Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                  June 1, 2009

Reichstag II

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Barack Hussein Obama and United States Attorney General Eric Holder and United States Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have just been handed their equivalent of the burning of the Reichstag building in Berlin by the killing of the notorious baby-killer, George Tiller, at a Lutheran "church" in Wichita, Kansas, yesterday, Pentecost Sunday, May 31, 2009.

Adolf Hitler, then the Chancellor of Germany, used the burning of the Reichstag building on February 27, 1933, by a Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, as the pretext for convincing German President Paul von Hindenburg to issue an emergency decree, the Reichstag Fire Decree, to suppress legitimate civil liberties President von Hindenburg later signed the "Enabling Act" that gave the Cabinet of the government of the then Chancellor Hitler, who combined the offices of President (Chief of State) and Chancellor (Chief of the Government) into that of Der Fuehrer upon von Hindenburg's death on August 2, 1934, broad powers to make rulings that had the effective force of law as though those rulings had been passed by the Reichstag, the German Parliament, itself.

Please do believe that the ultra-statist fascists of the Obama administration will use the killing of George Tiller for their own nefarious purposes, although they may, for the time being, simply increase their monitoring of our websites and public statements.

Remember, that that was just about six weeks ago now that Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano issued a report on Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment that included the following footnote:

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. (Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment; see also All Hail! Caesar Obamus.)


You better believe that anyone and everyone who is publicly opposed to the execution of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs under cover of the civil law, whether by chemical and/or surgical means, is going to come in from even greater scrutiny from Federal, state and local law enforcement officials than before. Those who are very publicly opposed to the slaughter of the innocent preborn might be "invited' on a regular basis for questioning by various law enforcement officials see if their words, whether written or spoken, might be considered an enticement to violence against baby-killers and thus a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE).

As I have noted before on this site, a woman in Toledo, Ohio, was visited in 1995 by two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) who had been assigned to the Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) Task Force that was established by the then Attorney General of the United States of America, Janet "Waco/See No Evil About Chinagate" Reno, in the wake of the passage of FACE in 1994. The F.B.I. agents who visited the woman in Toledo warned her that she would be arrest under the provisions of FACE is she ever did again what prompted their visit to her: namely, write to an abortionist to say that she was praying for the abortionist's conversion.

Writing a letter to a baby-killing to state that one is praying for his or her conversion is considered to be an act of "domestic terrorism" according to two agents who were assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force. One can conclude quite safely that the shooting death of the man who shed much innocent blood in Wichita, Kansas, George Tiller, will prompt those in the Obama administration who are already predisposed to view anyone who opposed to abortion as a potential "domestic terrorist" to do everything imaginable to "tighten the screws" on those who are outspoken in their opposition to the mystical dismemberment of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the persons of innocent preborn children. Legislation might even be proposed to provide bodyguards for baby-killers at the expense of the taxpayers.

The man who shot and killed George Tiller, a white male who is fifty-one years of age, is now in police custody. This man, whoever he is, has made a martyr out of George Tiller, who specialized in killing babies in the latter stages of pregnancy. This act of violence can in no way be justified by the fact that Tiller himself was a killer of innocent human beings as the precepts of the Fourth Commandment prohibits civilians from imposing any kind of punishment, no less capital punishment, on malefactors who do not pose a real and legitimate threat to others at the time an assault against that malefactor is planned and executed.

The precepts of the Fifth Commandment permit us to engage in acts of self-defense (and the defense of others) that are proportionate to and commensurate with the nature of the level of the threat posed by an aggressor or aggressors. That is, we are not permitted to use force against another human being unless we are under attack (or about to be attacked) by an aggressor or aggressors. Under the precepts of the Fifth Commandment, therefore, we can never take action to defend ourselves or others based upon what a malefactor has done yesterday and might indeed do today or tomorrow or the day after that. We can only take action to defend ourselves or others if we or they are under attack--or facing imminent attack--from an aggressor or aggressors.

In this regard, you see, the only time that it would be, theoretically speaking, morally licit to use force against a baby-killer would be if one was inside of an abortuary and a baby-killer was preparing to use his instruments of death to butcher innocent baby in his mother's womb. One would not be justified at any other time to use force against a baby-killer who was not nearing or in the act of killing a innocent preborn baby. And even if inside of an abortuary at the moment that a child was about to be killed, ladies and a gentleman, one would be authorized by the moral law to use only the least amount of force necessary to render the child-killer unable to proceed with his act of infanticide.

