8 Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
March 4, 2012


Open Season On Mankind

by Thomas A. Droleskey

I was hated by a lot of people for a lot of different reasons long. long before I came to accept the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church that those who defect from even one article of the Faith expel themselves from her maternal bosom and cannot hold ecclesiastical office within her ranks legitimately. One of the reasons that many Catholics and others held me in great disdain was that I was a "pro-life" absolutist, that is, that I refused to accept the "necessity" of legislation that conceded the nonexistent right of the civil law to permit the direct, deliberate taking of any innocent human life for any reason under any circumstances. "Pro-life" incrementalists view absolutists as unreasonable and unrealistic dreamers who let the "perfect" become the "enemy of the good" over and over again.

Dr. Charles E. Rice, a sedeplenist who is one of the foremost experts on the Natural Law alive, writing in the August 27, 1998, issue of The Wanderer, attempted to explain the philosophical and practical flaws of the incremental approach to politics and legislation at a time that I was opposing then United States Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's bid for re-nomination by the Right to Life Party of the State of New York:

Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)

When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.

Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)


There was a time sixs year ago now that a well-meaning state legislator, State Representative Roger Hunt, in the State of South Dakota introduced legislation that would have prohibited all abortions except in those cases where it was alleged that a mother's life was threatened by carrying her baby to the point of birth. Apart from the fact that there the "life of the mother exception" is an emotional red herring as medical technology has advanced to such a degree that there are very few circumstances in which it a pregnancy can be said to serve as a "threat" to a mother's life (a preborn child may be taken out of his mother's womb at the point of viability and kept alive in an incubator if a mother's life or health are genuinely at risk), it is never permissible to take any action that has as its sole and direct end the death of an innocent human being. I sent an e-mail to Representative Hunt about the language in his bill, and he wrote back to say that, yes, his legislation did indeed permit "direct" action against a child if a physician believed that such action was "necessary" to "save" the life of the mother. Please see Good Intentions Do Not Redeem Moral Flaws and No Exceptions to Catholicism, Not One, Ever. (There are some important links in these articles to a website that contains information on what would happen in the fifty states if the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, were reversed at some point, something that it is not going to happen any time soon, of course.)

Oh, the howls of protest went up from a lot of people after those two articles, written about two months before I began to write publicly about the plausibility of sedevacantism, were posted on this site. One prominent Catholic said that I had it wrong that "things" were "moving" in the "right direction," that we just had to "live" with the life of the mother exception. I retorted by stating that it is never permissible to admit that the civil law can permit the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life, explaining that one of the factors that contributed to surgical baby-killing on demand in the United States of America was the existence of "exceptions" to the inviolability of innocent preborn life in the laws of most of the fifty states in the 1960s.

That is, advocates of unrestricted baby-killing argued in the 1960s that it was "unfair" to "limit" "access" to baby-killing by means of these exceptions. Only the very wealthy or the very famous, it was argued by the pro-death advocates, could get their doctors to write a note to say that there was some medically or psychologically "necessary" reason to justify killing a baby under the old laws. Baby-killing had to be made "available" to all women in "difficult" circumstances.

Thus it is that was the existence of "exceptions" in state laws in the 1960s that led directly to surgical baby-killing on demand. "Turning the clock back" to the 1960s was not the way to "restore" legal protection to the preborn any more than "turning the clock back" to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 was going to "restore" "tradition," especially when the Faith itself is under such fierce attack by the conciliar revolutionaries in Rome and its satellite chancery offices. It's all or nothing in the Faith, and it's all or nothing when it comes to the defense of the absolute inviolability of innocent preborn life. No part of the truth can ever be sacrificed for the sake of an alleged "incremental" expediency that winds up worsening a situation precisely because any compromise of the truth is itself a lie, something that has great applicability to how many, although not all, in the Motu world deal with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's constant blasphemies against the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Holy Trinity.

Similarly, loads upon loads of people were howling at me from 1995 through 2007 when I pointed out time and time again that the legislation to partially ban partially-birth abortion, thrice vetoed by President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and then signed into law by President George Walker Bush in 2003 before being sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007, was immoral on its face in that it permitted a "life of the mother" exception and that it made it appear as though killing a baby in the later stages of pregnancy was a greater crime morally than doing so in the earlier stages, which is simply not so.

