and a number of other “moral issues.” Bergoglio speaks out only about income inequality, the “rights” of illegal immigrants, youth unemployment and “climate change.” He cannot be bothered about sins against the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commdnments.

The social and theological propaganda in behalf of “family planning” has accelerated since Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubbi on December 31, 1930, and especially after Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick's truly revolutionary “encyclical letter,” Humanae Vitae, July 15, 1968, that inverted the ends of marriage and endorsed “natural” means to “limit” family size, a “necessity” that was discussed openly at the “Second” Vatican Council and drew the following rebuke from Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office:

"I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents' minds, because they trusted in Providence. [I am amazed] that yesterday in the Council it should have been said that there was doubt whether a correct stand had been taken hitherto on the principles governing marriage. Does this not mean that the inerrancy of the Church will be called into question? Or was not the Holy Spirit with His Church in past centuries to illuminate minds on this point of doctrine?" (As found in Peter W. Miller, Substituting the Exception for the Rule; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books and Publishers, 1967, is cited as the source of  this quotation. See also my Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)

Pope Pius XII condemned the inversion of the ends of marriage as “personalist” writers such as the late Dietrich von Hildebrand and Herbert Doms had taught as early as the 1940s:

Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".

That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.

Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".

Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

This is a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It is also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.

One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which was identical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

It is essential to understand the evil that is “natural family planning” as it is nothing other than a concession to the contraceptive mentality in the name of a secondary end of marriage. What chance do the poor Republican naturalists who are seeking to pass legislation, albeit fruitlessly even if their legislation passes both houses of the Congress of the United States of America in identical form, that merely shifts Federal funds from one practitioner of morals to many others when the conciliar “popes” have propagated in behalf of family “limitation” by natural means?

Fourth, readers must remember these words of the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., who was very mistaken about “natural family planning” but who nonetheless recognized and taught the following without fear of contradiction:

Most contraceptives abort, and most contraceptives abort most of the time.

Even those forms of contraception that do not kill a living human being are still evil as they represent a violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, thereby denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and letting loose all assortment of other evils that have mutated to such a degree at the present time that a putative “pope” can listen to a “gay” activist in Paraguay and provide comfort to a self-mutilated woman during a private meeting in the Casa Santa Marta.

Contraception is evil. It is no “pro-life” “triumph” of any kind to seek to shift Federal funding from one agency of evil to others, not that any level of government (Federal, state or local) has any authority founded in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to do so (and some of us would argue that there is no constitutional foundation for such funding, not that the constitution matters that much any more—see Living in a Completely Post-Legal World.)

Some readers may want to say that the Republican senators seeking to defund Planned Barrenhood are truly “pro-life” despite the errors of their false premises. Not so, my friends.. No so.

Most of the senators listed above in the report on the Cybercast News Service website support the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn in the mothers' womb in one or more of the “hard cases.” This makes such senators simply less pro-abortion that than those who support unrestricted, unregulated and limitless baby-killing, both by surgical and chemical means, up to and including the day of birth. It is wrong to call anyone who supports even one “exception” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment as pro-life, and it is wrong to call anyone who supports, no less seeks to fund, contraception is “pro-life.”

Pope Pius XII explained that all law is inviolable, and that it is never permissible to kill a child to “save” the life of his mother:

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

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

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

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

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes this situation so incredibly diabolical is that the Republicans who think that they are doing something “good” by supporting Federal funding for contraception and other “family planning services” while defunding Planned Barrenhood is that the morally-blind monster in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, whose conversion we must pray for every day without fail, is so naked in his support of unrestricted, unregulated and limitless baby-killing to such an extent that his spokesflack, Josh Earnest, can speak of Planned Barrenhood's “high ethical standard”:

( - White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest says he suspects somebody in the Obama Administration has seen a series of videos on Planned Parenthood’s role in harvesting the organs of babies, but the administration is basing its position that the videos are edited unfairly on the comments of Planned Parenthood and “the high ethical standard they live up to.”

During a White House press briefing Thursday Earnest was asked if anyone at the White House has watched the series of videos about Planned Parenthood.

“I suspect somebody has,” Earnest replied.

Where are you getting your information that the fact that it’s fraudulent, or the fact that they're distorted and edited unfairly?” a reporter asked.

 “Based on the public comments of Planned Parenthood who has indicated that the views that are represented in the video are entirely inconsistent with that organizations policies and with the high ethical standard they live up to.

The Center for Medical Progress has released a series of videos showing Planned Parenthood representatives discussing prices for body parts from aborted babies.

The White House said on Thursday that President Barack Obama would oppose any efforts by Congress to defund Planned Parenthood (WH Backs Planned Parenthood And Their 'High Ethical Standard'. For a graphic description of Planned Barrenhood's “high ethical standard,” please see Planned Planned Barrenhood Video Shows the Cracking of Skulls.)

