Merchants of Murder and Mendacity, part two

The person, who is most likely a law clerk of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor named Amit Jain,  who leaked a draft of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization certainly has accomplished the ends he intended when providing the text to Politico reporter Josh Gerstein.

I. Diabolically-Inspired and Soros-Funded “Protests” Aplenty to Protect Baby-Killing

Protests are being held in front of homes of Justice Alito, who moved his family to an undisclosed location to protect them from the pro-death mobs that might be acting in concert with President in Name Only Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s, White House handlers (the very same people who coordinated with the National School Board Association, and the other four justices (Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Michael Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) who have signed Alito’s draft opinion. These protests, which actually violate a federal law that are replete with horrible chants and the banging of drums that many of us heard constantly when engaged in pro-life marches. The noise made by pro-aborts when they seek to invade Catholic churches that are held by counterfeit church of conciliarism, of course, something that the pro-death crowd neither cares about nor desires to understand, is cacophonous, disharmonious, shrill. In other words, the noise made pro-aborts when they protest is an echo of hell itself.

A group of people calling themselves dressed in diabolical costumes inspired from something called “The Handmaid’s Tale” invaded the abominable Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, sometimes referred to as the Taj Mahony on the Hollywood Freeway, during the staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty on Sunday, May 8, 2022, and engaged in open confrontations with parishioners inside the auditorium-style “worship space” whose sanctuary, if it can be called that, is located at the base of the seating bowl. The answer given by one poor Catholic who was catechized by the perverse gospel according to Roger Mahony is very telling, which is why the incident is being related at the beginning of this commentary:

Protesters dressed in the red garb of Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" disrupted a Catholic Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday amid calls from abortion groups to protest at Catholic churches.

Yannina Diaz, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, confirmed that the group entered the cathedral during the 10 a.m. Mass, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"Demonstrations had been anticipated across the country," Diaz said. "The incident was handled accordingly by cathedral security ensuring limited disruption of Mass. We continue to join our prayers as an Archdiocese in solidarity with the US Catholic Bishops to pray for change in our laws to help all women in need in our communities."

According to video of the incident that circulated widely on social media, parishioners and security rush to intercept the red-clad protesters as they make their way through the full sanctuary yelling during the service.

"You are not attacking anybody," a man says in one video. "You’re attacking me, right now," a woman says in response.

Another man tells the women to get out. "Respect us," one man says. "You guys want respect? We want respect, too."

"I understand," the man says. "We are with you but please, let us worship."

Security eventually moved the protesters toward the exit while some of them continued to scream.

The incident came as pro-choice group Ruth Sent Us, a reference to late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, threatened to burn the Eucharist last weekend in response to a Twitter user who offered to pray for them after they called for protests at Catholic churches and justices' homes.

"Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries," tweeted the organization, which has called on abortion supporters to protest at Catholic churches across the country over the Mother's Day weekend. ('Handmaid's Tale' protesters barge into Los Angeles cathedral during Mass.)

“We are with you but please, let us worship.”

The fact that any Catholic can tell a group of diabolically inspired, if not diabolically possessed, people who believe in lust without consequences and murder upon demand that “we are with you” and then proceed to “worship” with a good conscience is yet another proof of the wreckage wrought by the ever-so-tolerant Roger Mahony, who, along with his team feminized and homosexualized clergy, destroyed the sensus Catholicus within the City of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels. “We are with you but please, let us worship.”

Also worthy of note in the report cited just above is the mealy-mouthed, weasel-tongued statement issued by the conciliar authorities within the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that mentioned not one word about stopping the killing of unborn children by chemical and surgical means and not one word about the humanity of children inside what should be the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs. The archdiocesan weasel worded statement would make it appear that “more” needs to be done to help “women in need” even though it has been, by and large, the work of lay Catholics from one coast to the other and from border to border to crisis pregnancy centers and homes for unwed mothers.

Then again, the conciliar Vatican’s Secretariat of State could not find the words to condemn nor express outrage over the arrest and detention of Joseph “Cardinal” Zen by Communist authorities. The only things that the conciliar authorities seem to have the “backbone” to denounce are traditional Catholics, efforts to limit illegal immigration, supposed “threats to the environment, and those who are exposing the fraud that is the coronavirus scam and revealing the true statistics about those who continue to be killed by the gene therapy jabs (“vaccines”).

From the supposedly “sacred” in Los Angeles to the abjectly profane on the other side of the country, the current Mayor of the City of New York, Eric Adams, who goes to posh restaurants and parties while violent crime in his city skyrockets while repeated offenders are released hours after being arrested to thanks to the State of New York’s “bail reform” laws that serve as incentives for criminals to keep committing crimes, addressed a rally of the diabolically inspired and diabolically possessed souls about supporting the surgical execution of babies up to and including the day of birth, which is already practiced under cover of the civil law in Empire State:

New York City Mayor Eric Adams slammed the pro-life movement as "radical" on Saturday and pledged that he would "fight" to ensure there are "no" limitations on abortion.

"Abortion is health care. It’s that simple. And New York City won’t let a group of radical extremists take away health care or any human right without a fight," Adams tweeted Saturday using the hashtag "BansOffOurBodies."

Adams attended a pro-choice protest in New York City on Saturday and said that he doesn't believe there should be any limitations on abortion.

"No I do not," Adams said when asked at the "Bans Off Our Bodies" demonstration in New York City whether there should be any limitations on abortion.

"I think women should have the right to choose their bodies," Adams said when pressed again about abortions up until the day of birth. "Men should not have that right to choose how a woman should treat their body."

The comments from Adams come as pro-choice protesters are demonstrating across the country in response to a leaked Supreme Court opinion suggesting that Roe v. Wade is on the verge of being struck down. 

Recent Fox News polling shows that over half of Americans believe that abortion should be prohibited after 15 weeks of pregnancy. (Eric Adams blasts pro-life 'radical extremists,' says women have 'right' to abortions up until day of birth.)

What a demagogic moron, an intellectual cipher, a moral ignoramus.

An innocent baby is his own person. He belongs in his mother’s womb according to the nature of things.

No human being has the “right” to kill another human being.

It is not a crime for a child to be conceived as a natural consequence of the use of the gift God has given men to continue the species and to populate Heaven with saints who have glorified Him through His Catholic Church here on earth and have persevered until the point of their dying breaths in a state of Sanctifying Grace.

It is a crime before God to directly intend to kill an innocent being, and it is an wicked, wicked endeavor to glorify fornication, adultery, sodomy, and every other perverse vice imaginable as human “rights” when they are the means to personal damnation and social destruction.

Listen up, Eric Adams, to the words of Saint Jude Thaddeus, which condemn your idiotic support for offenses against God that have dehumanized all human beings and made them ready victims for the sort of crimes being committed with ready abandon and to the indifference of County of New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg:

[1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. [2] Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled. [3] Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. [4] For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [5] I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.

[11] Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. [12] These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, [13] Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. [14] Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, [15] To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God. 

[16] These are murmurers, full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain' s sake. [17] But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, [18] Who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. [19] These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. [20] But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 

[21] Keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. [22] And some indeed reprove, being judged:[23] But others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal. [24] Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,[25] To the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen. (Jude 1-25.)

Yes, there is quite a contrast between Saint Jude and loudmouth ignoramuses such as Eric Adams and the equally ignorant servants of hell who protested in Washington, District of Columbia, on Saturday, May 14, 2022:

Thousands of pro-choice activists from different corners in America descended on Washington, D.C., on Saturday for the "Bans Off Our Bodies" event organized by a coalition of groups including Planned Parenthood and the Women's March.

Welcoming activists to the nation's capital, Rachel Carmona, executive director for the Women's March, warned this will be a "summer of rage" as she spoke at the event held on the National Mall.

"We will be ungovernable until this government starts working for us, ungovernable," Carmona said, leading those in attendance into an "ungovernable" chant. "That's why we are taking to the streets today in cities all across the country. It's why today isn't just one day of action. It is simply day one of an invigorated movement aligned behind one simple demand, and you all heard it, keep your bans off our bodies!"

"Today is day one of an uprising to protect abortion rights," Carmona said. "It is day one of our feminist future and it is day one of a summer of rage where we will be ungovernable, ungovernable. And we will not stop until the politicians on our side start acting like they're on our side."

Carmona said she and other activists will fight "until justice protects us from attacks on our bodies" and "until everyone who wants an abortion has the right to get one." She also vowed to see other activists in the "streets this summer continuing to fight."

Janeese Lewis George, a member of the Council of the District of Columbia, also attended the event, calling for free abortion procedures and told the crowd that if Roe v. Wade is overturned "working class people and families will die."

