Kill Truth, Kill Babies
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Over nine thousand souls were in front of me during the thirty years that I served as a professor of political science in various institutions around the United States of America. Some of them became close friends for a time before time and events and differences led to a natural parting of the ways. Others are still friends. Still others find me on this site now and again and drop me a line or two to say hello. Friendship is, after all, a free gift that is neither earned nor owed. What matters, of course, is that we continue to pray for those whom the Providence of God put in our paths at some point or another in our lives.
One student wrote four months ago, introducing himself to me by saying that I probably didn't remember him. Oh, I remember most of my former students, this one especially one as I have referred to him (without naming him) several times on this site. This is what I wrote to him:
I am tired, busy writing another article for my www.Christorchaos.com website, where you have been quoted any number of times, including as follows in one article (and this is the EXACT quote preceded by an introductory paragraph:
Most of the over nine thousand students I taught in various colleges and universities between January of 1974 and July of 2003 (with an eleven-day reprise during the winter intersession at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University from December 28, 2006, to January 11, 2007) were baptized Catholics. Most of those Catholic students knew little about the Faith, and the little that they thought they knew was wrong. The material that I presented on Special Creation and Adam's Fall and Our Lord's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Cross (one cannot understand politics without understanding human nature, and one cannot understand human nature absent the teaching of the true Church) was completely foreign to most of these Catholic students.
One student, a young man from Westchester County, New York, despite having been through thirteen years of Catholic education, had never heard of Original Sin and Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden. Anthony blurted out in amazement when I was lecturing on First and Last Things in an Introduction to Political Science course at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University in the Fall 1995 Semester, "Is this what the Faith is about? Why hasn't anyone taught this to me before?" "Because." I explained to him, "you have been the victim of Catholic educational fraud." Sadly, that young man was not then--and is not today--alone.
Don't remember you? Quite the contrary! You were an excellent student.
Some of those who write to me disappear thereafter. It is impossible to pray for each of my former students by name. However, I do pray for many of them, remembering the rest with a general mention of "all of my former students and colleagues and their families and their intentions, living and deceased." I pray for a good and happy reunion with all on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living of Dead if, solely by the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, each of us dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church.
Some of my former students would come up to me now and again when I was seated in Field Box 12-C-3 at the now demolished William A. Shea Municipal Stadium from 1994 to 2002. Two students who actually met each other at a pizza party that I hosted in Oyster Bay, New York, in 1981 would drop by for a visit now and again with their daughters. And there was the time ten years ago that a former student from very early in my teaching career in the mid-1970s approached me to say hello. She was sitting a few sections away with her husband.
That particular visit was very painful. It was painful because I knew that the former student's husband killed babies. Indeed, she had told me the following back in the mid-1980s when her husband, who was featured, an internet search just revealed, by a Catholic hospital where he delivers babies, was in residency at an urban hospital. The former student told me, knowing that I am a Catholic and that I had just run for lieutenant governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line, "You do know, of course, that [name of husband] does abortions? He believes he's helping the solve the welfare problem by killing off the back and Hispanic babies." I noted to her that it was quite ironic that a Jewish man is imposing his own version of a "final solution" on those he deems to be "unfit" or too much of a "burden" to live. Our friendship effectively ended at that point. Even to write about this makes me very, very sad.
This all came to mind when reading a news story about the conversations that United States Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) has had with some colleagues concerning the funding of baby-killing that exists in the version of ObamaCare that has been passed by the United States Senate and likely will be passed by the United States House of Representatives within ten days to two weeks. Leaving aside that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was passed by the United States House of Representatives on Saturday, November 7, 2009, does indeed permit funding for abortions with taxpayer dollars (see
Not For A Single Innocent Life), the tenor of the utilitarian arguments made to Representative Stupak speaks volumes about what happens to a world where the Social Reign of Christ the King has been overthrown and replaced by the Reign of Man:
Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. “That’s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don’t have the votes, it’s been made clear to us that they won’t insert our language on the abortion issue.”
According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”
Stupak says he also doesn’t trust the “Slaughter solution,” a legislative maneuver being bandied about on Capitol Hill as a way to pass the Senate bill in the House without actually voting on it. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” he says. “I don’t have a warm-and-fuzzy feeling about what I’m hearing.”
Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”
“Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it’s always been in a backhanded way,” he laments. “I’m telling the others to hold firm, and we’ll meet next week, but I’m disappointed in my colleagues who said they’d be with us and now they’re not. It’s almost like some right-to-life members don’t want to be bothered. They just want this over.”
And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. “This has really reached an unhealthy stage,” Stupak says. “People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they’re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.”
Congressman Stupak called NRO to clarify his comments. In recent conversations, he says that some Democratic members, not Democratic leaders, have been citing a Congressional Budget Office report that says his amendment will cost $500 million to implement over ten years. “I did not mean to infer that the leaders are using financial arguments to deny my amendment,” he says. “We have spoken about the CBO and my amendment’s costs, but the leadership has not said that it costs too much money. My point here was that if cost is becoming a concern about my amendment, then that should be addressed, since this is the sanctity of life we’re talking about. We can address those costs. Cost should not be a reason to deny my amendment.” (Dems to Stupak: More Abortions=Fewer Babies=Lower Government Costs: National Review Online.)
The money, the money, the money. This is what matters to the partisans of the false opposite of the naturalist "left." This is what matters to many of the partisans of the false opposite of the naturalist "right." Scrape away all of the rhetorical differences between the "left" and the "right" in this country and you will find the following areas of essential agreement:
1) Both the "left" and the "right" in this country are joined at the hip in rejecting any kind of necessity of pursuing the common temporal good in light of man's Last End (the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven) and in being duly submissive to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church on all that pertains to the good of souls.
2) Both the "left" and the "right" in this country, therefore, reject the simple fact that human law must be subordinated in all that pertains to the good of souls to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.
3) Both the "left" and many of those in the "right" in this country believe the it is indeed the "money" issues that matter most in society. The "left" believe that material prosperity and the social security net can be guaranteed by the confiscatory taxing and regulatory powers of the Federal government of the United States of America. The "right" believes that such material prosperity can be guaranteed by the "free market" system. Despite their differences on this point, however, the pursuit of material prosperity as the defining end of human happiness and well-being that characterizes the "left" and many of those in the "right" has a common root: the materialism of the Protestant Revolt itself:
The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.
We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.
The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.
The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Efforts of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, Virginia, 2003.)
As I have noted in many other commentaries on this site, the whole debate over ObamaCare is itself the result of the replacement of authentic Catholic medical and nursing care with the dictates of avaricious, bottom-line, utilitarian corporate health-care and insurance company conglomerates, a monstrosity that has resulted in distortions and perversion of the provision of true health-care based on principles contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, respecting on the one hand all innocent human life by never undertaking any measure to directly attack it and, the other hand, weighing what treatments are truly necessary for the elderly or chronically ill in light of true moral principles.
What the well-meaning Representative Bart Stupak does not realize is that the whole concept of ObamaCare is wrong. Over and above the immoral provisions contained in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that will not be included in the "reconciliation" bill to be voted upon by the full floor of the United States House of Representatives soon, Representative Stupak should not have been the least bit concerned about "saving" ObamaCare as the proposal itself violates the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity as enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931:
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.
The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.
Alas, why should Representative Bart Stupak know any of this when most of the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America support ObamaCare as long as taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize the surgical assassination of children? Most, although not all, of the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America and their apparatchiks are firmly in the camp of the "leftists" and have not one blessed clue as to what a civil state would look like if organized according to the true Social Teaching of the Catholic Church. ObamaCare is wrong in principle regardless as to whether it contains funding for the killing of innocent preborn babies, whether by chemical or surgical means. No Catholic can support ObamaCare at any time for any reason. The ideological descendants of the social engineers who gave us the bright idea of developing the flood plains in the Midwest during the Great Depression are the ones giving us the one trillion dollar exercise in social engineering known as Obama Care.
Alas, why should the conciliar "bishops" of the United States of America not support ObamaCare when the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose spin doctors are busy at work these days (see Waterloo For Benedict?), supports the social engineering represented by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (see
Kindred Spirit of the New World Order) and is in favor of a "world political authority" (see
Give Me Two Bayers, Please and
Two More Bayers, Please)?