This is what I wrote at the time in An Illusion of a Victory:

1. The direct, intentional killing of an innocent human being is equally morally heinous no matter the age at which the human being is killed. That is, the killing of six week old child in his mother's womb is the same crime morally as the direct, intentional killing of a ninety year old man.

2. The particular method by which a human being is killed does not make the act of killing any more immoral than the use of another method, admitting that it is permissible in the administration of civil justice for legislators and jurists to take into consideration such methods when legislating and meting out punishments for those adjudged guilty after due process of law of having committed acts that of their nature are in opposition to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

3. Thus it is that the use of the baby-killing method invented by a Dr. Martin Haskell, known "medically" as "intact dilation and extraction," to provide a means of killing a baby that was less "invasive" and thus allegedly less is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means a suction vacuum machine that is twenty-nine times more powerful than the home vacuum cleaner.

4. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of various injections, including that of potassium chloride, into the baby so as to kill it in the womb before it is passed out stillborn or taken out by means of a Caesarian section.

5. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous the the killing of an innocent preborn baby by means of the use of what is known as the "hysterotomy," a procedure by which a preborn baby is killed by the use of a procedure similar to a Caesarian section, except that the child's neck is twisted in the womb before it is removed. (The hysterotomy was made famous in the case of Dr. Kenneth Edelin.)

6. The use of "intact dilation and extraction" is no more morally heinous than the "dilation and evacuation" method of killing a baby by means of carving up a baby in the uterus and then extracting his remains with forceps.

7. Those, including some conciliar bishops, have said that partial birth abortion is infanticide have missed the point entirely: each and every abortion kills a living baby deader than dead. Each abortion, whether chemically induced or surgically performed, is infanticide. (See Every Abortion Kills a Baby Dead).

8.The Partial Birth Abortion bill that is now the law of the land contains an immoral "life of the mother" exception, meaning that this procedure of killing a baby will still be used. And it will be used not only in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is "endangered." Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?

9. Baby-killers will simply resort to the dilation and evacuation means of killing children if they cannot justify the use of partial birth abortion, meaning, as I have been contended since 1995, that zero babies will be saved by the law and by yesterday's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart. Indeed, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy went to great lengths to remind those who challenged the law that the other procedures, which he described in great detail, would remain perfectly legal. Justice Kennedy also explained that baby-killers who "accidentally" turned a dilation and evacuation killing of a child into an intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) killing of a child would face no legal liability:

This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act's intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E. If a doctor's intent at the outset is to perform a D&E in which the fetus would not be delivered to either of the Act's anatomical landmarks, but the fetus nonetheless is delivered past one of those points, the requisite and prohibited scienter is not present. 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). When a doctor in that situation completes an abortion by performing an intact D&E, the doctor does not violate the Act. It is true that intent to cause a result may sometimes be inferred if a person "knows that that result is practically certain to follow from his conduct." 1 LaFave §5.2(a), at 341. Yet abortion doctors intending at the outset to perform a standard D&E procedure will not know that a prohibited abortion "is practically certain to follow from" their conduct. Ibid. A fetus is only delivered largely intact in a small fraction of the overall number of D&E abortions. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. (Gonzales v. Carhart)


10. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, baby-killers will still be able to kill babies in the later stages of pregnancy by the use of the saline solution abortion and the hysterotomy and the dilation and evacuation (and even an actual hysterectomy performed for reasons of killing a preborn child and to honor a woman's elective wishes to render herself sterile from that point forward). The belief that a "victory" was won yesterday is an illusion of the worst sort.


The whole of the "incrementalist" approach to "restoring" legal protection to the innocent preborn is based upon the lie that it is "necessary" to concede in civil law that there are some circumstances in which a baby can be directly targeted for execution. This lie is itself premised upon the false belief that baby-killers will be scrupulous in observing the "exceptions" that the incrementalists get enacted into law. As I noted consistently throughout the course of the last twenty-five years or so:

Do we really think that those who kill for a living are going to be scrupulously honest about observing the exact conditions of the "life of the mother" exception?


