Monday, April 12, 2021

Killing The Killers

Later this year, there will be a short, ten episode return of the show Dexter. Originally broadcast from 2006-2013, the eponymous protagonist (if you can call him that) is a serial killer. How do people cheer for a murderer? Here's the set-up: Dexter Morgan was orphaned at three years old when his mother was brutally killed with a chainsaw by drug dealers. He is subsequently adopted by police officer Harry Morgan. Harry notices that the trauma has given his son sociopathic tendencies and a "blood lust" making him have urges to kill people. Harry decides to "save" his son from being locked-up for life in a mental institution by helping him obtain employment as a forensic analyst for the Miami police. This enables Dexter to live a double life. When not working at his police force job, his father teaches him to murder other murders who slipped through the cracks of the justice system. In this way, "justice is served" and Dexter doesn't kill innocent people--what a guy!

This warped sense of morality has been used by pro-abortionists. Their argument runs like this: 
If abortion is the legal mass murder of innocents, like in Nazi Germany and Communist China, then how is it wrong to kill abortion providers? "Pro-lifers" don’t even believe their own claims and don’t think abortion is quite the same as murder--because it isn't. Therefore, since abortion is not murder, the Church is wrong in condemning it. If abortion were really murder, then those against abortion should be celebrating those who kill abortion doctors, not condemning them.  Think about it: If a Nazi soldier was coming to kill Fr. Maximillian Kolbe, wouldn't you be justified in killing the soldier to protect Fr. Kolbe?

In this post, I shall tackle their reasoning head on and demonstrate why the Church is correct in (a) declaring abortion as murder and (b) condemning the killing of abortion "doctors" (anyone who murders babies is not a healer--doctor--but a cold-blooded killer). 

Abortion: Biologically and Theologically Constituting Murder

(a) Biology. 
It is in vouge to ask the question, "When does life begin?" Pro-abortionists want you to think the subject boils down to a matter of opinion. Since opinions shouldn't be forced on others, then women should be free to decide for themselves when life begins, and whether or not to procure an abortion. Under the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion is legal right up until minutes before the baby is born. While certain states have placed restrictions on abortion (and many have been upheld by the Supreme Court), such restrictions are not mandated. Here, in New York State, there are no restrictions whatsoever. When restrictions are placed, they usually involve various "tests" for determining whether the unborn should be considered a life which cannot be taken. For example, viability (i.e., when an unborn baby can live outside the womb) and "vital functions" (i.e., heartbeat and/or brainwaves) are two such factors used to impose restrictions on killing innocent babies. 

Biology is the study of life, and it is biologists who give us the answer as to when life begins. A group of noted biologist, including Dr. Thomas L. Johnson, calling themselves Scientists for Life, put out a concise and scientifically accurate publication entitled The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life. The biological answer as to when life begins is simple: Life is continuous. There is no period in between when life "starts" and "stops." Human cells can only come from other living human cells. That's not to say life is a process over time. Everything is a process. If an event takes place in zero time it would require an infinite amount of energy to be released, which the known laws of physics tell us is impossible. Hence, at fertilization, a new human being with a unique set of chromosomes and DNA is made.

The objection will immediately be made, "Since death is the permanent stopping of all vital functions (e.g., heartbeat, breathing, brainwaves, etc.) even though cells are still alive, why should people consider cellular life (fertilization and the zygote which comes into being) which has none of those attributes to be the beginning of human life?" Simply put, vital functions are different, not absent in the zygote. The vital functions of the zygote are metabolism and cleavage. Eventually, brainwaves and the vital functions of beings at later stages of life will begin. It is no more justified to say a zygote isn't human because it has no heartbeat and brainwaves than to say an infant isn't human because he can't walk erect or speak fluently in a language. 

It is also a biological fact that the "product of conception" as pro-baby killers call him/her will be born as a human baby. The burden of proof is therefore on pro-abortionists to prove that at all times prior to birth the baby is somehow not human. If it cannot be so proven, abortion must be forbidden (on secular grounds alone) because the unborn could be human. If a hunter sees movement in a bush and doesn't know if it is a human or a deer, must he not refrain from shooting because it might be human life and the unjust taking thereof? So too with abortion, even if we concede, ad arguendo, that we "don't know when life begins." 

(b) Theology.
Pro-abortionists make the false claim that abortion was not considered murder by the Church until Pope Pius IX in 1869. The fact is that the Catholic Church always regarded abortion as murder, regardless of ensoulment. The approved theologians, and all Magisterial authorities did not hesitate to condemn abortion as murder whether or not the soul is present. 

 Thou shalt not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.---

The Didache ("The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles"). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers, [1942],Volume VI:16).