Alas, the justification for using force in such a instance is altered by the principle of Proportionality, which teaches us that a morally licit act might be rendered immoral to pursue in light of a preponderance of foreseen evil consequences that would flow from the prosecution of the morally licit act. This is the same moral principle that could render immoral the prosecution of an otherwise justified war or a justified revolt against the civil authorities.

Let me explain.

The Theory of the Just War that had its origins in the writings of Saint Augustine and was later explicated by Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the  decision to prosecute a war must be based after a due consideration of the various factors. I will illustrate these factors by once again repeating what I wrote in 2002 in the lead-up to the American invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003:

1. Just Cause: There must be a real, imminent and grave threat posed by an aggressor against one's own nation or another nation. No such threat exists from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The [George Walker] Bush administration has provided zero evidence about the stockpile of chemical weapons Hussein is said to have. Even if he is trying to build nuclear weapons, he has no way of delivering them to the continental United States. Communist China and North Korea provide a more imminent and realistic threat against the security of the United States than Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are proven breeding grounds for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda networks. The Saudi government has never cooperated with the United States to track down those who bombed a residence housing American military personnel in 1996. Why is there no talk of attacking Saudi Arabia or Yemen?

There is only the slimmest, anecdotal evidence linking Hussein to Osama bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda terrorists. It is wishful thinking on the part of Bush and his advisers to want to project such a link onto global public opinion as being so when it is not. President Bush's October 7, 2002, address did not answer these questions. The continued assertion that something is so does not make it so, no matter whether the public has been convinced to believe in such positivistic assertions.

A retired Marine lieutenant general tells me that I am wrong, that he has seen information he cannot divulge that proves Hussein is a real and imminent threat to this country. If the threat has been so imminent throughout the course of the last few months, however, why has the administration waited until after the midterm Congressional elections and until after the resolution adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations to take action. I don't get it. If a threat is truly real and imminent, then it requires an imminent response.

Doesn't Hussein pose a threat to his own people? Maybe. However, as will be demonstrated in my review of the condition of proportionality, the level of the threat Hussein poses to his own people does not justify the sort of military response under consideration by the United States. Indeed, it is possible we will kill, inadvertently, you understand, more innocent people in our crusade to oust Hussein that he has killed since he assumed power in 1969. And it is not at all clear that there is anyone in Iraq poised to succeed him without a real power struggle. How is "democracy" imposed on a country which has no experience of the wonders provided by such modern enlightenment? See Wilson, W., above.

Insofar as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, we should be more concerned about the weapons of mass destruction found in our own nation: the scissors, the scalpel, the suction machine, the saline solution bottle, the interuterine device, the birth control pill, the abortion pill, the morning after pill, and the hands of so-called physicians, trained to "murder mankind in the womb," as the pagan playwright Juvenal noted in the Second Century A.D. We kill far more people every year by means of abortion, both chemical and surgical than Saddam Hussein has killed in all of the thirty-three years of his repressive rule in Iraq. We are more of a threat to innocent life than Saddam Hussein will ever be.

2) A duly constituted legal authority must exist to make decisions concerning the existence of a Just Cause and to make the other judgments necessary that are prescribed by the Theory of the Just War.

3) Rectitude of Intention. Those in the duly constituted legal authority must intend to prosecute a war on just grounds without exaggerating a threat or fabricating evidence about a nonexistent threat so as to garner public support for a military campaign that has not just basis in actual point of act.

4) Last Resort: All peaceful means to avoid armed hostilities must be exhausted. Yes, Saddam Hussein has not lived up to the terms of the post-Gulf War United Nations resolutions. He has not permitted arms inspectors to have full and unfettered access to places where nuclear and/or chemical weapons are being manufactured and warehoused. Is the next step from this to be all out war, though? There are means to deal with Hussein, including an occasional well-placed military strike upon targets that have been proven beyond question to contain weapons of mass destruction, short of full-scale war. To jump from the failure of a foreign leader, who poses no direct and immediate threat to the security of the United States, to permit weapons inspections to full-scale war is to make a jump over reason itself. If Hussein is a threat to regional peace in the Middle East, he is Israel's problem to deal with ,not ours. How long must the United States serve, as Patrick J. Buchanan noted so ably over a decade ago, the "Amen" corner for Israel, putting members of our armed forces needlessly at risk to do Israel's bidding?