Although they would be horrified and outraged to see the dots connected here, "pro-life" incrementalists are of one mind and one heart with President Barack Hussein Obama and his brown-shirted apologists in accepting the "word" of those who kill for a living. "Pro-life" incrementalists believe that "exceptions" provisions in legislation designed to "restrict" baby-killing" are enforceable, which they are not. Similarly, apologists for ObamaCare have told us to "trust" that "end of life" counseling sessions between doctors and their patients on Medicare will not involve euthanasia as part of Caesar Obamus's nationalization of a health-care industry that has been corrupted by insurance companies and hospital administrators and multinational pharmaceutical companies whose officials view human beings in a strictly utilitarian manner. For a review of how the National Not-So-Right-To-Life Committee has helped to create, sustain and indemnify the careers of phony "pro-life" politicians, please see Pope Pius XII Slams The National Not-So-Right-Life Committee and George Walker Bush and All Other So-Called "Pro-Life Pols.

As the Third Reich, like all other modern civil states, rejected the right of the Catholic Church as having ordained by God Himself to be the ultimate authority on all that pertains to the good of souls, those who wielded power in that regime enacted "racial purity" and "eugenics" laws with complete legal impunity. Who could stop them? They had the legal "authority" under the Constitution of the Weimar Republic to enact "emergency laws." Constitutions that admit of no higher authority than the words of their own text are like silly putty in the hands of a child: instruments that can be manipulated for whatever ends those who hold the reins of power desire. Nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are governed according to the dictates of those who exercise civil power, men who care not for His Sacred Rights or who fear not the moment of their own Particular Judgments.

As Bishop Clemens von Galens noted in one of his sermons against the Nazi eugenics laws on Sunday, August 3, 1941:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the path that the Western world, including, of course, the so-called "civilized" United States of America, has been on as a direct, inevitable consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized thereafter in the structures of the anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.

Nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are sometimes formed by the shedding of innocent blood. As all nations that reject the Social Reign of Christ the King are founded on false, naturalistic principles, however, each will wind up shedding innocent blood, sooner or later, as there is no external constraint upon those who exercise power as existed during the era of Christendom in the Catholic Middle Ages. Over fifty-three million babies have been butchered in the United States of America under cover of law by surgical abortion alone since 1967, countless millions more as a result of abortifacient contraceptives. This unchecked shedding of blood creates a blood lust that is insatiable.

Indeed, it is the very same insatiable blood lust of the Roman pagans, who put over thirteen million Catholics to death between the time of Emperor Nero in 67 A.D. and the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. (with outbreaks here and there afterward, especially under Julian the Apostate), and that of the barbarians who brought down the Roman Empire in the West and the Mohammedans and the Protestant Revolutionaries and the French Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks and the Red Chinese and the North Vietnamese and the Cuban Communists and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the butchers of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, whose murderous ways were made possible, proximately speaking, by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church in the 1870s and by the amoral eugenics of the Weimar Republic from 1919-1933. There is no difference. We deceive ourselves if we think that all of the sophisticated technology and changes in living conditions can mask the reality that Western "civilization" today is a den of barbarism where one false idol after another is worshiped and as open season has been declared on mankind by the medical industry and by those "ethicists" who are nothing more than the ideological ministers of Modernity.

Everyone is at risk in the modern civil state. A simple trip to the hospital for a case of pneumonia might result in one's being declared "brain death" and thus a candidate to be dissected alive  The standards by which the absolute fiction of "brain death" are said to exist have been lowered and lowered over the years, something that several recent articles on this site have detailed (Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way? and Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies--And Souls). Why should not the de facto practice of killing babies after birth be sanctioned under cover of law?

It has been an open secret in The Netherlands for over a decade now that children are being "euthanized" after birth (see Newborns Who Suffer are “Better off Dead” and Netherlands grapples with euthanasia of babies; see the appendix below for an article that I wrote eleven years ago now about the killing of the chronically ill in The Netherlands). It should not surprise us in the slightest that the land where so much Catholic blood was shed when King Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, a land whose merchants of death tortured, enslaved, starved and killed millions of Catholics in Ireland, has produced "ethicists" who believe that the killing of any baby after birth is justified. The logic, such as it is in the mind of these gruesome rationalists, in this argument is that there is no difference between killing a baby before birth and killing him after birth. The argument is, of course, unassailable from the point of pure logic once one admits that innocent human life can be taken in the sanctuaries of their mothers' wombs, then there is nothing other than pure sentiment to preclude their killing thereafter:

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”. (Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say.)