"Overturning Roe will hurt black, brown, indigenous communities," George said. "Abortion costs money and is unaffordable for so many who cannot travel hundreds or thousands of miles away for abortion care." (Pro-death activists descend on DC, vow to be 'ungovernable' as they protest draft Supreme Court opinion.)

This heated rhetoric is premised upon the belief that it is impossible for human beings to be chaste and it ignores the fact that the stability of black families was systematically attacked by Margaret Sanger and her Hitlerian allies in order to eliminate as many blacks as possible and to make blacks a new caste of slaves who are reliant upon the civil state for their every need, something that was designed to empower Sanger’s political allies and the career civil servants who worked to administer programs designed to replace the family as the basic building block of society.

“We will be ungovernable.”

Consider what Pope Leo XIII wrote in his first encyclical letter, Quod Apostolicis Muneris, December 28, 1878, as his words about socialism in general apply to the thus whose gods are their lusts and whose glory is in spreading rebellion against the laws of God Himself:

. But the boldness of these bad men, which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit. For you know, venerable brethren, that that most deadly war which from the sixteenth century down has been waged by innovators against the Catholic faith, and which has grown in intensity up to today, had for its object to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the supernatural order, that thus the way might be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone. This kind of error, which falsely usurps to itself the name of reason, as it lures and whets the natural appetite that is in man of excelling, and gives loose rein to unlawful desires of every kind, has easily penetrated not only the minds of a great multitude of men but to a wide extent civil society, also. Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the Iyceums and gymnasia — in a word, from every public institution. In fine, the rewards and punishments of a future and eternal life having been handed over to oblivion, the ardent desire of happiness has been limited to the bounds of the present. Such doctrines as these having been scattered far and wide, so great a license of thought and action having sprung up on all sides, it is no matter for surprise that men of the lowest class, weary of their wretched home or workshop, are eager to attack the homes and fortunes of the rich; it is no matter for surprise that already there exists no sense of security either in public or private life, and that the human race should have advanced to the very verge of final dissolution. (Pope Leo XIII, Quod Apostolicis Muneris, December 28, 1878.)

The wretched creatures who promise to be “ungovernable” socially have first refused to be governed by Christ the King and His true Church, thus, far from being “free,” have yoked them to devil, who will torture them for all eternity for being so stupid as to succumb to his empty works and pomps.

II. Disregarding Human Norms is Easy Once Men Reject the Law of God

In an age when crowds of young barbarians can riot at will in places such as Chicago, Illinois, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and when violent crime is out of control in one American city after another as George Soros’s bought-and-paid-for “woke” district attorneys indemnify violent criminals and sometimes even invent charges against political opponents and when mobs can mobilize with the help of “community organizers” in a matter of minutes to loot whenever word of a shooting involving a police officer and a black suspect occurs, it is unsurprising that a law clerk of frothing at the mouth pro-abort associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America can leak the text of another justice’s draft opinion and, truth be told, that he probably did so with at least the implicit consent of Justice Sotomayor herself. Why should a woman who cares nothing for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and who does not fear the just judgment of Christ the King upon her immoral soul at the moment of her Particular Judgment have any regard for her Court’s veil of secrecy concerning its deliberations? Alas, this is what happens when men live in contempt or ignorance of the Sovereignty of Christ the King over every aspect of their own lives and thus of the lives of their nations.

That Sotomayor did give at least her implicit approval to the leak is given greater weight by the fact that swamp creature named John Glover Roberts, Jr., the Chief Justice of the United States of America, has yet to announce any results of his supposed investigation into the leak nor taken any action against the leaker. One secular commentator put the matter as follows:

Over the weekend, Jed Babbin was exactly correct in his characterization of the leak, quite possibly by a Sonia Sotomayor law clerk named Amit Jain if the speculation is correct, of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case which would reset our jurisprudence back to something more manageable than the dog’s breakfast of activism and black-robe politics we’ve been mired in for half a century:

The leak of the Supreme Court’s February draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was a political act that proved, redundantly, how thoroughly politics has invaded the court. Equally important is the fact that the leak was a crime that should be prosecuted under federal law.

Central to that drama is that Dobbs would reverse Roe v. Wade if Justice Sam Alito’s draft opinion (which says, correctly, that Roe was “egregiously wrong”) remains the majority opinion of the court. Roe, which created the hitherto unknown constitutional “right” to abortion, is of existential importance to the Democrats. Without abortion “rights” and the claim that Republicans are racists, the Dems have no claim to anyone’s vote.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement in which he said the leak was “appalling,” adding that the draft opinion didn’t represent the final or even current opinion of the court. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas later said that the high court wouldn’t be bullied. It remains to be seen if the court is immune to the bullying and direct threats from the liberals.

As Babbin notes, the leak of that draft majority opinion in the Dobbs case is a crime and it needs to be prosecuted.

But as of now, there is no particular indication that’s going to happen.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts could have, should have, called in the FBI to investigate the leak. He didn’t. Instead, it’s the Marshal of the Supreme Court. Maybe they’ll do the job.

But it’s been more than a week. How hard is it to find out who leaked that opinion to Politico? Assumedly, the leak was made via email. It’s hard to believe a long document like that was printed out and handed over to be scanned. So scour everybody who works at the Court and had access to the opinion, starting with their work email and then private email, then seize their devices.

The federal government can find out who leaked the opinion. It shouldn’t take a day to get this done. How many potential suspects are there? Three or four dozen, tops? That we don’t know by now and no charges have been brought tells you it isn’t a high-priority investigation.

And meanwhile, a group of Democrat fascists calling itself Ruth Sent Us, a bizarre name given that its namesake, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was pretty critical of Roe v. Wade as terrible law even if she was pro-abortion, are now disseminating the home addresses of Supreme Court justices for the express purposes of breaking federal law.

Because it’s illegal to harass judges at their homes to try to intimidate them or otherwise change their judicial opinions.

Everybody at Ruth Sent Us, in a country with a Justice Department which wasn’t completely compromised and corrupted, would have been hauled into jail and subjected to the precise treatment the January 6 protesters have enjoyed.

The January 6 protesters were there to demonstrate against what they saw as a corrupt presidential election — and oh, by the way, Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie 2,000 Mules makes an awfully good case that they were right. What are the Ruth Sent Us goons who have chased at least one justice out of his home — Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion, and his family have been moved to a secure location thanks to death threats from the mostly peaceful firebombers and others in the streets — demonstrating against?

Not a corrupt decision. A decision they don’t like. One which was leaked, illegally.

Babbin notes that it’s illegal because it contributes to the current harassment of the justices, and it’s also illegal because it amounts to the conversion of Supreme Court property.

If Amit Jain or whoever is guilty of that leak got paid to leak Alito’s opinion, now there’s a RICO case involving Politico or whoever might have been involved.

But of course, there will never be a prosecution over that. Just like the Ruth Sent Us animals will never face charges. It would be an upset, to be sure, if whoever firebombed a pro-life organization’s headquarters in Wisconsin and then left a cute “if abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either” spray-painted message on the wall was ever made to face the music.

Given all this, here’s a question I asked in my own entry over the weekend here at The American Spectator: why on earth has John Roberts not made the Dobbs decision final?

You can’t count on the federal government to do its job and punish the people turning Supreme Court jurisprudence into a violent three-ring circus. At this point, you can’t even count on the pro-abortion crazies not to kill one of the conservative justices — because the way they see it, rubbing out one of them would take the Dobbs majority from five to four, amounting to a strategic coup which the rest of us wouldn’t think wise but they do. Especially given the rewards the Left reaped from the George Floyd riots.

Because they aren’t going to peel off Alito or Clarence Thomas, or for that matter, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, or Amy Coney Barrett, from that majority through intimidation.

The only responsible thing to do if you’re John Roberts in the current circumstances is to flip the pressure valve and publish the Dobbs decision.

Once that’s done, there is no further direct motivation for the kind of insanity we’re seeing. Generalized political violence and riots, sure — that motivation is that it’s an election year and rioting worked in 2020, after all.

But even the dumbest people on the Left know that looting and burning again this year is a dicey political gamble.

That decision needs to be published. Now. That Roberts hasn’t made it happen, more than a week after the leak, is just plain irresponsible. I don’t care if the dissents haven’t been written — it’s the side of the dissenters causing this urgency. Especially if it turns out to be Sotomayor’s clerk who leaked this thing.

And if it continues, and something awful happens, it’ll be cause for Roberts’ impeachment. It’s just that simple.  (What’s Roberts Waiting On?)