5) Probability of Success.The goals must be well-defined and have a reasonable chance of being realized. In other words, there must be a reasonable chance for success in the pursuit of narrowly defined goals. Goals are to be defined narrowly so as to limit the harm caused by a needlessly protracted war, yes, even when a nation is prosecuting a just cause.

If President Bush believes that one of the goals of a war against Iraq is to make the United States "more secure," then anyone with a modicum of common sense would have to come to the conclusion that George W. Bush is badly misled. However, even if the United States can remove Saddam Hussein from power after destroying, once again, the infrastructure of Iraq and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, this will do nothing to make the United States more secure. Indeed, scores of suicide bombers will be motivated to avenge our military action. American military action against Iraq at this time makes this country far less secure-and gives the Federal government the excuse it desires to put further restrictions on speech and movement within our own borders.

It is not clear what specific levels of military force will be necessary to remove Hussein from power. He has bunkers throughout the country. He has more doubles than the late Francisco Franco. Yes, the United States has the brute force to bomb Iraq into the stone age, as the late Air Force General Curtis LeMay said what we should do to North Vietnam when he was introduced as George Wallace's Vice Presidential running-mate on the American Independent Party ticket in 1968. (Lest Howard Phillips pick me apart on that one, I do know that Wallace had at least one other running-mate listed in some states. The rules for ballot access required him to list a candidate in some states before LeMay agreed to run with him. Howard will know the name.) If the use of said force does force the removal of Hussein, either by death or exile, then Iraq will be dependent upon the largesse of American taxpayers for decades so that it can be rebuilt. And there is no guarantee that someone worse than Hussein might rise to the surface in a few years to topple an American puppet regime, mobilizing a virtual guerilla jihad against American forces stationed there for years on end. What kind of success is that?

6) Proportionality. The good end being sought must not be outweighed by the foreseen evil to be done. This is known as the Catholic principle of proportionality, which states that a good end can be rendered unjust to pursue if a judgment is made that the amount of the foreseen evil to be done in the prosecution of a just war will cause greater evils than the one the war is being waged to eradicate. This is different than the heresy of proportionalism (heretics use Catholic sounding phrases so as to connect themselves in the minds of Catholics as understanding Catholic principles), which asserts that a preponderance of "good intentions" and of the "relative exigencies of the moment" can make a moral act that is naturally evil capable of being pursued justly on the part of one who believes the weight of the evidence in his case justifies a subjective violation of an objective moral law to do good. Thus, proportionalism, which has been propounded by the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J. (not to be confused with the priest from the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut, who foments dissent at the University of Notre Dame and in his nationally syndicated columns, Father Richard McBrien), can be used by a woman to justify the killing of her preborn child. After all, more good will be done in her life by killing the child than if she permitted him to interfere unduly with her life's goals.

The principle of proportionality contained in the Just War Theory requires a very careful and prayerful prudential judgment to be made by a policy-maker prior to the advent of war. This is not a matter of infallibly received truth. This is a judgment that has got to be based on a clear-headed and most realistic assessment of the harm that will be caused by the onset of armed hostilities. The impending war with Iraq will cause far more harm than good, as I outlined in my previous section. Rather than making us more secure, we will be less secure. We will contribute to the furtherance of anti-American sentiment around the world, and will contribute to deteriorating, not improving, the situation within Iraq itself. How many truly innocent Iraqis must die to liberate their country of a man who is far less of a threat to them on a daily basis than American "freedom" is to unborn children every day in this country?

Mind you, I am an American. I love my country. However, as I have noted over and over again, love is an act of the will. To love another is to will his good. We must love others as God loves us. God's love for us is an act of His Divine Will to provide us with all of the supernatural helps we need to save our souls so that we will be with Him for all eternity in Heaven. Our love for others is premised upon doing or saying nothing that will in any way interfere with the salvation of their immortal souls. And our love of our nation must seek her good, the ultimate expression of which is her subordination to the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as it is exercised by Holy Mother Church. Pope Pius XI noted this very clearly in Quas Primas in 1925. This is Catholic doctrine, from which no one can dissent legitimately, as Pope Pius XI made clear in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.

