Memorandum to Donald John Trump: The Inviolability of Innocent Human Life is Non-Negotiable

Although I was going to write about another commentary about the Soviet-style of injustice that is represented by the fourth indictment against former president Donald John Trump for actions and statements that, while imprudent in many respects and self-inflicted because of his campaign’s inattentiveness to the dangers of electoral fraud posed by “consent agreements” that Democratic Party-affiliated “elections attorneys” more or less extorted from various state attorneys general and/or election officials, are not criminal, I am simply going to give those who read the work of this website access to the following secular commentaries that describe the misuse of the judicial process against a man who committed the unpardonable crime of having defeated Hillary Rodhman Clinton on November 8, 2016: Joe DiGenova to Newsmax: DA Willis 'Terrorist in Prosecutor's Uniform', How Dumb Is GA Case? Trump Indicted For Tweeting To Watch TV, Trump Indictment Four: Too much, The Trump Indictments Are Blunt Demonstrations Of Power, The Trump Indictments Are Blunt Demonstrations Of Power, Trump Is Not Guilty Of Racketeering; The Deep State Is, and Indictment Four: Trump as Racketeer.

The four indictments that have been handed down against former president Donald John Trump and the protection that has been afford the likes of Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Hunted Biden, and the “black lives matter” rioters represent, as I have noted before, the politicization of the criminal justice system, which has become the means to indemnify the guilty, persecute and prosecute the innocent, suppress both supernatural and natural truth, make warfare upon believing Catholics and to suppress all political dissent as acts of criminal insurrection. The American totalitarians of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” have taken the farce that is American electoral politics to its ultimate conclusion: jailing their opponents after having first rigged the voting system in their favor to such an extent that anyone who points out their deceit must be castigated as an enemy of the civil state. Then again, there can be no justice when men themselves are personally unjust and when mere mortals do not refer everything in their lives, including the administration of justice to the standard of the Holy Cross as It is held high by Our Divine Redeemer’s Catholic Church. (See, for example, From 1776 to 2023: A Steady March from Religious Indifferentism to Totalitarianism.)

For present purposes, however, I am going to take the much-persecuted and now much-prosecuted Donald John Trump to task once again for his continued insistence that there is anything about the inviolability of innocent human life to “negotiate.” Innocent human life is inviolable without any exceptions whatsoever, and it makes no difference how many people agree with this truth as truth exists independently of human acceptance of it. Period.

Yet it is that a man with no true intellectual, spiritual, or moral beings other than what he “feels in his heart”—in other words an inchoate emotionalism—believes that he possesses some kind of “authority” to “teach” pro-lifers how to “sell” their position, that is, Donald John Trump wants to teach pro-lifers “the art of the deal”:

“And I have to tell you, the pro-lifers now have tremendous power to negotiate, which they didn’t have before the ruling,” Trump said of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization at the South Carolina GOP fundraising dinner earlier this month. “They have to understand how to talk about it. Because Republicans, you’re going to have to learn how to talk about it.”

Trump made similar comments at the Alabama state GOP dinner this month, where he was introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who is holding up military promotions to protest the Pentagon’s abortion travel reimbursement policy.

“I have to tell you from a conservative and Republican standpoint, you have to learn how to talk about pro-life, you have to learn how to talk about that decision,” Trump said. “Because you don’t know how to talk about it.”

“Pro-lifers have a tremendous power now with that termination [of Roe] to negotiate. They had none,” he continued. “They didn’t have any before that ruling. They had no power whatsoever, [people] could kill babies at any time they wanted, including after what we would call birth. They could kill babies. Now [pro-lifers] have tremendous power.”

"But on pro-life, I will tell you what I did on Roe v. Wade, nobody else, for 50 years they've been trying to do it. I got it done,” Trump said in an interview in May. “And now we're in a position to make a really great deal and a deal that people want."

"We're in a position now — and I'm going to be leading the charge — we're in the position now where we can get something that the whole country can agree with, and that's only because I got us out of the Roe v. Wade where the pro-life people had absolutely nothing to say,” he said.

Abortion opponents tend to see the issue more as a matter of principle in legally protecting fetal life rather than Trumpian deal-making. An abortion policy the whole country can agree with seems like an elusive goal, more difficult than ending the Russian war in Ukraine in 24 hours.

But Republicans are struggling on abortion in swing districts and even on what ought to be more favorable terrain, like Ohio and Kansas. Democrats used abortion policy to get back in the game during the midterm elections, and President Joe Biden plans to do the same next year.

Democrats, Trump said in South Carolina, “have energized this issue and the Republicans are going to have to learn how to fight it.”

Trump’s suggestion is twofold: nudge Republicans away from their hard-line branding on the issue by allowing abortion in some of the hard cases while forcing Democrats to defend the least popular aspects of their position.

“Like President Ronald Reagan before me, I support the three exceptions, for rape, incest, and the life of the mother,” Trump said in Alabama. “In terms of running, you have to go with your heart; you have to go with what you want. But to me, the three exceptions are very important. I think to a large portion of people on this issue are very important.”