"Leftists" want babies killed to save money, an argument that was used by some to justify the cruel murder by dehydration and starvation of the late Mrs. Teresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo nearly five years ago now. Many of those of the "libertarian" bent are indifferent to the slaughter of the innocent preborn, believing that it is indeed the "money" issues that matter most to a "free" society, oblivious to the fact that Catholicism alone can foster the conditions necessary for a truly limited government and for the true exercise of human freedom that find its strength in the liberation from power of sin and eternal death found in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross. The Holy Cross of the Divine Redeemer is the one and only standard of true human liberty as no human being can be truly free if he persists in sin unrepentantly, if he is indifferent to its promotion under the cover of the civil law and in the midst of popular culture or, worse yet, promotes it actively in law and culture.
Those who believe that "the people," whether they be "leftists" or "rightists" or "libertarians," can permit baby killing by votes taken in their institutions of civil governance ought to reckon yet again with these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:
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.
"The people" have to reckon with Pope Pius XI's reminder of the authority of the Catholic Church civil society that he reiterated in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:
Whoever refuses to admit these principles, and hence to apply them to education, must necessarily deny that Christ has founded His Church for the eternal salvation of mankind, and maintain instead that civil society and the State are not subject to God and to His law, natural and divine. Such a doctrine is manifestly impious, contrary to right reason, and, especially in this matter of education, extremely harmful to the proper training of youth, and disastrous as well for civil society as for the well-being of all mankind. On the other hand from the application of these principles, there inevitably result immense advantages for the right formation of citizens. This is abundantly proved by the history of every age Tertullian in his Apologeticus could throw down a challenge to the enemies of the Church in the early days of Christianity, just as St Augustine did in his; and we today can repeat with him:
Let those who declare the teaching of Christ to be opposed to the welfare of the State, furnish us with an army of soldiers such as Christ says soldiers ought to be; let them give us subjects, husbands, wives, parents, children, masters, servants, kings, judges, taxpayers and tax gatherers who live up to the teachings of Christ; and then let them dare assert that Christian doctrine is harmful to the State. Rather let them not hesitate one moment to acclaim that doctrine, rightly observed, the greatest safeguard of the State.
While treating of education, it is not out of place to show here how an ecclesiastical writer, who flourished in more recent times, during the Renaissance, the holy and learned Cardinal Silvio Antoniano, to whom the cause of Christian education is greatly indebted, has set forth most clearly this well established point of Catholic doctrine. He had been a disciple of that wonderful educator of youth, St Philip Neri; he was teacher and Latin secretary to St Charles Borromeo, and it was at the latter's suggestion and under his inspiration that he wrote his splendid treatise on The Christian Education of Youth In it he argues as follows:
The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (as cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
Nearly half a million American military personnel died during the prosecution of World War II. How ironic it is that the utilitarianism of Adolf Hitler's racialism and of Josef Stalin's Bolshevism have triumphed in the rhetoric of members of the United States Congress, in the practices of physicians and nurses and insurance company executive, in the beliefs of ordinary citizens as they view innocent babies, the natural fruit of human fecundity, as "burdens" to be weighed on a "cost-benefit" ratio to determine their "usefulness" for society. We have killed far, far more innocent human beings than were killed by the Third Reich, and we are on a path soon to eclipse the number of human beings killed by the Bolsheviks in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A nation plunged into this kind of abyss brings upon itself chastisements the likes of which we have not seen even the beginning of the beginning.
Representative Stupak, as well-meaning as he is, and the members of the "United States Conference of 'Catholic Bishops'" ought to familiarize themselves with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church and stand up in defense of
For there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.
There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)
We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.'
Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments, we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
Kill truth, kill babies. Modernity itself is based on the lie that it is possible for men to know social order absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church and absent a firm reliance upon Sanctifying Grace to grow in the virtues and to rise to the heights of personal sanctity. Social order depends upon the order within the souls of men. Behold the disorder that exists at the present time, a disorder that, of course, is exponentially greater now because of the barrenness, of the liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
As I noted about a month ago now, the hour is late. Nations, including our own, stand to be annihilated by the wrath of God if we do not heed Our Lady's Fatima Message and make reparation for our sins, especially during this season of Lent. In the midst of apostasy and betrayal on every side imaginable, we must enfold ourselves in the mantle of Our Lady's Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel as our shield and use her Most Holy Rosary as our weapon to pray in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, offering our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
May that Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary come soon. Very soon!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
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.
See also: A Litany of Saints