5) As far as is possible, noncombatants must never be deliberately targeted in warfare. The United States has a mixed record when it comes to the realization of this part of the Just War Theory. Our military forces have tried to use remarkable restraint in many instances. Other times, however, they have not. William Tecumseh Sherman used raw terrorism against civilian population centers as he cut a swath of fiery destruction from the Atlantic Ocean to Atlanta during the War between the States. As noted earlier, we aided bloodthirsty revolutionaries in Mexico. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki (the latter two of which were known to contain the highest concentrations of Catholics in Japan) were bombed during World War II. Something less than laser precision caused thousands of civilian casualties during the Gulf War and during our continued bombing in Afghanistan, which commenced on October 7, 2001. It is unclear what steps would be taken to protect noncombatants in a war with Iraq, especially in light of the fact that Hussein is not above placing forcibly his own citizens in military areas to use them as a shield against bombing. Presuming that best efforts would be made by the United States military, the injustice of the cause itself, though, renders the inadvertent bombing of civilians in a war with Iraq beyond the pale.

6) A just cessation to hostilities must be realized as soon as possible. Once again, the record of the United States in this regard is very mixed. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done so as to force an unconditional surrender from Japan, something that the Soviets insisted on in the Potsdam Conference as their condition for entering the war against Japan (so that they could recover claims lost in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.) Japan was willing to surrender conditionally. Those who are convinced of their absolute moral and racial superiority over others, though, cannot consider ending hostilities even if it is possible to conclude a peace that is just without having humiliated one's enemies. How long would a war in Iraq last even if Saddam Hussein were to be found, tried and executed?


The government of the United States of America had no business invading Iraq. Thousands of American and Iraqi lives have been lost and billions upon billions of American taxpayer dollars have been spent to destroy and then rebuild and rebuild yet again the Iraqi infrastructure following our invasion seventy-four and one-half months ago. No legitimate security interests of the United States of America were involved. Thousands of Chaldean Rite Catholics have been driven from their native land by the Mohammedans who have been empowered as a result of the American invasion and occupation. It is only a matter of time after the full withdrawal of American troops is effected that Iraq will undergo yet another episode of fratricidal battles that will result in its own Balkanization along much the same lines as has occurred in the states of the former country of Yugoslavia.

Similarly, good readers, the planned use of force against a baby-killer in the act of killing a baby inside of an abortuary, which is, when taken by itself, a morally licit action, is rendered immoral to pursue as a result of the principle of Proportionality. Given the fact that chemical and surgical baby-killing exists under cover of the civil law, those who might contemplate an otherwise justified use of force against a baby-killer inside of an abortuary must consider the following factors, among others, it should be noted, that do indeed render his otherwise morally licit act immoral to pursue:

1) The attacked baby-killer would live to kill again if he survived;

2)  The baby-killer, if killed, would be replaced by another baby-killer; no babies would be saved as a result.

3)  Public sympathy would be generated for the attacked or killed baby-killer and for baby-killing;

4)  Legislation might be enacted to make even the praying of the Rosary in front of American killing centers illegal;

5)  Even the written or spoken opposition to baby-killing might be criminalized.


It is therefore the case that even the theoretically morally licit act of stopping a baby-killer inside of an abortuary by  the least amount of force necessary to render the aggressor incapable of performing his evil deed falls under the weight of the principle of Proportionality in most instances. Why?

First, no rational good would be accomplished. The baby whose life is spared at one moment would be killed a day or two later. Admittedly, one who finds himself inside of an abortuary (say, a father of a baby about to be killed who has had a change of heart about the murder of his child or some employee who has had a similar change of heart) would have a positive moral obligation, if physically able to do so, to try to stop a baby-killer by the use of the least level of force necessary to prevent the particular act of child-killing, which might give the mother who is about to have her baby killed pause for reconsideration before proceeding with the murder of her child. Premeditated, forcible or fraudulent entries into abortuaries for purposes of attempting to stop a baby-killer in the act of baby-killing, however, fall under the weight of the moral principles of a lack of probable success and Proportionality.