“Remember, the Democrats are the radicals on this issue. We’re not the radicals on this issue,” he continued. “The Democrats are the radicals because they’re willing to kill babies in their fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth month and even after birth.”

Trump brought up former Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam. “Remember the governor of Virginia, that wack job who thought he was Michael Jackson?” Northam spoke in 2019 on the radio station WTOP during a dispute over late-term abortion in the state, saying, “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

“The Democrats are the extremists on this issue,” Trump said in South Carolina. “And if you think about it, what we have been able to do, bring it back to the states,” has increased elected officials’ capacity to regulate abortion — if politicians who wish to do so can prevail at the ballot box.

This is not the position of the biggest anti-abortion groups. Trump’s past support for legal abortion may not give him the credibility to persuade them despite his role in Roe’s reversal and his policies as president. He is testing his leverage with social conservatives a few short years after winning them over.

In 2016, Trump sometimes outmaneuvered his GOP primary foes because his political instincts came from outside the conservative movement. At the same time, he generally showed good judgment about which factions of the party he could not afford to alienate, social conservatives and gun owners chief among them. It remains to be seen whether he can maintain that balance in 2024.

But Trump’s earlier abortion stance, adopted when he was considering a run for the 2000 Reform Party presidential nomination against Pat Buchanan, was similar to that of some swing voters on the issue.

“I’m very pro-choice,” Trump told Meet the Press in 1999. “I hate the concept of abortion. … But still, I just believe in choice.”

That may be the type of voters Republicans will have to deal with on abortion. (Trump exhorts Republicans to learn the 'art of the deal' on abortion.)

“Go with your heart”?

No, Mister President, we use our intellects to submit to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, which prohibits the direct, intentional taking of all innocent human life from the moment of conception to death. Innocent human life cannot be taken in the womb. Innocent human life cannot be taken after birth by means of suicide, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, “brain death”/vital organ vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of certain patients, and “palliative care”/hospice. There are no exceptions to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and the only consensus that a believing Catholic can agree to is this: Stop all attacks on innocent human life now. No qualifications, No exceptions.

Although former President Donald John Trump wants us to believe that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022, stopped baby-killing in this country, I explained the truth of the matter in: Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part one, Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part two|, and Roe v. Wade is Gone, Baby-Killing Will Continue, part three).

Moreover, there will never be an acceptance of the binding truth that all innocent human life is inviolable without exceptions until men permit themselves to be informed by the teaching of the true Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and submit themselves in humility and docility in all that pertains to the good of souls without complaint or reservation. It is precisely because this country has been divided by error from its very beginning that men believe everything is arguable, something that is but the ultimate result of one of Protestantism’s fundamental errors: the belief in the private interpretation of Scripture. There can be no unity among men when they have taught to disagree about or entirely ignore the plain words of Holy Writ and to discount entirely Sacred Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation that is safeguarded by Holy Mother Church from even a slight taint of error (cf. Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

There are many committed pro-life Americans who have spoken the full truth in love about the inviolability of all innocent human life but these good people have been stymied by the acceptance of the “life of the mother” exception by the National Not-So-Right-to-Life Committee, by the professional, careerist Republican politicians who have long desired that the issue of baby-killing disappear from the radar screen, and by many of the “consistent ethic of life” “bishops” within the counterfeit of conciliarism.

There are thousands upon thousands of Catholics who volunteer their time to engage in sidewalk counseling, to work at crisis pregnancy centers, to run homes for unwed mothers, and who will speak to various groups at a moment’s notice. These people know full well how to speak about the truths of the Fifth Commandment without any advice from an amoral man who believes that everything is negotiable according to the ever-fungible stands of his own “art of the deal.”

There are also dedicated researchers and scholars who have devoted their entire lives to speaking about the unvarnished truth concerning matters of family life, most notably Mrs. Randy Engel of the U.S. Coalition for Life and Dr. Paul Byrne, whose work on behalf of the protection of innocent lives from conception to death has earned him the scorn of so many in the American legal and medical systems.

There are also scores of pro-life Americans who are putting themselves on the line to help to convince women not to kill their babies, something that was the subject of "To Resist is a Duty, To Obey a Crime", and many of the same people who were imprisoned in my own native Nassau County, Long Island, New York, are being prosecuted by America’s Minister of Injustice, Merrick Garland, at this present time within the District of Columbia, where the potential jury pool includes people who are firm supporters of the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children:

ASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — August 9, 2023 was the first day of the trial of five of the nine pro-lifers charged with violating the FACE law and the additional federal charge of conspiracy to interfere with civil rights – which alone carries a 10-year maximum prison term and $230,000 in possible fines. These charges are the result of the rescue nine pro-lifers conducted on October 22, 2020 at the Washington Capitol Surgi-Center – the Santangelo abortion facility where abortions are committed through the ninth month of pregnancy.