John Glover Roberts, Jr., is a limousine judge who desires the approval of the editorial board of The Washington Post and the “influential” columnists and opinion-makers within the swamp upon which the City of Washington, District of Columbia, was built during the 1790s. He has not moved on the alleged leaker, Amit Jain, because to do so would anger Sonia Sotomayor and possibly expose her own role in the leak. Roberts would want no part of embarrassing a mainslime media favorite. Nothing will ever happen to Amit Jain if he turns out to be the leaker, and nothing will happen to his boss, Sonia Sotomayor.

III. Swamp Creature John Glover Roberts, Jr.: Judicial Engineer and Political Opportunist

At this point, however, John Glover Roberts, Jr., has lost whatever credibility he had remaining after the way he switched sides in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al. and, in essence, rewrote ObamaDeathCare to declare its mandate to purchase health insurance as part of the “taxing power” of Congress even though the law itself referred to a penalty, not a tax. Roberts judicially legislated the rewriting of the so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and even tried to get Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy to come along with him. At the time, however, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Kennedy dissent as follows:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretationas judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

The Constitution, though it dates from the founding oft he Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court tote a ch otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent. (Minority Opinion, at pages 64-65 of opinion, page 190-191 of the full .pdf.)

Even though the  dissenting justices in the first ObamaDeathCare case "got it right" insofar as constitutional interpretation is concerned, they do not realize that a written document that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words, which are as easily susceptible to deconstructionism (that is, being emptied of their true meaning and filled with false meanings to suit various perceived “utilitarian" needs)  in the hands of judicial positivists (those who believe the law is what they say it is regardless of moral truth and/or the plain meaning of words) as Sacred Scripture is in the hands of Protestants of any variety and of Modernist Catholics, many of whom, such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, make advertence to philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned propositions claiming that dogmatic pronouncements are conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. Nothing based upon these slender threads can hold up over the weight of time. Fabric sewn together with slender threads must come apart and disintegrate into bits of useless rags. (Anthony Kennedy, though, did switch sides three years later in the case of King v. Burwell, June 24, 2015, the Feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist (see Arguing Who Decides That Which is Beyond Humans To Decide, par four).

Emboldened by his past success with the now retired Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy in the case of King v. Burwell, swamp creature Roberts is still trying to convince one of the four justices who have signed Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion to take a more “incremental” approach to placing “limits’ on the surgical execution of the innocent preborn:

As if his faulty jurisprudence on the issue wasn’t bad enough, Roberts is also reportedly attempting to prevent the court from overturning Roe, with reports alleging that the chief justice is actively trying “to persuade Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh to take a more incremental approach to allowing abortion restrictions.”

Such actions are not unheard of for Roberts, who in 2012 attempted to convince Justice Anthony Kennedy to switch his position on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare to obtain the leftist corporate media’s approval of Supreme Court jurisprudence. After initially siding with his fellow Republican-appointed justices, Roberts cut a last-minute deal with the leftist justices to preserve the Affordable Care Act by falsely deeming the law’s individual mandate as a part of Congress’s taxing power.\

“Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public,” reported CBS News’ Jan Crawford in 2012. “There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the court were to strike down the mandate … It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, ‘wobbly.'”

Whether it’s the Obamacare decision or Dobbs, Roberts’ overtly political actions aren’t preserving the image of the court in the eyes of the American people; they’re destroying it. The primary responsibility of a judge is not to center judicial decisions on either the prejudices of the leftist press or the whims of the American public, whose opinions fluctuate on a regular basis, but to ignore such political noise and interpret the Constitution as written. Anything short of this is merely political gamesmanship.

Roberts’ bid to play politician is not only professionally grotesque, but it’s no different than what past justices have done in some of the most highly contentious SCOTUS cases in U.S. history. Just as the justices ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sanford allowed their personal views to obstruct proper jurisprudence and adherence to the Constitution, Roberts’ prioritization of his public image over his role as a judge is no different. (John Roberts Should Follow The Constitution In Dobbs Decision.)

John Glover Roberts, Jr., has made it more than abundantly clear that he will never vote overturn Roe v. Wade. Consider what he wrote just five months ago in Whole Women’s Health v. Austin Reeves Jackson, which concerned Texas S.B. 8:

Texas has passed a law banning abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. See S. B. 8, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2021). That law is contrary to this Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). It has had the effect of denying the exercise of what we have held is a right protected under the Federal Constitution.

Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review. To cite just a few, the law authorizes “[a]ny person,” other than a government official, to bring a lawsuit against anyone who “aids or abets,” or intends to aid or abet, an abortion performed after roughly six weeks; has special preclusion rules that allow multiple lawsuits concerning a single abortion; and contains broad venue provisions that allow lawsuits to be brought in any of Texas’s 254 far flung counties, no matter where the abortion took place. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§171.208(a), (e)(5), 171.210 (West Cum. Supp. 2021). The law then provides for minimum liability of $10,000 plus costs and fees, while barring defendants from recovering their own costs and fees if they prevail. §§171.208(b), (i). It also purports to impose backward-looking liability should this Court’s precedents or an injunction preventing enforcement of the law be overturned. §§171.208(e)(2), (3). And it forbids many state officers from directly enforcing it. §171.207.

These provisions, among others, effectively chill the provision of abortions in Texas. Texas says that the law also blocks any pre-enforcement judicial review in federal court. On that latter contention, Texas is wrong. As eight Members of the Court agree, see ante, at 11, petitioners may bring a pre-enforcement suit challenging the Texas law in federal court under Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), because there exist state executive officials who retain authority to enforce it. See, e.g., Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §164.055(a) (West 2021). Given the ongoing chilling effect of the state law, the District Court should resolve this litigation and enter appropriate relief without delay. . . .

The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake. (21-463 Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (12/10/2021).)

What a shame.

Texas SB 8 might “chill” the execution of innocent babies here in Texas. John Glover Roberts, Jr., will never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, not, as noted just above, its imminent overturning will “settle” anything, of course, as babies will still continue to be killed surgically in every state, either because of state “trigger” laws permitting baby-killing upon demand without restrictions or the sort of “robust” exceptions of which Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart boasted on December 1, 2021. Moreover, innocent babies will still be killed chemically not only so-called “abortion pills” (human pesticides) but also by contraceptive pills and devices.

Moreover, for all of John Glover Roberts’ “respect” for precedent, various decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America have been overturned.

For example, the Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, March 6, 1857, which held that even free blacks were not persons protected by the Constitution and that a slave who moved to a free state was still the “property” of his “owner,” was overturned by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, May 18, 1896, which held that the states had the right to enact segregation of the races statutes as long as the facilities for each race were “separate but equal,” was eclipsed, if not necessarily explicitly overturned by the Court in the decision of Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, May 17, 1954, and a series of subsequent decisions by the “Warren Court in the 1950s and early 1960s, although the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation once and for all.

Among the many other Court cases that were decided one way before being reversed by the Court, by Constitutional amendment (the Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-fifth Amendments each overturned all or part of various Court decisions) or Congressional legislation, there have been times, especially under the tutelage of Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969) when the Court reversed itself in cases in which its original holding was correct.

Among these cases, the case of Baker v. Carr, which got the Federal court system into business of legislative districting, was a dramatic departure from the wisdom of Colegrove v. Green in which the Court had declared that legislative districting was a non-justiciable question because it would involve the courts in the “political thicket.” Under the Warren Court, sound precedents were overturned regularly while its justices busied themselves with establishing novel “precedents” such as the one in Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that led directly to Roe v. Wade.

So much for the sacrosanct nature of “precedent,” Chief Justice Roberts.

Insofar as the “paramount law” of the United States of America is concerned, a civil constitution that takes no account of Christ the King and His true Church becomes an instrument to enshrine evil as it is has been the longstanding goal of the adversary to dethrone Christ the King and to enshrine himself as the leader of men and of their nations, and he does not care whether he gets any kind of “credit” from men as the only thing he wants is pull their souls and bodies down into hell with him to be tortured for all eternity.

IV. The Alito Draft Opinion

For all the “community organizing” that has gone into the protest in front of the homes of Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett and into all the commentary that has been written in the past nearly two weeks since the draft of Alito’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was published by Politico, there has been almost no focus on the fact that the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey will NOT end the surgical killing of the innocent preborn as even those states which “trigger laws” in place to outlaw the surgical killing of innocent children in most cases have those “robust exceptions” to permit such killing in one or more of the “hard cases.”

First, as explained above, no institution of human governance has any authority with God to “decide” anything about the chemical or surgical execution of the innocent preborn other than to determine what penalties to imposed upon those who procure, preform, assist and/or abet such executions.