The killing of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law is the direct consequence of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. A civil state constituted properly according to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching would abide by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law as these have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. The leaders of a civil state constituted according to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, no matter what its particular form of government (parliamentary-ministerial, presidential-congressional, monarchical, unitary, federal, confederal), would seek to advance the common temporal good in light of the pursuit of man's Last End (see Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, and Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906). There would be no such thing as baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means, in such a properly constituted civil state.

The taking of innocent preborn innocent human life is sanctioned, albeit unjustly, by the modern state, constituted as it is according to false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles. This is analogous to the use of brute force by the civil authorities of the Roman Empire against Catholics who refused to recognize, esteem, worship or adore false idols and/or to renounce their Faith during the various periods of persecution that began in the year 67 A.D. under Emperor Nero and ended in the year 313 A.D. with the Edict of Milan that was issued by the Emperor Constantine. Although Catholics would have been justified in that 256 year period of persecution to use force to defend themselves and their co-religionists, they knew that to do so would be futile, humanly speaking. They prayed for the conversion of their persecutors and executioners, knowing that their blood would be the seed of the Church.

The blood of the innocent babies being shed today cannot be the seed of the Church as they are unbaptized and, unlike the Holy Innocents, are not being killed in the place of the newborn Christ-Child. To be sure, their deaths are enabled by modern-day King Herods. They are not, however, martyrs of the Catholic Faith. It is thus the case that we, who can take no effective "action" on our own to end the daily carnage of children in our land as we do not represented a duly constituted authority and have no reasonable chance of success and must recognize that more evil than good would come from an organized effort by vigilantes to situate themselves inside of abortuaries, must pray for the conversion of the baby-killers, commending them particularly to the mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It was, after all, the prayers of many thousands of ordinary Catholics that prompted one of the principal progenitors of abortion, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who presided over the killings of over 73,000 preborn babies between the time that baby-killing was decriminalized in the State of New York in 1970 and the time that he, still an atheistic Jew, quit killing babies in 1973 for purely scientific reasons. Although Dr. Nathanson, who admitted to lying in the 1960s about the number of women who died as a result of "illegal" abortions so as to generate public sympathy for the full decriminalization of surgical baby-killing, is now trapped in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and is in need of prayers to be extricated from those structures , the fact that he came to reject atheism and to recognize that the Catholic Faith is the true religion was also the result of many prayers.

The man who took the law into his own hands to kill George Tiller has prevented this egregious baby-killer from knowing the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in this life before the moment of his death by means of his conversion to the Catholic Faith and his public repentance for his crimes against God and man. Yes, God alone knows the subjective state of souls at the moment of their deaths. We do know, however, that one who has persisted unrepentantly in acts of willful murder is not in a good way, objectively speaking, spiritually if he dies in such a state:

For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10: 26-31.)


Although Saint Paul was speaking of those who defect from the Faith by means of apostasy, including by means of esteeming the symbols and values of false religions, his words have application to those who defy God's clear injunction, inscribed on the very flesh of our hearts by means of the Natural Law, against the direct, intentional taking of innocent preborn human life.

George Tiller knew full well that he was killing living human beings. After all, what need is there to kill a baby inside of his mother's womb if he is not living and growing inside of it? Only two things are added, physically speaking, to a baby after his conception: time and nutrition. He has a distinct DNA at the moment of his fertilization. It was when Bernard Nathanson, then an atheist, knew that he could no longer avoid this truth that he, as noted earlier, stopped killing babies. George Tiller knew the facts. He proceeded to kill babies in the name of "reproductive rights."

Indeed, a man who had been in seminary with me at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland (when I studied there in the Fall of 1981 after taking a leave of absence from college teaching) and was installed in the conciliar presbyterate in 1985, James D. Conley, now an auxiliary "bishop" of the Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado, played a phone message for me in his rectory adjacent to the campus of Wichita State University (where he served as the chaplain of the Newman Club) in Wichita, Kansas, in July of 1995 after I had given an address there. The phone message was left for him by George Tiller, who wanted to know if "Father" Conley would consider baptizing a child of Catholic parents before he, Tiller, "terminated" the pregnancy, saying that the parents would be very "comforted" (or words to that effect) by such an act on the part of "Father" Conley, who, of course, refused to entertain any such notion.