The cases have been divided into two separate trials. On trial on August 9 were Will Goodman, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Lauren Handy, and pro-lifer known as Herb Geraghty. Their very dedicated and able attorneys are Martin Cannon, Steve Crampton, Howard Walsh, Robert Dunn, John Kiyonaga, Alfred Guillaune, and Bierina Jasari.

The Federal court judge is Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Many pro-lifers filled the courtroom, several of them from PAAU – the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, members of whom held a press conference that morning outside of the court at 333 Constitution Ave, NW in D.C.

Media were present, most notably a reporter from the Washington Post who also attended the trial itself.

On August 9 jury selection began with a whopping 154 prospective jurors. They were given a card on which they had to note answers to no less than 34 voir dire questions. Most questions were very technical, i.e. “Have you or any close friends or family members had an experience with law enforcement that would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial in this case?” or “Would you give more weight to the testimony of a witness simply because that witness was a law enforcement officer?”

Okay – let’s cut to the chase. The really significant questions were numbers 20, 21, and 22. Question 20: “In this trial ‘abortion’ will be mentioned, but this case is not about abortion [RIGHT, OF COURSE NOT!] – not whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust – it’s about whether clinics have a right to operate. Do you have any beliefs about abortion that would render you to not be fair and impartial in this case?”

Question 21: “Have you ever belonged to or contributed to any group that advocates for or against abortion?” Question 22: “Have you or a close friend or family member ever participated in any demonstration either for or against abortion?”

Jurors were brought into the courtroom one at a time. And wow, the voir dire, most of it conducted personally by the judge, was a long and incredibly tedious process. Yes, at this slow rate of jury selection, the trial may well take three weeks as the judge herself announced.

And here’s why the jury selection in this pro-life case was jury selection in pro-abortion la la land. Four jurors answered “Yes” to questions 20, 21, 22 and they were all pro-abortion. Two of these potential jurors admitted to donating to Planned Parenthood, supported legalized abortion, and that access to abortion was important to them. One potential juror said his wife donated to Planned Parenthood, but he didn’t really have a problem with it.

Another potential juror said that she actually attended women’s marches in D.C. because the marches, among other “women’s issues,” supported abortion. She said that she had very committed views in support of abortion, and believed access to abortion was important! And, she was employed as the media consultant for a congresswoman who supported legalized abortion.

So here’s a potential juror totally committed to abortion, who personally advocates for abortion – and yet Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not strike her for cause. And why? Hey, all these pro-death jurors had to do, despite their commitment to the legalized killing of babies, was say the magic words, “I can still be fair and impartial.” That’s all it took.

Let’s not forget – the pro-lifers are charged with FACE. FACE is specifically about securing access to abortion – and these pro-lifers are charged with physically preventing access to abortion when they defended the unborn from being put to death.

Even when the pro-life attorneys called for the judge to strike these pro-abortion potential jurors for cause because they said they believed access to abortion was important, Kollar-Kotelly actually defended them, saying: “But access to abortion is legal” – meaning that they could not be struck for supporting something that was legal.

This is jury selection, yes —in pro-abortion la la land. What is the la la land? It’s la la land that such jurors, so dedicated to legal abortion would – even could – be fair and impartial. Are you kidding?! Certainly, the risk is too great to the defense of the pro-lifers.

Consider an analogy from the 1950s

Now consider this analogy. Let’s say we were back in the 1950s. Defendants who protested lunch-counter segregation in the deep south are on trial. Jurors are questioned as to their suitability to serve on the jury. Some jurors actually admit that they financially support the Ku Klux Klan – even attended KKK rallies, believe that black people are not equal to whites, support segregation – which was also legal!

But despite their support for the KKK, they are not struck for cause because, hey, they also said the magic words: “I could still be fair and impartial.” Letting these racist jurors to still be considered suitable, of course, would be outrageous.  But such is the very situation the pro-lifers are facing – except it’s about abortion.

One juror who started out saying she was raised Catholic (getting our hopes up!) then soon dashed those hopes when she said that she left the Catholic faith over the issue of abortion, was now committed to legalized abortion, and was an agnostic. She didn’t make it through however, since she couldn’t bring herself to say the magic words that: “Yet, I could be fair and impartial.” Because she insisted that she could not be “fair and impartial” that juror was indeed struck by the judge. Well – what do you know!

One juror said that he could not be fair and impartial due to his views on abortion because he was a Christian – said that abortion was killing, and killing is wrong according to his faith. So, we had hopes for him! But then despite his Christian faith he went on to say something goofy: “But I don’t think I have the right to say that my beliefs are right or wrong.” And he went on to say regarding abortion: “People should be able to do what they want.” Alas – so much for the Christian!

Keep in mind, that if the judge doesn’t strike these pro-death potential jurors for cause that means that the pro-life attorneys have to use up their pre-emptory strikes – making it harder to get really good jurors who understand what’s at stake here.