It is such gross in-your-face support for evil that makes what appear to be the more subtle evils that are supported fully by the Republicans seeking to defund Planned Barrenhood while accepting contraception as a “good” and a “right” that is perfectly morally licit and thus beyond question that makes these well-meaning naturalists seem like the “good guys” of the piece. No one who supports contraception, no less boasts of his support for taxpayer-funded support of it, is doing “good” despite their own intentions.

Lacking the Principle of Unity as embodied as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, however, it is only too natural for evil to be promoted while efforts to combat evil are based in evil premises. Men and their nations need the authoritative direction that can be given only by a true pope and those bishops who are in full communion with him. 

Today is the Feast of Saint Peter's Chains and the Commemoration of Saint Paul and the Commemoration of the Holy Machabees.

Saint Peter was rescued from imprisonment by an angel after he had been arrested upon the orders of Herod. Our first pope was in chains. He was rescued miraculously:

[1] And at the same time, Herod the king stretched forth his hands, to afflict some of the church. [2] And he killed James, the brother of John, with the sword. [3] And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the Azymes. [4] And when he had apprehended him, he cast him into prison, delivering him to four files of soldiers to be kept, intending, after the pasch, to bring him forth to the people. [5] Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him.

[6] And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison. [7] And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him: and a light shined in the room: and he striking Peter on the side, raised him up, saying: Arise quickly. And the chains fell off from his hands. [8] And the angel said to him: Gird thyself, and put on thy sandals. And he did so. And he said to him: Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. [9] And going out, he followed him, and he knew not that it was true which was done by the angel: but thought he saw a vision. [10] And passing through the first and the second ward, they came to the iron gate that leadeth to the city, which of itself opened to them. And going out, they passed on through one street: and immediately the angel departed from him.

[11] And Peter coming to himself, said: Now I know in very deed, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. [12] And considering, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered together and praying. [13] And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, whose name was Rhode. [14] And as soon as she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for joy, but running in she told that Peter stood before the gate. [15] But they said to her: Thou art mad. But she affirmed that it was so. Then said they: It is his angel.

[16] But Peter continued knocking. And when they had opened, they saw him, and were astonished. [17] But he beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison, and he said: Tell these things to James, and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place. [18] Now when day was come, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. [19] And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not; having examined the keepers, he commanded they should be put to death; and going down from Judea to Caesarea, he abode there. [20] And he was angry with the Tyrians and the Sidonians. But they with one accord came to him, and having gained Blastus, who was the king's chamberlain, they desired peace, because their countries were nourished by him. (Acts 12: 1-19.)

It was Our Lady who had prayed for our first pope while he was in chains. Her prayers secured the angel who rescued him miraculously from the clutches of Herod and the Jews. The event was so miraculous that the mother of Saint Mark the Evangelist, Saint Peter's trusted disciple, saw that our first pope stood before her. Those with her refused to believe her. They refused to believe that the first pope had been miraculously rescued. Saint Peter had to continue to knock to gain entry!

It is no accident that the wreteched Modernist, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, abolished the feast of Saint Peter's Chains in 1960. Roncalli's action could have been a subtle way for the devil to boast that the papacy at that time. The last thing in the world that the adversary wold want to do is have Catholics reminded of this true but nevertheless still prophetic event in the chapter of Holy Mother Church in her infancy. Additionally, Roncalli was very sensitive to the feelings of the Jews, and the account in the Acts of the Apostles in today's speaks to us of the fact that Saint Peter's captivity was done at the behest of the Jews, who very pleased to see the first pope imprisoned. Well, the Talmudists of today are just as happy to have played the role in holding the papacy itself captive and in attacking those who seek to defend the truths of the Holy Faith, including the truth that Judaism is a false religion and that those who adhere to its false tenets and who observe its abolished liturgical rites need to be exhorted to convert unconditionally to the true Faith before they die. No, it is no accident at all that this feast was abolished in 1960 at the very dawning of the age of conciliarism under the Judaizer Roncalli.

The papacy is held in chains today. Our Lady will rescue the papacy just as miraculously as she rescued our first pope by means of her prayers. We must believe that she will do so as the Church Militant undergoes her Mystical Passion, Death and Burial in these our days. She is indeed our life, our sweetness and our hope. Saint Peter relied upon her. So must we!

We can plant the change for true change, that is, of a conversion of all men and their nations to the Catholic Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, by relying upon Our Lady just as Saint Peter did. She has given us the Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as our shield and her Most Holy Rosary as our spiritual weapon. Let us use them wear as we fulfill the pledges associated with the Brown Scapular and pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

What are we waiting for?

Our Lady is waiting to help us.

Why do we tarry to trust in her loving care?

Why do refuse to believe that the path out of this mess runs through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at 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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

The Holy Machabees, who refused to make any compromises with false religions,pray for us.