What the Alito draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization accomplishes is to more or less enshrine the intention of the 1983 Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which failed of passage in the United States Senate by a vote of fifty against and forty-nine four on June 28, 1983, that would have established the surgical killing of innocent unborn children as a matter of “popular sovereignty” to be “determined” by the “people.” Many of us opposed the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment at the time because of its concession that the “people” have any kind of “right” to “decide” to regulate, restrict, permit, or prohibit the slicing and dicing of innocent babies, but the Alito draft opinion is, in essence, a judicial codification of the amendment’s text and intentions.

[By way, there has been much disinformation about Vile Reprobate Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.’s, having voted for Hatch-Eagleton Amendment. He did not do so. He voted against it. Here is the roll call vote, noting that I have highlighted Catholic senators in bold:

[Following is the roll-call vote by which the Senate today rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed Congress and the states to ban or restrict abortions. Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, an abortion foe, voted ''present.''

Passage would have required approval by a two-thirds majority, or 67 senators, since all 100 voted. FOR AMENDMENT - 49 Democrats - 15 Chiles, Fla.; DeConcini, Ariz. Eagleton, Mo. Exon, Neb. Ford, Ky. Heflin, Ala. Huddleston, Ky. Johnston, La. Long, La. Melcher, Mont. Nunn, Ga. Proxmire, Wis. Randolph, W.Va. Stennis, Miss. Zorinsky, Neb. Republicans - 34 Abdnor, S.D. Andrews, N.D. Armstrong, Colo. Baker, Tenn. Boschwitz, Minn. Cochran, Miss. D'Amato, N.Y. Danforth, Mo. Denton, Ala. Dole, Kan. Domenici, N.M. Durenberger, Minn. East, N.C. Garn, Utah Grassley, Iowa Hatch, Utah Hatfield, Ore. Hawkins, Fla. Hecht, Nev. Humphrey, N.H. Jepsen, Iowa Kasten, Wis. Laxalt, Nev. Lugar, Ind. Mattingly, Ga. McClure, Idaho Murkowski, Alaska Nickles, Okla. Pressler, S.D. Quayle, Ind. Symms, Idaho Thurmond, S.C. Trible, Va. Warner, Va. AGAINST AMENDMENT - 50 Democrats - 31 Baucus, Mont. Bentsen, Tex. Biden, Del. Bingaman, N.M. Boren, Okla. Bradley, N.J. Bumpers, Ark. Burdick, N.D. R. Byrd, W.Va. Cranston, Calif. Dixon, Ill. Dodd, Conn. Glenn, Ohio Hart, Colo. Hollings, S.C. Inouye, Hawaii Jackson, Wash. Kennedy, Mass. Lautenberg, N.J. Leahy, Vt. Levin, Mich. Matsunaga, Hawaii Metzenbaum, Ohio Mitchell, Me. Moynihan, N.Y. Pell, R.I. Pryor, Ark. Riegle, Mich. Sarbanes, Md. Sasser, Tenn. Tsongas, Mass. Republicans - 19 Chafee, R.I. Cohen, Me. Goldwater, Ariz. Gorton, Wash. Heinz, Pa. Kassebaum, Kan. Mathias, Md. Packwood, Ore. Percy, Ill. Roth, Del. Rudman, N.H. Simpson, Wyo. Specter, Pa. Stafford, Vt. Stevens, Alaska Tower, Tex. Wallop, Wyo. Weicker, Conn. Wilson, Calif. SENATE'S ROLL-CALL ON ABORTION PLAN.]

Second, most of the state statutes in effect at the time that the Supreme Court of the United States of America announced its decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, contained one or more of the usual “hard case” exceptions that were used by baby-killing advocates in the 1960s as the emotional bludgeon of “fairness” and “equal access to ‘health care’” by noting that, in the practical order of things, the wealthy and the famous could always arrange to have their physicians claim that they had one or more conditions that met the states’ broadly defined rules for “exceptions” (violent bodily assault upon a woman’s purity, incest, the “life of the mother”).

For example, no matter how rare pregnancy is in  circumstances of violent assault—and it is fairly rare (see Dr. John Wlkie's defense of Akin's statement about the rarity of pregnancy in cases of violent assault), a bodily assault upon a woman's purity is a crime before God and man, an assault that may scar a woman for the rest of her life, but a crime that must be paid by the assailant not by the child conceived as a result of his assault. One never punishes a child for the crime of his father.

Indeed, even the late Associate Justice Harry Blackmun's footnoted comments, at footnote 54, in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Roe v. Wade. Blackman said that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of life, liberty and property could not be used by the State of Texas to proclaim the inviolability of the life of the preborn as the statute under challenge in Roe v. Wade admitted of an exception to that inviolability. How can a human life be inviolable in some instances but not in all?

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? (Text of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973.)

It is pretty bad when Harry Blackmun, who turned the Supreme Court of the United States of America into his own "temple of doom," if you will, noticed the inconsistency of opposing the surgical killing of preborn babies while "permitting" such killing in supposed "hard" cases while supposedly "pro-life" public officials, including the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the aforementioned Paul Davis Ryan, a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry, boast of making such "exceptions" as matter of principle, not one of legislative expediency. No thought is ever given to excluding all surgical killings of the innocent preborn as mot so-called "pro-life" public officials are actually only less pro-abortion than those who want to kill babies on an unrestricted basis under the cover of the civil law.

Furthermore, the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a pioneering champion of baby-killing who presided over 70,000 abortions between 1970 and 1974 before quitting for purely scientific reasons once the ulatrasound proved to him the humanity of the preborn baby (he converted to the conciliar structures in 1996), explained on many occasions that medical technology had advanced to such a degree that there is almost never a circumstance in which it is considered to be "medically necessary" to kill a preborn baby to "save" the life of his mother:

The situation where the mother's life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality.

Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: the birth of a healthy child. [Written statement to the Idaho House of Representatives' State Affairs Committee, February 16, 1990.] (As found in a very good study written in 1994 by Mrs. Judie Brown, the founder and president of the American Life League and Brian Young: Exceptions: Abandoning "The Least of My Brethren," as found at Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These Thy Brethren.)

Third, as the Mississippi statute at issue in Dobbs contains what Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart called a “robust” “life of the mother exception” (but not those for violent assault upon a woman’s purity or incest) that is mentioned at the beginning of its text, it is important to explain what was noted earlier in this commentary: namely, that it is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being under any circumstances.

No mother has any "choice" to be made between her own life and that of her preborn child. Although the improvements in medical technology have made it possible for expectant mothers with serious maladies to be treated in a manner that will permit a baby to be delivered at the point of viability, whereupon more aggressive treatment of a mother's condition can be undertaken, if possible and advised, it is still nevertheless the case that in those rare circumstances, which certainly do occur now and again, where a mother is faced with the possibility of sacrificing her own life so that her preborn baby can be born. A mother formed in the truths of the Catholic Faith knows that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ meant it when He said the following:

[12] This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. [13] Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15: 12)

A mother who knows the Catholic Faith understands that, as difficult as it can be to those steeped in emotionalism and sentimentality, she can, if she dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace, do more for her child from eternity than she ever could here on the face of this earth. Moreover, those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace are more perfectly united to us than they ever were on the face of this earth.

We must think supernaturally at all times. We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings. We would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. We must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.

God's law is not a matter of feeling, something that Pope Pius XII pointed out in his November 26, 1951, Address to the Association of Large Families.

Consider these very telling words from the early part of this address, begging your pardon that they are from a Google translation of the original text, which is in the Italian language:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for the “life of the mother” exception in pre-Roe statutes, and so much for it in Texas S.B.8. and in Mississippi H.R. 1510. So much for Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in the case of Thomas Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Commissioner v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

No exceptions to the inviolability of innocent human life.

Not one.

Not ever.

Not under any circumstances.

Yet it is that many in the so-called “mainstream” pro-life movement continue to make one or more “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and one, the Susan B. Anthony Foundation, is going so far as to advertise on behalf of opposing the surgical killing of babies after the fifteenth week of their development within the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs, which a new video of the foundation calls “extreme,” and endorsed the draft Alito opinion’s judgment that the “people” have the “right” to have a “voice” about abortion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case is premised on the erroneous view that the Constitution is “silent” on abortion, thus making its “regulation” a matter for the people to “decide,” whether by means of electoral plebiscites or by legislation passed by their state legislatures. However, the “people,” whether acting individually or collectively through the instruments of human governing bodies, have no authority from God to do anything about the chemical and/or surgical killing of unborn babies other than to determine the penalties to imposed upon those who seek to kill their babies or assist, perform, or solicit on behalf of such killing.