Ironically, I had joined "Father" Conley with other Catholics to pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary outside of Tiller's fortress of killing center that very morning. To hear the cool, calculated voice of George Tiller with his diabolical request was bone-chilling. Bone-chilling.

George Tiller was a product of the Protestant Revolt and, along with the babies he killed so wantonly, one of its victims. That is, he would never have been able to kill babies legally in a state organized according to Catholic principles. He would have been arrested and sentenced to jail or sentenced to death by the duly constituted authority of the civil state if he killed babies in such a nation. As a spiritual son of Martin Luther, however, George Tiller believed that he was "saved" by making his "profession of faith" in the Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, thus believing that he could do anything with a "sincere intention" and still not risk losing his "salvation."

Please never underestimate the the continuing effects of Martin Luther's revolution against the Divine Plan that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church and upon which all just societies must be based. That a man felt compelled to take the law into his own hands and kill George Tiller in our upside-down-world where baby-killers, who are the true domestic terrorists who walk amongst us as "pillars" of their communities, are protected by law enforcement agencies and those who oppose baby-killing are considered "suspect," at the very least, by government officials of being capable of performing acts of "domestic terrorism" is a sign of the lawlessness unleashed by Luther's lawless revolt against the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by a state that subordinates itself in all that pertains to the good of souls to the teaching offices of Holy Mother Church.

Great sympathy is being expressed for George Tiller by pro-death advocates around the nation and by residents of Wichita, Kansas. Consider this report that published online yesterday by The New York Times before the last two paragraphs were edited out of the report's subsequent versions:

Dr. Tiller was a fearless, passionate defender of women’s reproductive health and rights,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, which had worked on a legal case related to Dr. Tiller. “It’s time that this nation stop demonizing these doctors, and start honoring them.”

At St. George Orthodox Christian Church, next door to Dr. Tiller’s church, members said they had often been concerned about being so close to a church that often was the scene of protests because of Dr. Tiller’s presence. Dr. Tiller had attended the church for a long time, they said, and had contributed significantly to construction of the current facility, which was built in about 1996.

“This is a God-fearing community,” said Mickey Cohlmia, who was at services at the neighboring church on Sunday morning and said she was horrified that such a thing had happened in Wichita, a city of about 358,000 in southern Kansas. “How does this scar everybody in his church?” (This is from an original posting of an article in the online edition of The New York Times on Sunday, May 31, 2009, whose contents have been changed to omit the reference to Mickey Cohlmia's very telling quotation.)


If Wichita is a "God-fearing community," Mr. Cohlmia, why is there such sympathy for a man who wantonly carved up so many babies in his lifetime? Why was George Tiller considered a "pillar" in your community. Why is there such applause for a man who used the blood money that he earned to support candidates for public office, such as the current Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who would protect his own bloody trade as he violated the Fifth Commandment day after day and as he violated the traditional version of the Hippocratic Oath that he had to take before he was licensed as a medical doctor, thus engaging in a "legally" sanctioned form of "racketeering" by bribing public officials to make it possible for him to kill babies under cover of the civil law? A "God-fearing community"?

No, Mr. Cohlmia, a truly God-fearing community, one founded upon the truths of the Catholic Faith, would take seriously these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, as it shunned a man such as George Tiller and prayed for his conversion to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith, before he died:

However, they should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted. This truth of Christian Faith is expressed by the teaching of the Council of Trent. "Let no one be so rash as to assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands, instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able that He may help you."

This same doctrine was again solemnly repeated and confirmed by the Church in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy which dared to utter this blasphemy against the goodness of God: "Some precepts of God are, when one considers the powers which man possesses, impossible of fulfillment even to the just who wish to keep the law and strive to do so; grace is lacking whereby these laws could be fulfilled."

But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:" The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: "Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife."

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)


No community is "God-fearing," Mr. Cohlmia, which considers the likes of George Tiller to have been one of its pillars, a "hero" for a woman's nonexistent "right" to kill her child, whose only "crime" was being conceived as the natural fruit of the generative powers given to man by God Himself for the procreation and education of children. No "God-fearing" community, Mr. Cohlmia, would sanction the mystical dismemberment of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who spent nine months as the Prisoner of His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal an Immaculate Womb and is thus in solidarity with every child in every mother's womb without any exception whatsoever, in the persons of innocent preborn children under the cover of the law.