A Catholic knows that there is indeed no difference between killing a baby in the womb, no matter how young in his development he may be, and the direct, intentional killing of any innocent human being at any point after birth. The Fifth Commandment admits of no exceptions. No one who says he supports a single, solitary "exception" to the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is not "pro-life" and can never be referred to as such. This is why it is laughable to believe that any naturalist of the false opposite of the "right" is going to produce "results" for a "better," more "prosperous" world, especially when he believes that the civil law can sanction the deliberate taking of any innocent human life as does the man who will be the Republican Party's presidential nominee this year, Willard Mitt Romney. It is madness to believe such a thing. Madness.

Yes, my good and few readers, anyone who makes any exception to the inviolability of innocent human life, no the matter the means, whether chemical or surgical, used or the justification attempted, will do nothing but see the entire life issue as a distraction not worth "setting his hair on fire" for in order to "excite" the few voters who adhere to his brand of naturalism. The tide in favor of "after birth abortion" among certain ethicists in England will wash ashore here 'ere long as the pantheists who want to "go green" and worship the dirt from which we are made and to which we must return until the General Resurrection on the Last Day continue to shed the blood of innocent human beings as they indulge themselves in their bread and circuses.

Men who reject Christ the King will wind up turning into monsters of one degree or another despite the "nuances" of their naturalistic ideas. Hitlerism was made possible by attacks on the Social Reign of Christ the King made by the Protestant Revolt and Judeo-Masonry. Bolshevism in Russia was in fact funded by Talmudic agents to introduce godlessness into Russia, whose conversion is so near and dear to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The shedding of innocent blood as has taken place in this country and around the world is but the logical consequence of the Reign of Man for the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Always remember, please, that Western civilization, including the United States of America, is simply realizing the result of the false premises of its own founding as the errors of Russia take hold more and more with each passing day. What is happening at present is simply a continuation of the fascism and statism of the previous two presidential administrations (William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's and George Walker Bush's). Americans, especially Catholic Americans, have been asleep at the switch as they have placed their trust in career politicians who have been penultimate statists who have equated criticism of their policies with unpatriotic activities. This is a Chastisement, good readers, and there is only one way out of this Chastisement: Our Lady's Fatima Message.

Yes, we are being visited with a Chastisement, my friends, and there is no stopping this chastisement short of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the world's true bishops as Russia is at last consecrated to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We must suffer this Chastisement well in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as we consider it a singular privilege to be alive at a time when our very liberty and our lives might be demanded of us. To quote the words used so frequently by Saint Francis of Assisi, "Deo gratias! Thanks be to God we are alive in this time. Thanks be to God! Deo gratias!

The Chastisement will be vanquished. These things will happen only when Heaven's Fatima Peace Plan is fulfilled.

We must remember that there can be no true reform of any society unless it is yoked to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer as It is lifted high by His true Church, something that is rejected by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have made their "reconciliation" with the false principles of Modernity. We must remember these words of Pope Saint Pius X, contained in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact.


Care to disagree with Pope Saint Pius X? Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does. Do you?


Today is the Feast of Saint Casimir Jagiellon, a magnificent exemplar of the Social Reign of Christ the King, whose just stewardship of temporal affairs according to the Mind of the King of Kings as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church has made his memory revered in both Poland and Lithuania from his own day, the Fifteenth Century, to our own.

Saint Casimir's defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King should inspire us to recognize that not a single, solitary Catholic who rejects the Sacred Rights of Our Divine Redeemer to reign as the King of all men and of each and every nation, including the United States of America, is a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. His example of prayer and penance and fasting and mortification should inspire us as well in the Second Week in Lent to deny ourselves in this life so that we might have life everlasting in Heaven, please God and by the graces He won for us and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that we die in states of Sanctifying Grace.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.

Saint Casimir, pray for us.

Pope Saint Lucius I, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Spiritual Resource: The Miraculous Novena of Grace


The Land of Windmills and Murder

by Thomas A. Droleskey

February 6, 2001

The Netherlands has replaced Germany as the world’s leading laboratory for social engineering. The recent decision of the Dutch to “legalize” the killing of the elderly and the infirm and the chronically ill is simply the logical result of a set of forces that the Netherlands became home to following the defeat of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich in May 1945.

The unification of the Germanic states into a single country as a result of Prussia’s victory in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 ushered in the triumph of social engineering in northern Europe’s industrial and economic giant. Masterminded by Otto von Bismarck, the “Iron Chancellor,” the social engineering that began in Germany during the Kulturkampf sought to create a brave new world where people would become more and more dependent upon the beneficence of the state. Bismarck knew that one of the ways to solidify political power was to create a sense of dependence on the part of the citizenry, who would become convinced that it was impossible for them to live their lives without the direction and largesse of government bureaucrats.

Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, which started off as a direct assault upon the Catholic Church (viewed by Bismarck as an obstacle to the social and economic advancement of human society), occurred at a time when two complementary schools of thought were coming to the fore: Darwinian evolutionism and the historical-critical method of Scriptural exegesis. The latter was designed by Protestant Scripture scholars in Germany as a means of “demythologizing” Scripture, a goal that dovetailed neatly with the agendas both of the Darwinians and of Hegelian philosophers who were intent on creating the illusion of change in the very nature of God Himself. The old way of religion had to yield to the new ways of progress and social advancement. And that social advancement would entail, among other things, the discarding of those who were economically unproductive and thus relatively useless for the life of society.

Bismarck was not as aggressive as his successors in Germany would be during the period of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933). However, he laid the groundwork for the sterilization and euthanasia policies that would be the hallmarks of both Weimar and the Third Reich. One of Bismarck’s principal legacies was the establishment of the modern welfare state, paving the way not only for the Weimar democrats and Hitler but also for V.I. Lenin and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Social Security was the crown jewel of Bismarck’s welfare state. For Bismarck desired to create a world where grown children believed that they were relieved of the natural-law responsibility to care for their elderly parents when they became incapable of caring for themselves. He wanted to rally the elderly to his side by making it appear as though he was their friend — and he wanted to do the same with the young, convincing them that he had made it possible for them to live a more comfortable life materially by relieving them of the “burden” of providing for their parents (never mind the nasty little fact that confiscatory taxes were used to pay for Social Security). Thus, Bismarck sought to pit generations against each other in preparation for the day when those who were retired could be deemed useless to society and thus worthy of liquidation. Bismarck relied upon the German traits of obedience to authority as the means by which he could convince the public that he, their chancellor, knew best.

Social scientists and natural scientists had a field day in Germany during the Weimar Republic. Yes, democratic Germany was home to scores of biological and eugenic experimentations. Science is a tool given us by God to use as a means of assisting the legitimate development of human progress in the natural world. Absent the direction provided it by the true Church, however, science can become a terrible weapon of destruction and of maniacal social and biological engineering. Thus, the fuller development in the Third Reich of the monstrous policies pursued during the Weimar Republic was quite logical. In 1939, the German populace quite docilely accepted Hitler’s implementation of the wholesale extermination of the retarded and infirm. Germans had become used to the principle that the state knew best. Only Clemens von Galen, the Bishop of Munster, had the courage to speak out publicly against Hitler’s eugenics policies.

(Obviously, Lenin and Stalin were playing their own monstrous games in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Psychiatry there became a tool of political reprogramming and raw terror. Social engineering is the very foundation of Marxism’s own brave new world. And the fact that the Bolsheviks had plenty of defenders in the West helps explain the triumph of the spirit of Bolshevism in almost every country in Western Europe, as well as in Canada and the United States.)

In the West, social engineering fell into a bit of disrepute in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials that followed World War II. However, in the Netherlands the groundwork was quietly being laid for a recrudescence of the utilitarianism that was the essence of the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. The social engineers and eugenicists had taken over the Dutch universities and hospitals and laboratories. The positivists held sway in the courts and in the Staaten, the Dutch national legislature. And Modernists populated much of the Dutch Catholic hierarchy. Indeed, Modernist Dutch theologians even produced a best-selling catechism that was essentially a defense of the very trends developing in the Netherlands in the 1960s.

In that decade, the Netherlands became a playground for hallucinogenic drug use and promiscuity. It was one of the first nations in Europe to embrace every single bit of the sodomite agenda. And it is so radically pro-abortion that it is now the de facto policy in the Netherlands to permit parents to euthanize their newborn child up to a year after his birth, thus giving them from the moment of fertilization to one year after birth to take a crack at the fruit of their conjugal love. And it has been the de facto policy of the Dutch for some time to permit physicians to dispatch patients who are deemed to have outlived their usefulness in society (too old, too sick, too costly to maintain). What was once de facto is now de jure. Although no doctors in the Netherlands have been prosecuted for doing what was once technically illegal, they can now kill their patients with legal impunity.