Pray that somehow, by the grace of God the pro-lifers will get jurors who understand that they acted to defend life, despite the fact that already the motions on “defense of others” and the “defense of necessity” have already been denied.

The pro-lifers go to court, having placed themselves on the side of an unwanted people ­– and defended them in one of the most pro-death cities in the country.

August 9 was the feast day of St. Edith Stein, Sister Benedicta of the Cross, killed by the Nazis in Auschwitz. God, give us the courage to witness to your truth despite the cost. Then we will be united with You, dear Lord on the Cross – and graces will be multiplied.

Day two

Back in Judge Kolar-Kottaly’s court in D.C. on Thursday, August 10, jury selection ended with a total of 26 jurors altogether passing through the voir dire process.

I am just going to say it: For pro-lifers, it was two days of torture. We dreaded when Judge Kolar-Kottaly, looking at the cards jurors filled out to answer voir dire questions, announced that the juror sitting in the box answered questions 20, 21, 22. As noted above, these questions are respectively:

Question 20: “In this trial ‘abortion’ will be mentioned, but this case is not about abortion  – not whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust – it’s about whether clinics have a right to operate. Do you have any beliefs about abortion that would render you to not be fair and impartial in this case?”

Question 21: “Have you ever belonged to or contributed to any group that advocates for or against abortion?”

Question 22: “Have you or a close friend or family member ever participated in any demonstration either for or against abortion?”

On August 10 there was one potential juror who certainly had integrity. He said he was very much against abortion. Then, of course, as Judge Kolar-Kottaly always does, she explained to him that this case has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, justified or unjustified, but only about whether there should be access to abortion according to the law.

So “can you set aside your deeply held views on abortion and impartially weigh the evidence presented in this case and apply the law according to the statute?” This juror, being consistent, said “It would be hard for me to separate my views from the facts of this case.” And when pressed by the judge on whether he could just apply the statute, he said, “I don’t think I can enforce a statute with which a do not agree.” When questioned by the DOJ prosecutor John Crab, Jr. this potential juror went so far to say, “I don’t think there should be access to abortion.”

So, since this honest guy couldn’t say the magic words in pro-abortion voir dire la la land: “Despite my deeply held views, I could still be fair and impartial,” he was struck from the jury, even though he did admit to the prosecutor regarding the defendants: “People who take matters into their own hands, I don’t necessarily agree that’s the correct method.”

In the end, even when the prosecutor pressed him on whether he could set aside his beliefs and apply the law, the potential juror said, “I am only half certain.” That was it for the judge, and she struck him for cause.

Of the 26 jurors so far voir dired, the pro-abortion jurors outweighed the pro-life jurors nearly four to one. Altogether there were 11 pro-abortion potential jurors. Of those, six are still potential jurors. In other words, in spite of their vehement and active support for killing babies, they were not struck for cause.

Of the remaining five, one was struck because she had acute social anxiety and the other four because, well, when all was said and done, it was apparent, even to Kolar-Kottaly and the two DOJ prosecutors, that they could not be fair and impartial. Two of these pro-abortion potential jurors had heard about the case through news stories and social media stories that included reporting that “aborted fetuses had been stored in a house in D.C.”

These, of course are the aborted babies that a waste disposal driver from the Santangelo abortion center gave to Lauren Handy and Teresa Bukovinac. The one pro-abortion potential juror even said that this was “sick” and “wacko.” Even that was too much for Kolar-Kottaly and she struck him.

The other struck pro-abortion potential juror admitted that she had already formed a negative opinion of Lauren Handy, naming her by name because of the “theft of fetal remains.”

However, it is outrageous that the other six rapidly pro-abortion potential jurors were not struck. And rabidly pro-abortion they were. This is not just pro-life exaggeration. Here’s a sampling of just how bad it is.

• One juror contributes money to Planned Parenthood and stated he believes protecting access to abortion is important.
• Another juror’s wife contributes money to Planned Parenthood from their joint bank account and he’s fine with it – agreed that he was supportive of Planned Parenthood and sympathetic to the organization.
• A juror stated she has very strong pro-abortion views, contributes to Planned Parenthood, participated in demonstrations in support of abortion, and is a paid media consultant for a pro-abortion Democratic congresswoman. And it even was brought to the judge’s attention that this potential juror argued with pro-lifer Kristin Turner, who was handing distributing leaflets outside of the court. Still didn’t matter!
• Another juror also heard through media about “unborn children being taken from clinic.” Since he called the unborn “unborn children” – we had hope for him! But, no. He actually donated money directly to abortion centers in Florida, attended pro-abortion rallies, was very concerned about maintaining access to abortion, and even attended a protest at the Supreme Court against the Dobbs decision and admitted that he disapproved of persons who denied women access to abortion. However, when pressed on this point by pro-life attorney John Kiyonaga, this potential juror said that he got along with members of his family who were pro-life – thus somewhat rehabilitating himself!
• A juror said he contributed to Planned Parenthood, wanted to be sure that people had access to “reproductive care” and admitted that such “care” included abortion.