As noted in part one of this two-part commentary, trying to oppose moral evils on purely secular, naturalistic terms only advances the adversary’s relentless efforts to preclude any mention of supernatural truths as the foundation of the just social order and hence of all legitimate jurisprudence on inarguable matters that appertain to the moral order and are thus beyond the ability of mere humans to dismiss, ignore, or to disobey at will. The moral order is no more “imposed” upon anyone than is the law of gravity. One can defy either and suffer the deleterious consequences or one can respect their existence and realize the benefits from doing so. Men must be plunged in the outer darkness of madness and rage when the immutable laws given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and then entrusted His Divine Son’s Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication are broken with impunity, no less protected under the cover of the civil law and celebrated in every nook and cranny of what passes for “popular culture.”

Moreover, the surgical killing of the innocent preborn will continue unabated in those states whose legislatures have acted to “protect” the judicially manufactured “right” to kill babies in the event of Roe v. Wade’s reversal, and the chemical poisoning of the unborn children by means of contraceptives, most of which abort and abort most of the time, to call to mind the words of the late Father Paul Marx, O,S.B., the founder of Human Life International, and abortifacients specifically developed to be abortifacients and explicitly marketed as such will continue without cease in every state.

Mrs. Randy Engel, who founded the United States Coalition for Life and remains its president, offered the following comments upon the release of the video produced by the Susan B. Anthony Foundation:

Prolife group dismisses “extreme” abortion – Hails 15 week limit – Isn’t every time a mother kills her child “extreme” Most all surgical [and chemical] abortion kill before 15 weeks. 

Who would give a bloody cent to this group ever again? 

Mrs. Engel is indeed correct, of course. The killing of any preborn child, whether by chemical or surgical means, is “extreme” no matter when in his development he is killed. It is a violation of the Fifth Commandment’s prohibitions against the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life, a denial of the humanity of the unborn child, and an invitation to dehumanize whoever else one deems, rightly or wrongly, to be “responsible” for their problems and/or for this or that injustice, whether real or imagined, that has agitated them to the point of taking innocent life into their own hands.

Every abortion, whether by chemical or surgical means, is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and God’s just vengeance is certainly being visited upon a world that is in a state of utter rebellion against Him and His Holy Commandments.

In truth, however, the hatred of the preborn child and the utilitarian view of all innocent life after birth, which has led to such the mendacity of contraception, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, “brain death”/vital organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged human beings, palliative care/hospice, and its accompanying “quality of life” mentality that has been insinuated into the very fabric of global healthcare is based on the hatred of God Himself. This anti-Theism originated with the adversary, who has sought to spread it throughout human history so that human beings will be at war with each other after first making war upon God by means of their sins.

V. Comrade Janet Yellen: A Sangerite of the Twenty-first Century

Utilitarianism, which judges things by their “usefulness” for the greatest number without regard for their inherent worth, has so infected the minds of “modern men” that many are viewing the imminent overturn of Roe v. Wade in purely utilitarian terms. One of those doing so is the current Secretary of United States Department of the Treasury, Janet Yellen:

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday said eliminating women’s access to abortion would have “very damaging effects” on the US economy, keeping some women from completing their educations and reducing their lifetime earnings potential and participation in the labor force.

Yellen’s comments at a Senate Banking Committee hearing came just over a week after the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion. The pending decision has raised fears that many more states would enact far-reaching abortion restrictions. 

The issue dominated a hearing about Treasury’s Financial Stability Oversight Council annual report.

Yellen, the first female Treasury secretary, said in response to a senator’s question that research has shown that Roe v. Wade had a favorable impact on the well-being of children and that denying women access to abortions increases their odds of living in poverty or on public assistance.

“I believe that eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” Yellen said.

Yellen’s comments drew a rebuke from Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who said her framing of the economic consequences of the abortion debate were “harsh” and inappropriate for such a painful social issue.

“I think people can disagree on the issue of being pro-life or pro abortion. But in the end, I think framing it in the context of labor force participation, it just feels callous to me,” said Scott, adding that he was raised by a Black single mother in poverty.

Yellen responded by saying that reproductive rights allow women to plan “fulfilling and satisfying” lives, which includes having the financial resources to raise a child.

“In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce,” Yellen said.

“So there is a spillover into labor force participation, but it means the children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves,” Yellen said. “This is not harsh. This is the truth,” she added.

Senator Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat and another member of the banking panel, told CNN that Yellen was expressing a fundamental truth about women’s autonomy.

“She was expressing what I believe almost every woman knows: If you don’t have control over your reproductive life, you don’t have control over any aspect of your life, including your economic opportunity,” Smith said. (Janet Yellen warns abortion ban would damage economy, women.)

Janet Yellen is an unapologetic utilitarian who views babies as the “unplanned byproducts” of the wanton misuse of that proper to the married state for the continuation of the species. Such “byproducts” are completely “disposable” as they are “impediments” to a women’s “autonomy” even though none of us is autonomous as we are utterly dependent upon God for the next breath that we take. Yellen wants women to be “liberated” from their femininity while believing the very gift that they have been given by God to bear children is a burden because she believes that is “impossible” for teenagers to be chaste. Her view of women in the workplace as a “liberation” from hearth and home is identical to that of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:

The success of a revolution," V.I. Lenin declared at the first all-Russian conference of working women in 1918, "depends on how much women take part in it."

And based on his writings, there was little doubt he believed this. Problem was, most Russian women weren't interested.

Unlike what was going on elsewhere in Europe, where the suffrage movement was under way and the Industrial Revolution had drawn many women into the workforce, industry in Russia was in its infancy and the female population was mostly rural and illiterate.

The focus was on family, not what Marxism could do for the working class. But unlike economic classes such as Kulaks or aristocrats who had fallen into his disfavor, women couldn't be liquidated. Their favored institutions could, however, and that's why Lenin specifically targeted marriage and family in his effort to build a "New Soviet Man."

Five elements stand out in how Lenin and his Bolsheviks used propaganda to get women to support his revolution.

• Equating marriage with slavery. Lenin and his feminist lieutenants, particularly Alexandra Kollontai, the first female commissar in the Soviet government, considered much of what the suffragettes were fighting for, including voting rights and equal protection under the law, "bourgeois convention."

What they had in mind was something far more radical: An all-out war on "old and outdated" institutions like marriage and family so dominance of the state could be achieved. Instead of marriage, there would be more disposable "unions of affection and comradeship."

The first salvo in the "liberation" of the family was easy divorce, established almost immediately by the Bolsheviks. Abortion on demand — until then illegal in every country in the world — came in 1920.

"The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation," Kollontai wrote that year. But capitalists, she said, "are well aware that the old type of family, where a woman is a slave and where the husband is responsible for the well-being of his wife and children, is the best weapon in the struggle to stifle the desire of the working class for freedom and to weaken the revolutionary spirit of the working man and working woman.

The Bolsheviks also allowed women to own land and vote. But these rights were rendered moot when the one-party state took over. The right to equal wages was also instituted, but largely ignored. And as women were ghettoized into state-chosen professions, their wages went down.

The idea behind breaking down the family was that women without husbands could be socialized more easily. In practical terms, this meant men were free to leave their wives and abandon their responsibilities, making women wards of the state.

During the Russian civil war, 90% of the female-dominated population of Petrograd (St. Petersburg), the capital of the Russian empire, was dependent on state handouts.

• Vive la sameness. Lenin's Bolsheviks saw men and women as equal, but not in terms of opportunity. Instead, the imagery in their propaganda made modern Soviet women look like men — with thick necks, brawny shoulders, burly arms and army boots that blurred the lines between the sexes. The less distinguishable men and women were, the easier to manipulate them.

• It takes a village. The Bolsheviks believed communism would eliminate the need for families. The country, after all, would become "one whole family." Hearth and home were viewed as potentially subversive.

Those who just wanted to look out for their own children were "selfish," Kollontai wrote. Women should see all children as their own with duties shared. This made it easier to force wives and mothers into factories and gave rise to day-care centers, communal meals, even community laundries and clothing repair centers.

The idea was to sever natural ties between mother and child so the state could forge a New Soviet Man.

• It takes a community organizer. Lenin dispatched Kollontai to set up the Zhenotdel, a community organizing group financed by the Communist Party for agitation and propaganda of the new model.

Zhenotdel representatives not only had their own publication, "Kommunistka," they also were tasked with going out into the rural villages to set up community centers and force women's political participation. They also agitated for divorce, abortion and all the other agenda items that Bolsheviks touted as "liberating."

As large numbers of women lost their families, particularly in the Muslim south where they were attacked and murdered for divorce, they rapidly became outcasts. Many ended up in brothels.