As I have noted on a number of occasions, arguing against euthanasia on purely natural terms is no defense against the power of sentimentality to trump rational thought. A culture of well-being seeks to anesthetize pain and all other unpleasant realities. Why should a person suffer when the truth of redemptive suffering is rejected as either fantastic or as just simply unrealistic in our modern world? Those who believe that it is possible to combat the “mercy killers” with naturalistic arguments are as delusional as those who believe that a person who supports one abortion as a matter of principle is a defender of the sanctity of innocent human life.

Human suffering is one of the many consequences of Original Sin. Indeed, physical suffering and death are two of the very tangible consequences of Original Sin, as well as of our own actual sins. It is only the Catholic Faith that teaches the full truth concerning human suffering. And it is a rejection of the Catholic teaching on human suffering that has permitted sentimentality to triumph so mightily in the world, even among many Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday.

The Church teaches us that no suffering is beyond our capacity to bear by means of the graces won for us by the shedding of our Lord’s Most Precious Blood on Calvary. Further, the Church teaches us that no human suffering — no matter how intense — is the equal of the pain that just one of our venial sins imposed upon our Lord in His Sacred Humanity on the wood of the Holy Cross. And she teaches us that our patient endurance of the sufferings we experience in our lifetimes can be the means by which we help the Poor Souls in Purgatory make satisfaction for the debt we owe as a result of our forgiven sins (and our general attachment to sin), and the means by which we can give exemplary witness to the world of the fact that we unite our sufferings with those of our Blessed Lord. Indeed, our patient endurance of suffering is one of the ways we prove our love for our Lord. Knowing that our Lord never permits us to endure any suffering beyond our capacity to endure equips us with the knowledge that the more suffering we are sent, the more we receive a sign of His love for us, that He expects us to do great things for Him and His Church by becoming co-redeemers of the world with Him.

A rejection of those simple truths results in the tyranny of the social engineers and the bioethicists (who don’t practice true biology and are not very ethical). Why not kill “unwanted” babies? Why not kill those who suffer? Why not clone yourself? Why not conceive a child in order to kill it and use its body parts to aid someone with Parkinson’s Disease? Why can’t a woman who is sterile conceive a child by means of in vitro fertilization? Why can’t two people of the same gender who “love” one another get “married”? What’s wrong with surrogate motherhood? Why can’t we use genetics to pick the sort of child we want? The very people who reject the authority of the Church in those matters look to secular “experts” to provide them with guidance, ironically conferring on those pseudo-experts a spirit of infallibility that is rejected as belonging to the Successor of Saint Peter and the bishops who are in full communion with him.

The Netherlands goes first where other nations follow. That has been true both ecclesiastically and civilly. Look for Canada to follow the Dutch lead before too long. And the state of Oregon is already the de jure euthanasia pioneer in the United States. The actual de facto practice in most hospitals in most places in this country is pretty much the same as it has been in the Netherlands. Doctors are liberally dispatching people as a matter of routine, making decisions that certain people have simply outlived their usefulness. That is over and above the instances where poorly formed people (or their families) actually ask to be killed. No, there are all types of “mysterious” deaths in hospitals these days as doctors and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) play God and make cost-benefit analyses as to a person’s “worth.”

It is no accident that the Netherlands is one of the leaders in utilitarian social engineering. At one time under the control of Catholic Spain, the Netherlands, like some other nations of Europe, eventually fell under the sway of Lutheranism and Calvinism. The Netherlands has long been home to relativists. After all, an essential tenet of Protestantism is that a person is saved if he makes a confession of faith in our Lord with his lips and in his heart. Nothing else matters after that profession of faith is made. There is no room for a theology of redemptive suffering in such a belief system. Protestantism rejects Purgatory as un-Scriptural. It contends that we do not prove our faith by good works. And it rejects the simple truth that we gain merit for our good works, merit that can be applied to the Poor Souls in Purgatory and help make expiation for the debt we owe our own forgiven sins. Why not annihilate yourself when pain becomes too severe? A “loving” God would understand that, wouldn’t He?

There are only two weapons that can stop the advance of the brave new world that has been evolving since the time of the Renaissance and the Protestant Revolt: the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and His Most Blessed Mother's Holy Rosary.

When are we going to learn that we cannot fight the errors of Modernity culture of death without the weapon that brought us the possibility of eternal life and the one that Our Lady gave to Saint Dominic and which she implored us at Fatima to pray daily.

Our Lady, Mother of Mercy, pray for us.


© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.