And so why are such pro-abortion potential jurors not struck for cause by this judge? Because they all said the magic words, “I can be fair and impartial in weighing the evidence in this case.” That’s all it took.

By the way, when a few of these pro-abortion potential jurors said they support access to abortion, the pro-life attorneys pointed out to Kolar-Kottaly that this should be reason for them to be struck for cause, since this would most likely cause such jurors to already be biased against the pro-life rescuers.

But, the judge essentially said, Well, it’s a good thing that they support access since that’s the law, and it’s good for people to support what is lawful. Of course, there was zero consideration that some laws are inherently unjust as is any law that provides access to the killing of the innocent! Folks, we can see where this is headed.

The trial continues. (Potential jurors in DC trial of pro-lifers admit to being Planned Parenthood donors, abortion activists.)

The “Garland Nine,” as the defendants in the trial whose conclusion is a foregone conclusion, do not need any instruction from Donald John Trump concerning how to speak about abortion. These brave people are more likely to spend many years in prison without anyone offering to pardon them even though it can be argued that the so-called “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances” Act is moot because abortion is no longer a Federally guaranteed right under the Constitution of the United States of America and, as such, is no longer a subject of the United States Department of Justice. Then again, judge after judge in the Red Rose Rescue cases has ruled that the issue of baby-killing and the necessity of stopping it cannot be raised by defense attorneys. The system is rigged in favor of evil, but it has been so ever since July 4, 1776, for reasons explained in the commentary of mine cited above.

No, we do not need self-serving lectures from those, such as the forty-fifth president of the United States of America, who do not understand the nature of truth and who believe anything other than their own “insights” are negotiable.

While it is certainly true that leftists are unyielding in their support for the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent babies, it is false to claim that those who oppose all abortions without exceptions are “extremists” as to obey the true God of Divine Revelation and His Laws is no act of “extremism” except to those who do not believe that truth resonates and can change minds.

So what if the country is not with us?

So what?

Big deal.

Live by popular sovereignty, die by popular sovereignty.

If the “people” want to protect baby-killing by punishing supposedly pro-life politicians who are not so “pro-life” after all, then they will suffer the consequences of the continuing scourge of violent lawlessness that have made many American cities unlivable. No one is safe when the least among us can be killed with impunity in the sanctuary of his mother’s womb.

Donald John Trump does not read this website, of course.

However, he would do well to consider these words of Pope Pius XII that have been quoted on this site several times before:

Pope Pius XII explained the dangers of the adversary’s plan to make women tools of his revolutionary agenda against the family in an allocution he delivered on April 18, 1952, as His Holiness pointed out the dangers of “situation ethics,” which was, after all, the entire foundation of the dissenting opinion in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022:

The new ethic (adapted to circumstances), say its authors, is eminently “individual.” In this determination of conscience, each individual finds himself in direct relationship with God and decides before Him, without the slightest trace of intervention by any law, any authority, any community, any cult or religion. Here there is simply the “I” of man and the “I” of the personal God, not the God of the law, but of God the Father, with whom man must unite himself in filial love. Viewed thus, the decision of conscience is a personal “risk,” according to one’s own knowledge and evaluation, in all sincerity before God. These two things, right intention and sincere response, are what God considers! He is not concerned with the action. Hence the answer may be to exchange that Catholic faith for other principles, to seek divorce, to interrupt gestation, to refuse obedience to competent authority in the family, the Church, the State, and so forth.

All this would be perfectly fitting for man’s status as one who has come “of age” and, in the Christian order, it would be in harmony with the relation of sonship which, according to the teaching of Christ, makes us pray to God as “Our Father.”

This personal view of things spares man the necessity of having to ask himself, at every instant, whether the decision to be taken corresponds with the paragraphs of the law or to the canons of abstract standards and rules. It preserves man from the hypocrisy of pharisaical fidelity to laws; it preserves him both from pathological scruples as well at from the flippancy or lack of conscience, because it puts the responsibility before God on the Christian personally. Thus speak those who preach the “new morality.”

It is Alien to the Faith and Catholic Principles

8. Stated thus expressly, the new ethic is so foreign to the faith and to Catholic principles that even a child, if he knows his catechism, will be aware of it and will feel it. It is not difficult to recognize how this new moral system derives from existentialism which either prescinds from God or simply denies Him, and, in any case, leaves man to himself. It is possible that present-day conditions may have led men to attempt to transplant this “new morality” into Catholic soil, in order to make the hardships of Christian life more bearable for the faithful. In fact, millions of them are being called upon today, and in an extraordinary degree, to practice firmness, patience, constancy, and the spirit of sacrifice, if they wish to preserve their faith intact. For they suffer the blows of fate, or are placed in surroundings which put within their reach everything which their passionate heart yearns for or desires. Such an attempt can never succeed.