• When socialism fails, blame funding. The social wreckage resulting from these policies was so extensive, and left so many women impoverished and marginalized, that Josef Stalin reversed some "reforms" and disbanded the Zhenotdel in 1930, declaring women "free, equal and emancipated."

Kollontai and her allies knew better, but didn't blame the ideas. That went to the state for not distributing enough money for the day-care centers and soup kitchens.

Nevertheless, the effects of their propaganda testified to its effectiveness then, and its legacy of the social wreckage continues to this day. Russia still ranks No. 1 in the world in both divorces (54 per 100) and abortions (50 per 100 live births). (Bolsheviks Targeted Women and Children with Anti-Family Propaganda.)

This an excellent summary of Lenin’s hideous beliefs and diabolical practices against the family that have become the very belief system of people like Janet Yellen, who would be hard pressed to disagree with any of the comments made below even though they were made by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin himself:

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.

Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.

The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.

The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.

Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!

Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!

Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!

A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!

That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.

And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.

It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us.

It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world. (Soviet Power and the Status of Women)

Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.

It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.

Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.

Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.

But that is not enough.

It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.

We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.

By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.

Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.

Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!

The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women.

N. Lenin

February 21, 1920  To the Working Women

The French Revolution proclaimed the "liberation" of women from the "shackles" of the past. The Bolshevik Revolution did the same, helping to pave the way for the "Roaring Twenties" in the West as Talmudic sympathizers of the Bolshevik Revolution produced motion pictures and magazines designed to undermine modesty and introduce Bolshevik standards as the basis of undermining the role of men in society and to take women out of the home so that their children will be trained from infancy through young adulthood by the agents of all forms of naturalism (Judeo-Masonic and Bolshevik in particular). Contemporary feminism is but an outgrowth of the devil's efforts to replace Our Lady as the model of femininity with that of the "Eve" of modernity, fully liberated from "man" and from God Himself.

Pope Pius XI explained this in Divini Redemptoris, his encyclical letter on atheistic communism issued on March 19, 1937, two days after he issued his encyclical letter, Mit Brennender Sorge, condemning Nazi nationalism and racialism:

Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.) 

Forcing women out of the family and into the sweatshops and the factories was a goal of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but also of the Industrial Revolution of Calvinist capitalism. Wives and mothers whose husbands worked long hours in factories for substandard wages were forced in many instances to go to work themselves in order to supplement their husbands' meager incomes. This is what prompted Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI to insist that the man, the principal breadwinner of the family, to be paid a "living wage," that is, to be paid enough to support their families without forcing their wives to abandon the home and to enter unnecessarily into the work force. The living wage is not a flat sum of money. Indeed, Holy Mother Church teaches that a just employer will pay his employees a sum proportionate to the work that they do and proportionate to the number of children with which he has been blessed by God.

Pope Pius XI, reviewing and elaborating upon the principles outlined by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891, summarized Catholic teaching on this matter in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931:

The just amount of pay, however, must be calculated not on a single basis but on several, as Leo XIII already wisely declared in these words: "To establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account."

By this statement he plainly condemned the shallowness of those who think that this most difficult matter is easily solved by the application of a single rule or measure -- and one quite false.

For they are greatly in error who do not hesitate to spread the principle that labor is worth and must be paid as much as its products are worth, and that consequently the one who hires out his labor has the right to demand all that is produced through his labor. How far this is from the truth is evident from that We have already explained in treating of property and labor.

It is obvious that, as in the case of ownership, so in the case of work, especially work hired out to others, there is a social aspect also to be considered in addition to the personal or individual aspect. For man's productive effort cannot yield its fruits unless a truly social and organic body exists, unless a social and juridical order watches over the exercise of work, unless the various occupations, being interdependent, cooperate with and mutually complete one another, and, what is still more important, unless mind, material things, and work combine and form as it were a single whole. Therefore, where the social and individual nature of work is neglected, it will be impossible to evaluate work justly and pay it according to justice.

Conclusions of the greatest importance follow from this twofold character which nature has impressed on human work, and it is in accordance with these that wages ought to be regulated and established.

In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs.

In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers. If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of energy or lack of initiative or because of indifference to technical and economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the compensation of the workers. But if the business in question is not making enough money to pay the workers an equitable wage because it is being crushed by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price, those who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they deprive workers of their just wage and force them under the pinch of necessity to accept a wage less than fair.

Let, then, both workers and employers strive with united strength and counsel to overcome the difficulties and obstacles and let a wise provision on the part of public authority aid them in so salutary a work. If, however, matters come to an extreme crisis, it must be finally considered whether the business can continue or the workers are to be cared for in some other way. In such a situation, certainly most serious, a feeling of close relationship and a Christian concord of minds ought to prevail and function effectively among employers and workers.

Lastly, the amount of the pay must be adjusted to the public economic good. We have shown above how much it helps the common good for workers and other employees, by setting aside some part of their income which remains after necessary expenditures, to attain gradually to the possession of a moderate amount of wealth. But another point, scarcely less important, and especially vital in our times, must not be overlooked: namely, that the opportunity to work be provided to those who are able and willing to work. This opportunity depends largely on the wage and salary rate, which can help as long as it is kept within proper limits, but which on the other hand can be an obstacle if it exceeds these limits. For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment. This evil, indeed, especially as we see it prolonged and injuring so many during the years of Our Pontificate, has plunged workers into misery and temptations, ruined the prosperity of nations, and put in jeopardy the public order, peace, and tranquillity of the whole world. Hence it is contrary to social justice when, for the sake of personal gain and without regard for the common good, wages and salaries are excessively lowered or raised; and this same social justice demands that wages and salaries be so managed, through agreement of plans and wills, in so far as can be done, as to offer to the greatest possible number the opportunity of getting work and obtaining suitable means of livelihood. (Pope Pius XI, Quadregessimo Anno, May 15, 1931.) 

It is indeed a grave injustice to force wives and mothers into the work force when their place is in the home to help to train their children to be canonizable saints. The United States of America and the so-called civilized word are the poorer precisely because of contraception and abortion as the over sixty-three million children killed in their mothers’ wombs by surgical means and the close to one billion children killed off by chemical means were meant to enrich the world by their presence. It is precisely because these children’s lives were snuffed out in the womb that it is difficult for employers to find enough people to staff their businesses. Parents have denied themselves the warmth and company provided by children, and those innocent preborn children killed off for “eugenic” reasons have been denied the opportunity to serve as instruments of grace for parents and siblings to get out of themselves and to care for their disabled children or siblings by giving unto them the care and love that they would give to Christ the King in the very Flesh.

Feminism, therefore, is a rebellion against the Order of Nature (Creation) and goes beyond the Industrial Revolution's coercion of "market forces" to place wives and mothers into the work force as a result of substandard wages and/or part-time employment offered to husbands and fathers.

Feminism considers it a necessity for women to enter the work force so as to "fulfill" themselves and to compete with men (as they dress, act and speak like men) for jobs and promotions in the factory, in the corporate boardroom, in the courtroom, in hospitals, and in politics, among other places. This has made it more difficult for men to obtain and retain good paying positions, thereby forcing wives and mothers who want to stay at home into the work force.

Feminism has also convinced women that it is a "virtue" to postpone childbearing in order to fulfill their career desires and/or to place newborn children into daycare programs soon after birth so that they can return to the workplace and "fulfill" themselves while others care for their children. Feminism, which is exalted in almost every elementary and secondary school in the United States of America, including most, although not all, of the schools under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, brainwashes young girls from their tenderest years that they must have "careers" in the world.

Oh, if they "choose" to be wives and mother, that's all well and good. However, the "career" must come first in order for them to fulfill themselves (and/or have the "extra money" to buy loads and loads and loads of material things or to have "second" house" or a luxury boat or take exotic vacations) and to break the various "barriers" of the "glass ceiling."

Thus it is that men have begun in the past seventy years or so to treat their daughters as boys, dressing them as boys, expecting them to do engage in masculine activities in order to "prepare" them for that "real" world of which we hear so very much from those who are steeped in the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry even though they might consider themselves to be, of all people, "traditional" Catholics. It thus becomes very natural even for well-meaning women of the "conservative" bent of naturalism to believe that they are do everything that men do, including running for elected office when they have young children at home. Why give this even a "second" thought? Hasn't the world "changed" in the past four decades.