Leaders of various pro-life groups have condemned the murder of George Tiller. They have done so, however, principally on naturalistic grounds.

George Tiller's life was not "inviolate," as some "pro-life" leaders have said in their statements. A properly constituted civil state would have sought to have arrested and prosecuted him. George Tiller, if he had been convicted of his crimes, could have been sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty by a judge after a due consideration of all of the facts brought forth at a trial conducted under all of the proper safeguards afforded by an adherence to the due process of law. And, as noted earlier, there might have been a circumstance, theoretically speaking, which his life and limb could have been subject to the use of force by one who was in the proximate vicinity of one of his, Tiller's, attacks upon an innocent preborn baby and all of the other conditions already noted were present to justify the use of the least level of force necessary to repel the attack.

No, George Tiller's life was not inviolate, something that many conciliarists do not understand or accept because they, contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, oppose the imposition of the death penalty both in principle and in praxis.

The murder of George Tiller represents, as noted before, the effects of the lawlessness unleashed by the Protestant Revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King and a lack of due knowledge of and regard for the principles of basic moral precepts, entrusted by God to the Catholic Church for their authoritative explication and observance, as they apply to cases of personal and social self-defense.

George Tiller had an immortal soul created by God and redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood. God willed the good of George Tiller, namely, his eternal salvation as a member of the Catholic Church, until the moment he, Tiller, drew his last breath. It is possible, speaking theoretically once again, for Tiller to have made a perfect Act of Contrition as he died as he sought to attach himself to the Catholic Church by means of her Treasury of Grace.

Alas, speaking purely in human terms as none of us can know the Particular Judgment of others barring cases of mystical revelations that have been granted by God to some saints over the centuries, it does appear that George Tiller was indeed deprived of the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, and that is true tragedy of his murder: an immortal soul made in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by Our Lord's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross might have been lost for all eternity. The ultimate tragedy of any human life is for it to end, objectively speaking, in state of Final Impenitence, that is, in a state of Mortal Sin. Granted, there is no guarantee that George Tiller would have repented had he lived to be ninety years of age. It is not up to any of us, however, to have ended his life here on earth. As noted earlier, a duly constituted civil authority would have the authority to do so if we lived in a world based on principles of Catholic truth. Individuals or vigilante groups have no such authority.

Every Catholic who has thus far condemned George Tiller's murder on the false grounds of the inviolability of his life, which was not inviolate at all, only beyond the reach of ordinary civilians to impose a just and final punishment upon in light of the corruption of the processes of law and governance in the modern civil state, has refused to come to the defense of the honor and glory and majesty of God as they have been blasphemed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during repeatedly during his false "pontificate," including his recently concluded pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel.

Why is there no such alacrity in condemning outrages committed against God by a man who dares to call a mosque as a "jewel" on the face of this earth and who prays as a member of a dead religion that is hideous to God, Judaism, at the Wailing Wall as he makes no reference at all to the Son of God made Man by the power of God the Holy Ghost in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb? There is no such alacrity as conciliarism has robbed most Catholics of the ability to understand violations of the First Commandment for what they are and that, admitting the many other Remote and Proximate Causes of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law, such violations of the First Commandment make more possible violations of all other Commandments, including the Fifth.

We will know soon the degree to which the lords of the modern civil state will use the killing of George Tiller as the pretext for an increased surveillance of the words of those of us who are unalterably opposed to all abortions, whether chemical or surgical, at all times in all cases without any exceptions whatsoever. We must be ready to suffer all manner of injustices so that we, who are incorporated as members of the Church Militant on earth, can plant a few seeds for the resurrection of the Church Militant on earth and the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the world, offering up any and all injustices to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including our sins and those of the likes of George Tiller and the man who killed him.

May the Rosaries we pray today and the time spent before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament help to undo the debt that we owe for our own sins and help to plant seeds for the day when all men and women everywhere, including in the United States of America, will indeed welcome children generously and raise them to become canonizable saints in this life so that they can enjoy the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.


Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.