The Fundamental Obligations of the Moral Law

9. It will be asked, how the moral law, which is universal, can be sufficient, and even have binding force, in an individual case, which, in the concrete, is always unique and “happens only once.” It can be sufficient and binding, and it actually is because precisely by reason of its universality, the moral law includes necessarily and “intentionally” all particular cases in which its meaning is verified. In very many cases it does so with such convincing logic that even the conscience of the simple faithful sees immediately, and with full certitude, the decision to be taken.

10. This is especially true of the negative obligations of the moral law, namely those which oblige us not to do something, or to set something else aside. Yet it is not true only of these obligations. The fundamental obligations of the moral law are based on the essence and the nature of man, and on his essential relationships, and thus they have force wherever we find man. The fundamental obligations of the Christian law, in the degree in which they are superior to those of the natural law, are based on the essence of the supernatural order established by the Divine Redeemer. From the essential relationships between man and God, between man and man, between husband and wife, between parents and children; from the essential community relationships found in the family, in the Church, and in the State, it follows, among other things, that hatred of God, blasphemy, idolatry, abandoning the true faith, denial of the faith, perjury, murder, bearing false witness, calumny, adultery and fornication, the abuse of marriage, the solitary sin, stealing and robbery, taking away the necessities of life, depriving workers of their just wage (James 5:4), monopolizing vital foodstuffs and unjustifiably increasing prices, fraudulent bankruptcy, unjust maneuvering in speculation—all this is gravely forbidden by the divine Lawmaker. No examination is necessary. No matter what the situation of the individual may be, there is no other course open to him but to obey.

11. For the rest, against “situation ethics,” We set up three considerations, or maxims. The first: We grant that God wants, first and always, a right intention. But this is not enough. He also wants the good work. A second principle is that it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may result (Rom 3:8). Now this new ethic, perhaps without being aware of it, acts according to the principle that the end justifies the means. A Christian cannot be unaware of the fact that he must sacrifice everything, even his life, in order to save his soul. Of this we are reminded by all the martyrs. Martyrs are very numerous, even in our time. The mother of the Maccabees, along with her sons; Saints Perpetua and Felicitas, notwithstanding their newborn children; Maria Goretti, and thousands of others, men and women, whom the Church venerates—did they, in the face of the “situation” in which they found themselves, uselessly or even mistakenly incur a bloody death? No, certainly not, and in their blood they are the most explicit witnesses to the truth against the “new morality.” (Pope Pius XII, Address “Soyez Les Bienvenues” (1952) – Novus Ordo Watch.)

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 its 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.)

The story of the mother who gave up her life one hundred eighteen years ago now rather than to kill the innocent child in her womb stands as a stark contrast to the utilitarianism displayed by the likes of Donald John Trump, who believes that pro-life citizens must “negotiate” a consensus, Nonsense.

The prayers of the mother who sacrificed her life rather than to authorize the killing of her child made possible her daughter's entry into the religious life. Trump has no capacity to think of such realities. Sadly, neither do many "pro-life" Catholics no matter where they fall across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Alas, even those Catholics who are pro-life, no matter where they fall across the ecclesiastical divide, do not understand or accept these facts. They are willing to accept "crumbs" from phony pro-life politicians in the false belief that we will "get somewhere" by means of the political process. We will not. Many of these truly good people, a lot of whom have worked their entire lives to defend the inviolability of preborn human life by volunteering at crisis pregnancy centers and by praying Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary in front of abortuaries and by speaking out against this crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, are looking for naturalistic solutions to the abortion genocide precisely because they have never been taught by the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the proximate cause for social problems in our world today is the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and that we must try to plant the seeds for the restoration of this Social Kingship, starting with the enthronement of our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Ninth, no one who supports the destruction of any innocent human being under the cover of the civil law is qualified to hold public office, whether elected or appointed, a point made very emphatically by one of the Twentieth Century’s most eloquent defenders of the Natural Law, Dr. Charles E. Rice, a long time professor of law at Notre Dame Law School of the University of Notre Dame, in an article he wrote twenty-five years ago when I was running in the New York Right to Life Party’s senatorial primary against then Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato:

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

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

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

My three campaigns for public office on the Right to Life Party Line (for lieutenant governor of New York in the general election of 1986, for supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in the general election of 1997, and in that senatorial primary in 1998) were undertaken to give voice to the truth no matter my own limitations and failings, and I did my academic career no favors by doing so. However, my belief was at the time that it was important to speak the truth and pray that perhaps one soul might benefit therefrom.

Even the founders of the United States of America, naturalists though they were, expected that men would present themselves for public office who told the electorate where they stood and were willing to accept electoral defeat for doing so. They expected what the Edmund Burke called statesmanship, the willingness to suffer defeat in order to stand on principle no matter the judgment of the “people.”