Well, the "world" may have changed. The truths of the Order of Creation (Nature) and the Order of Redemption (Grace) have not changed. Women are to dress as women at all times (exceptions such as those of Saint Joan of Arc having been noted earlier). Wives and mothers are supposed to stay at home with their children until they, the children, embark upon their own particular vocation, acknowledging full well the fact that there are women with young children who are forced to work because of their husbands' meager salaries or because they have been abandoned by their husbands or because of the death of their husbands. This is no diminution of women or a disparagement of their intellectual abilities. This is no "enslavement" of women to their husbands and their children. This is but a simple truth of the Order of Creation and the Order of Redemption that no one is free to ignore without peril to the right ordering of society itself.

Pope Pius XII issued a set of Papal Directives for Women of Today on September 11, 1947, in which he addressed this exact issue:

There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function -- the participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all.

Your own role is, in general, to work toward making woman always more conscious of her sacred rights, of her duties, and of her power to help mold public opinion, through her daily contacts, and to influence legislation and administration by the proper use of her prerogatives as citizen. Such is your common role. It does not mean that you are all to have political careers as members of public assemblies. Most of you must continue to give the greater part of your time and of your loving attention to the care of your homes and families. We must not forget that the making of a home in which all feel at ease and happy, and the bringing up of children are very special contributions to the common welfare. So we rejoice in the fact, which you yourselves rightly recorded, that among rural families, which are still such a large part of society, woman's work in the home still goes hand in hand with her contribution to the social and national economy.

Those among you who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, your delegated representatives. Give them your confidence, understand their difficulties, the hard work and sacrifices their devotion entails; give them your help and support. (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

Janet Yellen would believe that such beliefs are meant to “imprison” women and to deny them of their autonomy. However, Pope Pius XII was merely reiterating the basic precepts of the Order of Creation and the Order of Redemption concerning the roles befitting the dignity and true femininity of wives and mothers, which is why it is prudent to explain that Pope Pius XII preempted such a protest in the same set of directives quoted immediately above:

But under the pretense of saving the Church from the risk of being led astray in the "temporal" sphere, a slogan launched some ten years ago, continues to gain acceptance: return to the purely "spiritual." And by that is understood that the Church should confine her activities to a purely dogmatic teaching, to the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments, and that all incursion into, or even the right of examination in the domain of public life, all intervention in the civil or social order, should be denied her.! Such vivisection is nothing short of being anti-Catholic. (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

There is no separation of moral truth from the temporal realm. However, so many Catholics, starting with the vile reprobate named Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., do not understand nor accept this as being so.

Children are not objects to planned but gifts to be loved. The fact so many teens and young adults live as beasts who are incapable of even wanting to restrain their carnal lusts is because they have been taught by programs of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandment and by explicit images on television and in the motion pictures that such restraint is “unnatural” and that they should “enjoy” themselves while making sure that an “accident” does not occur.

While fallen men have always had difficulty maintaining chastity even with the supernatural helps available to them since Our Lord’s Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross, children are have their natural resistance to that which is age inappropriate in their toddler years by the media, so-called “music,” and those aforementioned “education” programs that have served as incentives to sin, which is why such programs were condemned and prohibited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:  

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

People such as Janet Yellen must blab secular cliches ad infinitum, ad nauseam without contradiction because the lords of conciliarism, so eager to curry favor with “liberated” women and to avoid condemning fornication, adultery, and sodomy without any degree of hesitation or qualification, have miseducated Catholics into believing that what Jorge Mario Bergoglio calls “below the belt issues” are the least of sins and, therefore, that it is “understandable” that people live in sin and base their lives around avoiding the conception and/or the rearing of children.

In this regard, therefore, itt must not be forgotten that the “Margaret Sanger” of breaking down the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex and Information Committee of the United States of America, worked very closely with the-then “Monsignor” James T. McHugh of the National Conference of Catholic “Bishops”/United States Catholic Conference to introduce, propagate and institutionalize “sex education” in conciliar schools (see Mrs. Randy McHugh's The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague). This has been done despite the explicit prohibition against such instruction found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri cited above and that was reaffirmed by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931:

I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"

Response: In the negative, and that the method must be persevere entirely as set forth up to the present entirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, associated with the wicked, and all occasions of sin.

By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 597-598.)

It does not get any plainer than that.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have miseducated several generations of young Catholics to place themselves openly in occasions of sin. This is a denial of the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

How do children learn to grow in purity so as to avoid the near occasions of sin and thus finding themselves in marriages of “necessity”?

By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength.

By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Too Catholic?

Too unrealistic?

Just take a look at the statement issued by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing. Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

Such is the logic of error that what is simple, “Thou shalt not kill,” is made “complicated” by fallen men who want to live as beasts and then wind up complaining that we are taking “rights” away from them that do not exist in the nature of things and that we are denying women are enslaved by the devil to lust “economic opportunities” when it is they who are denying themselves the very role as the most powerful natural forces on the face of this earth, motherhood, and to shape young souls in the pattern of the Holy Cross. Absent this understanding, however, and men will never realize that we are called to make sacrifices of ourselves on behalf of others to advance their temporal well-being but, far more importantly, their eternal salvation.

VI. Concluding Remarks

Although I have made an argument on purely constitutional grounds alone that preborn life is protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions that no one shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, meaning that the Constitution is not “neutral” about the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life, the fact remains that no human institution of civil governance has any authority to permit, whether entirely or on a “limited” basis, the surgical execution of the innocent preborn.

That is, neither the people nor their elected representatives have any authority to squat about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment other than determining what penalties should be applied to those who violate them. Period. End of discussion.

Governments founded on secular, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist principles perforce must degenerate over the course of time to the point where sentimentality, irrationality, emotionalism, and utter sophistry pass for legal argumentation and jurisprudential reasoning.

This is no way to establish a just social order, especially when one considers that millions of people alive today blaspheme the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if not outrightly mock Him, His Most Blessed Mother, and His Holy Catholic Church, she who is our mother (mater) and teacher (magistra).

Impurity, indecency and immodest abound in so-called “modern” “culture.” Sins that once were considered shameful (fornication, adultery) and/or shamefully perverse (sodomy and its related vices) are celebrated widely throughout the nooks and crannies of “popular culture” and have been enshrined in laws and judicial decisions that are considered to be beyond criticism lest one be tarred and feather with the stigma of being “hateful” and “intolerant.” Children are corrupted in their families by television and the obscene language of their parents, and they are further corrupted by the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that are nothing other than vulgar, profanity-laced enticements to sin, yes, even to the point of believing that one can change the gender that God has given him. This is all considered quite “normal” and “natural” when it is abnormal and unnatural, thus undermining the very fabric of social order as countless numbers of souls are deceived into living on the devil’s terms prior to being tortured by him and their demons eternally for having done so.

Innocent human beings are being attacked randomly on the streets of American cities, and many of the perpetrators are allowed to get out on bail immediately thereafter and some do not even get prosecuted by George Soros’s “woke” bought-and-paid for district attorneys in those cities, which are now havens of such lawlessness that I, for one, find it remarkable that even those who know better continue to want to live in such places.

Innocent human beings are being killed by means of “brain death” for the purposes of vital human organ vivisection and transplantation. They are being killed by means of starvation and dehydration, and they are being killed off in hospices under the aegis of “palliative” or “comfort care” by various custom-designed “cocktails” that kill human beings at a rate determined by the “team” of “professionals,” who are well-trained to use all manner of emotional manipulative to convince the unwilling to “let go” and to experience “death with dignity.”

None of this would change if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and physicians will continue to defy the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony by prescribing abortifacients that can be filled at CVS or Walgreen’s or Walmart or your neighborhood supermarket’s pharmacy.

While, of course, we do not remain inert in the face of the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means, we can never make compromises with truth of any kind, supernatural or natural. We must state the truth clearly, and then leave it to others to accept or reject it as we pray to Our Lady for their conversion and as we seek, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, to do penance for our own many sins of omission and commission that have played their own quite important role in worsening both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant here on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Christ the King alone is Sovereign, and the very law that innocent human life is inviolable is inscribed on the very flesh of our hearts by God, Who has engraved it on the stone tablets that he gave Moses atop Mount Sinai:

And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal.

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin. (Exodus 20: 6-20.)

Everything else other than basing human law upon God’s eternal laws is sophistry, and despite all the verbiage about “rationality” and “compelling state interest” in the arguments made by those seeking to find some way only to “restrict,” not eliminate, all surgical killing of babies, to say nothing of ending all chemical assassinations of children, no one is truly rational unless he considers the fact that God’s eternal laws are the only “compelling interest” one needs to consider when assuring the protection of all innocent human life from conception to death.

Fallen men will always sin and they will always make excuses to commit sin and to remain in states of sin.

Granted.