Pope Pius XI explained the terrible judgement that awaits those in public life who enable the killing of innocent babies in the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

While we pray for the conversion of all those who solicit, perform, cooperate in, or support the chemical and/or surgical execution of the innocent preborn, we also have a duty to remind those in public life who enable these executions of the very direct words written by Pope Pius XI about their fate when they stand before the Avenger of innocent blood when they die, and it is indeed apropos to call to mind what Pope Pius IX said on the occasion of the eighteen hundredth anniversary of Nero’s persecutions in 67 A.D.;

The great centennial celebration proceeded. Who would have dared to say, whilst Nero reigned at Rome and Christians were as pariahs, tolerated only in order to afford the spectacle of their tortures to a heathen multitude, that eighteen hundred years from Nero's time, Christianity would flourish and celebrate in that city, which was the scene of its greatest trials, as well as all over the world, its victory and the glorious martyrdom of its apostilic founders! The month of June, 1867, will ever be memorable in the annals of the church. Never had so many bishops assembled in the holy city. Nor were there ever there, at one time, so many priests and pilgrims of all ranks and classes. The duties of the time were commenced early in the month. On the 11th and 12th of June, consistories were held in presence of the bishops, in order to make preparation for the canonization of two hundred and five Japanese Christians -- priests, catechist, laymen, women and children -- put to death in hatred of the Chrisitan faith from 1617 to 1632. On the 26th of February, 1867, the decree of canonization had already been solemnly read in presence of Pius IX, who, on the occasion, went in state to the Roman College. On the 22nd February of the same year, the Holy Father signed decrees bearing on the beautifications of several holy persons, among whom was Clement Maria Hofbauer, a Redemptorist. In an age of unbelief, it was only to be expected that the enquiry should be made why the Pope made so many saints?

In February, 1867, his Holiness replied, on occasion of a visit to the Convent of the Capuchin Friars: "I have been shown," said he, "a pamphlet, entitled 'Why so many Saints?' Had we ever so much need of intercessors in heaven and patterns in this world?" A little later he also said, alluding to the festival at Paris; "Man has not been placed on the earth solely in order to amass  wealth; still less in order to lead a life of pleasure. The world is ignorant of this. It forgets mind, and devotes itself to matter. Neither you nor I are of this world of which I speak. You are come here in good disposition to seek the edification of your souls. I hope therefore, that you will bear away with you a salutary impression. Never forget, my children, that you have a soul, a soul created in the image of God, and which God will judge. Bestow on it more thought and care than on industrial speculations, railways, and all those lesser objects which constitute the good things of this world. I forbid you not to interest yourself in such transient matters. Do so reasonably and moderately. But let me once more beg of you to remember that you have a soul."  (The Rev. Æneas MacDonell Dawson, Pius IX. And His Time, London: Thos. Coffey, Catholic Record Printing House. 1880, pp. 283-284.)

Someone ought to explain to Donald John Trump that he is not infallible and that he has a soul which he will lose for all eternity if he does not convert to the Catholic Faith and then become a defender of her teaching from which no one can dissent legitimately.

Concluding Remarks

Human nature is wounded, although not entirely corrupted, by Original Sin, leaving the souls of the unbaptized in the grip of the devil and the souls of the baptized with its vestigial after-effects: a darkened intellect, weakened will and the overthrow of the rational, higher faculties in favor of the lower sensual appetites. The Actual Sins of men incline them to sin more and more and to blind them to anything other than what pleases them and their immediate self-interests, no matter how distorted or perverted those self-interests are in the objective order of things.

Men who do not seek to reform their lives by confessing their sins to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance and then cooperating with the ineffable graces of the Divine Redeemer’s Most Precious Blood that flow into their souls once a priest utters the words of Absolution or, worse yet, do not even realize that there is any need to so will descend to barbarism over the course of time. There is no turning back the tide of the new barbarians who have been let loose as a direct and inevitable consequence of the fatally flawed belief that men can establish social order without reforming their lives in cooperation with the graces won for them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and without a due submission in all that pertains to Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, upon which the entirety of social order depends.

Pope Pius XI explained in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, that men no longer acted as brothers to other men, but “as strangers, and even enemies,” that should resonate with us at all times:

Men today do not act as Christians, as brothers, but as strangers, and even enemies. The sense of man's personal dignity and of the value of human life has been lost in the brutal domination begotten of might and mere superiority in numbers. Many are intent on exploiting their neighbors solely for the purpose of enjoying more fully and on a larger scale the goods of this world. But they err grievously who have turned to the acquisition of material and temporal possessions and are forgetful of eternal and spiritual things, to the possession of which Jesus, Our Redeemer, by means of the Church, His living interpreter, calls mankind.

22. It is in the very nature of material objects that an inordinate desire for them becomes the root of every evil, of every discord, and in particular, of a lowering of the moral sense. On the one hand, things which are naturally base and vile can never give rise to noble aspirations in the human heart which was created by and for God alone and is restless until it finds repose in Him. On the other hand, material goods (and in this they differ greatly from those of the spirit which the more of them we possess the more remain to be acquired) the more they are divided among men the less each one has and, by consequence, what one man has another cannot possibly possess unless it be forcibly taken away from the first. Such being the case, worldly possessions can never satisfy all in equal manner nor give rise to a spirit of universal contentment, but must become perforce a source of division among men and of vexation of spirit, as even the Wise Man Solomon experienced: "Vanity of vanities, and vexation of spirit." (Ecclesiastes i, 2, 14). . . .

There is over and above the absence of peace and the evils attendant on this absence, another deeper and more profound cause for present-day conditions. This cause was even beginning to show its head before the War and the terrible calamities consequent on that cataclysm should have proven a remedy for them if mankind had only taken the trouble to understand the real meaning of those terrible events. In the Holy Scriptures we read: "They that have forsaken the Lord, shall be consumed." (Isaias i, 28) No less well known are the words of the Divine Teacher, Jesus Christ, Who said: "Without me you can do nothing" (John xv, 5) and again, "He that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Luke xi, 23)

28. These words of the Holy Bible have been fulfilled and are now at this very moment being fulfilled before our very eyes. Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. It was a quite general desire that both our laws and our governments should exist without recognizing God or Jesus Christ, on the theory that all authority comes from men, not from God. Because of such an assumption, these theorists fell very short of being able to bestow upon law not only those sanctions which it must possess but also that secure basis for the supreme criterion of justice which even a pagan philosopher like Cicero saw clearly could not be derived except from the divine law. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Paragraph number twenty-eight above says it all:

They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Yet is that even believing Catholics, especially many younger Catholics who know nothing of American political history, permit themselves to be distracted by the bread and circuses and the dog and pony shows of naturalism in the belief that they can change a process that is corrupt to its core because it is based on the anti-Incarnational sin of religious indifferentism, which itself has led to the triumph of practical atheism as the lowest common social denominator.

Catholicism is the one and only foundation for all legitimate social order.

Pope Pius XI made the same point in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

In other words, Catholicism is the sole source of human sanctification and the legitimate teacher of men, and thus possesses the sole ability to provide the foundation for a social order that can be as just as possible in a world filled with fallen men, a point that Pope Pius XI reiterated in his encyclical letter commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the issuance of Rerum Novarum, Quadregesimo Anno, May 15, 1931:

127. Yet, if we look into the matter more carefully and more thoroughly, we shall clearly perceive that, preceding this ardently desired social restoration, there must be a renewal of the Christian spirit, from which so many immersed in economic life have, far and wide, unhappily fallen away, lest all our efforts be wasted and our house be built not on a rock but on shifting sand.[62]

128. And so, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Sons, having surveyed the present economic system, We have found it laboring under the gravest of evils. We have also summoned Communism and Socialism again to judgment and have found all their forms, even the most modified, to wander far from the precepts of the Gospel.

129. "Wherefore," to use the words of Our Predecessor, "if human society is to be healed, only a return to Christian life and institutions will heal it."[63] For this alone can provide effective remedy for that excessive care for passing things that is the origin of all vices; and this alone can draw away men's eyes, fascinated by and wholly fixed on the changing things of the world, and raise them toward Heaven. Who would deny that human society is in most urgent need of this cure now?

130. Minds of all, it is true, are affected almost solely by temporal upheavals, disasters, and calamities. But if we examine things critically with Christian eyes, as we should, what are all these compared with the loss of souls? Yet it is not rash by any means to say that the whole scheme of social and economic life is now such as to put in the way of vast numbers of mankind most serious obstacles which prevent them from caring for the one thing necessary; namely, their eternal salvation. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

Most men today, however, are more concerned about the acquisition or possible loss of wealth once attained than they are about their immortal souls as they have “excessive care passing things that” are “the origin of all vices.” Only the true Faith can draw “men’s eyes, fascinated by and wholly fixated on the changing things of the world, and raise them toward Heaven.”

This world in which we live is passing away. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest ‘ere long. We must be focused on the sanctification and salvation of our own immortal souls as we keep our First Friday devotions with fervor and pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary every day, including on each First Saturday for the intentions specified by the Mother of God in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, and to Sister Lucia dos Santos in Tuy, Spain.

The following prayer, found in The Raccolta  is one that we should pray every day:

O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge Thee as the King of the universe; all that has been made hath been created for Thee. Exercise over me all Thy sovereign rights. I hereby renew the promises of my Baptism, renouncing Satan and all his works and pomps, and I engage myself to lead henceforth a truly Christian life.And in an especial manner do I undertake to bring about the triumph of the rights of God and Thy Church, so far as in me lies. Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer Thee my poor actions to obtain the acknowledment of every heart of Thy sacred kingly power. In such wise may the Kingdom of Thy peace be firmly established throoughout all the earth. Amen. (As found in (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, Number 272, p. 149.) 

Put your trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Christ the King and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as one’s state-in-life permits.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, 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 Hyacinth, O.P., pray for us.

Saint Lawrence the Deacon, pray for us.