However, we can avoid sin by cooperating with the graces that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has won for us by shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Given the fact that so many people globally, including here in the United States of America, are in the abject grip of the enemy of man, the author of lies and the prince of darkness, and are thus perpetually prone to anger and rage as, without knowing it, are at war with God and with their own nature, which is made to know, love, and to serve God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church, it is very Providential that today, Monday, May 16, 2022, is the Semidouble Feast of Saint Ubaldus, Bishop of Gubbio, Italy, who had a particular charism of driving out the devil from the souls of those enslaved to him,

Here is Dom Prosper Gueranger’s hagiography of Saint Ubaldus:

In order to honor her Eternal High Priest, the Church presents to him this day the merits of a Pontiff who, after his mortal career, was admitted into a happy Immortality. Ubaldus, here on earth, was the image of our Lord Jesus Christ. Like his Divine Master, he received the holy Anointing of Priesthood; he was a Mediator between God and man; he was the Shepherd of a flock; and now, he is united with our Risen Jesus—the great Anointed, the Mediator, the Shepherd. In proof of his influence in heaven, our Ubaldus has had given to him a special power against the wicked Spirits, who lay snares for our perdition. It has frequently happened that the simple invocation of his name has sufficed to foil their machinations. It is with the view of encouraging the Faithful to have recourse to his protection that the Church has fixed this day as his feast. (Dom Prosper Gureanger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Ubaldus, May 16.)

Ubaldus was born at Gubbio in Umbria, of a noble family. He was, from childhood, formed, in the most admirable way, to piety and learning. When grown up, he was frequently urged to marry; but nothing could shake his resolution of leading a life of celibacy. On being ordained Priest, he divided his fortune between the poor and the Churches, and entered among the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Augustine. He established that Institute in his own country, and was for some time a most fervent observer of all its regulations. The fame of his virtue spread far and wide. Pope Honorius the Second compelled him to accept the charge of the Church of Gubbio; and, accordingly, he was consecrated Bishop.

Having taken possession of his See, he changed little or nothing of his mode of life; but he began to apply himself more than ever to the practice of every virtue, in order that he might the more effectually, both by word and example, procure the salvation of souls, for he was a pattern of the flock in all earnestness. His food was scanty, his dress unpretending, his bed hard and most poor. While always bearing about, in his body, the mortification of the Cross, he every day refreshed his spirit with prayer, in which he seemed insatiable. The result of such life was meekness of so admirable a nature, that he not only bore the worst injuries and insults with patience, but he even treated his persecutors with surprising affection, and showed them all possible kindness.

During the last two years of his life, he suffered much from sickness. In the midst of the most acute pains, whereby he was made pure as gold that is cleansed in the furnace, he ceased not to give thanks to God. Finally, on the holy Feast of Pentecost, after governing for many years, and in a most laudable manner, the Diocese that had been entrusted to him, he slept in peace, venerated for his holy life and miracles. He was canonized by Pope Celestine the Third. God has given him a special power for driving away unclean spirits. His body, which has remained incorrupt for several centuries, is honored with much devotion, by the Faithful of the city of Gubbio, which he has more than once rescued from the calamities that threatened it. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Ubaldus, May 16.)

O blessed Pontiff! be thou our protector against the spirits of hell. They are devoured by envy at seeing how Man, that lowly and feeble creature, has become the object of God’s predilection. The Incarnation of the Son of God, his Death on the Cross, his glorious Resurrection, the Sacraments which give us the life of Grace—all these sublime means, whereby the infinite goodness of God has restored us to our lost dignity, have excited the rage of the old enemy, and he seeks revenge by insulting, in us, the Image of our Creator. At times, he attacks man with all the frenzy of angry jealousy. To mimic the operations of Sanctifying Grace—which, so to speak, makes us the instruments of God’s good pleasure—Satan sometimes takes possession of our fellow creatures, and makes them his slaves. Thy power, O Ubaldus, has often manifested itself by rescuing these unhappy victims of the devil’s jealousy; and holy Church, on this day, celebrates the special prerogative conferred on thee by our Heavenly Father. Relent not in the exercise of thy charitable office. And yet, O holy Pontiff, thou knowest that the snares of the wicked spirits are more injurious to the souls than to the bodies of men. Have pity, then, on the unhappy slaves of sin, who, though the divine Sun of the Pasch has risen upon them, are still in the darkness of guilt. Pray for them, that they may become, once more, Children of the Light, and share in the Easter Resurrection which Jesus offers to all. (Dom Prosper Gureanger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Ubaldus, May 16.)

Saint Ubaldus can help us drive out the devil’s many influences in our own lives, including to temptation to see “victory” where no true victory is to be had and to let down our guard when an apparent “victory” causes men to forget that the legal enshrinement of grave evils can never be any kind of “victory” at all.

The grave evils associated with state-sanctioned crimes against the Ten Commandments—including but not limited to the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth—will last until such time as the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest. Although the hour is very late, so late in fact that we may never live to see the restoration of all things in Christ the King during our lifetimes, we must continue, despite our own sins and failings, to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to Him and his true Catholic Church, which is not and can never be the heresy riddled conciliar sect that is replete with a so-called “pope” and “bishops” who celebrate the sins du jour with as much ready abandon as do the lords of the world and those whose itching ears they always stand so ready to tickle.

We have been given the weapon of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and the shield of her Brown Scapular.

Conscious of our need to make reparation for our own many sins and to live in the world but without being of the world, we take seriously this instruction that Our Lady gave to the Venerable Mary of Agreda about the public manifestation of her Divine Son to Saint John the Baptist, His cousin, herald and precursor, at the Jordan River prior to embarking upon His Public Ministry to accept the sufferings of this time as redeemed creatures eager to make satisfaction in this life for how our sins have offended Divine Justice and thus worsened the state of the Church Militant and of the world-at-large:

272. My daughter, since in relating to thee the works of my most holy Son I so often remind thee how gratefully I appreciated them, thou must understand how pleasing to the Most High is the most faithful care and correspondence on thy part, and the hidden and great blessings enclosed within it. Thou art poor in the house of the Lord, a sinner, insignificant and useless as dust; yet I ask thee to assume the duty of rendering ceaseless gratitude for all the incarnate Word has done for the sons of Adam, and for establishing the holy and immaculate, the powerful and perfect law for their salvation. Especially must thou be grateful for the institution of Baptism by which He frees men from the tyranny of the devil, regenerates them as his children (Jn. 3:5), fills them with grace, clothes them with justice, and assists them to sin no more. This is indeed a duty incumbent upon all men in common, but since creatures neglect it almost entirely I enjoin thee to give thanks for all of them as if thou alone wert responsible for them. Thou art bound to special gratitude to the Lord for other things as well because He has shown Himself so generous to no one among other nations as He has with thee. In the foundation of his holy law and of his Sacraments thou wert present in his memory; He called and chose thee as a daughter of his Church, proposing to nourish thee by his own blood with infinite love.

 273. And if the Author of grace, my most holy Son, as a prudent and wise Artificer, in order to found his evangelical Church and lay its first foundations in the sacrament of Baptism, humiliated Himself, prayed, and fulfilled all justice, acknowledging the inferiority of his human nature, and if, though at the same time God and man, He hesitated not to lower Himself to the nothingness of which his purest soul was created and his human being formed, how much must thou humiliate thyself, who hast committed sins and art less than the dust and despicable ashes? Confess that in justice thou dost merit only punishment, the persecution and wrath of all the creatures, and that none of the mortals who has offended his Creator and Redeemer can say in truth that any injustice or offense is done to them if all the tribulations and afflictions of the world from its beginning to its end were to fall upon them. Since all sinned in Adam (I Cor. 15:22), how deeply should they humiliate themselves when the hand of the Lord visits them (Job 19:21)? If thou dost suffer all the afflictions of men with the utmost resignation, and at the same time fulfill all that I enjoin upon thee by my teachings and exhortations with the greatest fidelity, thou nevertheless must esteem thyself as a useless and unprofitable servant (Lk. 17:10). How much then must thou humiliate thyself when thou dost fail in thy duty and in the return due to all the blessings received from God? Since I desire thee to make a proper return both for thyself and for others, think well how much thou art obliged to annihilate thyself to the very dust, not offering any resistance, nor ever being satisfied until the Most High receives thee as his daughter and accepts thee as such in his own presence and in the celestial vision of the triumphant Jerusalem. (New English Edition of The Mystical City of God: Book Five, The Transfixion, Chapter XXIV)

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end, and it will be upon this triumph that the words Our Lord spoke to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque will be fulfilled:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

Any questions?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Ubaldus, pray for us.