For us Christians, murder is once and for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.---

Tertullian (when Catholic), 197, Apologeticus, page 9 (Emphasis mine).

The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide.---

St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter, from the work Three Canonical Letters. Loeb Classical Library, 3:20-23. 

In 1679, Pope Blessed Innocent XI condemned the teachings of two theologians, Thomas Sanchez and Ioannis Marcus, who taught that abortion was lawful if the fetus was not yet animated or ensouled and the purpose of the abortion was to prevent shame to the woman. (See Enchiridion Symbolorum, 13th edition, pg. 327, Condemned proposition #34). Condemned proposition #35 from that same document of Pope Blessed Innocent XI is even more explicit: "It seems probable that every fetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion."

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary a dogma of the Faith. In Ineffabilis Deus the pontiff defined, We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. (Emphasis mine).

Notice well that the definition says that Mary's soul was free from conception (not ensoulment), giving credence to immediate animation of the human being at biological fertilization. Had immediate animation been part of Mary's unique privilege, you would expect the theologians to teach about it--especially those who wrote post-1854-- but they do not. While "silence implies consent" is not a theological maxim, it is a weighty argument that immediate animation was implicitly taught, and no approved theologians have taught differently since. The very idea of delayed animation was based on the disproven biological theories of Aristotle.

Therefore, it was not surprising that in 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law. (See Codicus Iuris Canonici Fontes, specification number 552). Pro-abortionists jump on this as "proof" of the first penalty against abortion, when all Pope Pius was doing was making a uniform condemnation of abortion and removing any distinctions between animated (ensouled) and unanimated fetuses. This was done to bring the penalty in line with Church teaching that ensoulment is at fertilization (conception).

 In any case, the matter of when the body is 'ensouled' has historically made no difference to the Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct and separate issues. He condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms even though he believed in delayed ensoulment based on the science of his day. For example, in his commentary on murder, he states: “He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide.” (See Summa Theologica II-II, q.64, a.8) Also, dealing with whether to baptize a baby in the mother's womb, he writes,  “If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized.” (Ibid, III, q.68, a.11; no mention of animation).   Finally, the Angelic Doctor knew extraordinarily well all of these ancient Church teachings on abortion, and that it was forbidden at any stage of development. He never disagreed. 

Why Not Abort the Abortionist?
There are four circumstances in which killing another human being is morally justified; two of those circumstances involve a person acting as an agent of the State, and the other two concern individuals in their capacities as private citizens. As an agent of the State, a person make take another's life in the carrying out of a lawful execution (i.e., capital punishment), and when he takes part in a just war. A private citizen acting on his own, may take a life in legitimate self-defense of his own life and/or property of great value, and to defend the life of an innocent third party against unjust aggression

In the case of legalized abortion (such as exists in the United States since 1973), it is obvious that the killing of an abortion doctor could not be justified as an act of capital punishment nor as part of a just war. Could it be justified as defending the life of an innocent third party (the unborn baby) against unjust aggression (horrible death from an abortionist)? In a word: No. In order to understand why, the moral principles of the Church must be properly understood and applied.

According to theologians McHugh and Callan: This right of self-defense is grounded in the Natural Law itself and has been denied by but few moralists...The principles on defense of one's own life against an unjust aggressor, even at the cost of the latter's life, may be applied to the life of an innocent third party. What are these principles? (a) The assault must be a true aggression (i.e., an act of violence threatening the life of the person assaulted) and unjust (i.e., an attack made without public authority); (b) the resistance must be true self-defense (i.e., an act used to ward off attack or to make the assailant powerless) and moderate (i.e., the person attacked must not use more force than necessary and he must not intend to kill the aggressor). Moreover, in the defense of another:(a) is necessary to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, when one is bound to give this person protection by natural duty (e.g., because the innocent person is one's child or father and the aggressor is not a relative), or by contract (e.g., because one is a hired bodyguard or policeman). (b) It is lawful to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, and even though there is no duty of nature or contract to give this protection (Exodus 2:12). But it is disputed whether it is necessary to do this.(See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:104-109; Emphasis mine). 

It is clear that in the defense of oneself or another, there must be no intent to kill the aggressor, it must be an unintended consequence. Furthermore, in defending another there is no certain opinion as to whether or not a moral obligation exists apart from a duty contracted. The principle that a private individual cannot intend directly to kill the aggressor is echoed by the great moral theologians:

Prummer: Principle: One may defend oneself against an unjust aggressor even to the point of killing him, provided one does not injure him more than is absolutely necessary to ensure self-protection. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 127; Emphasis mine).

Slater: In defense of my own life from unjust attack I may use whatever violence is necessary and even go to the length of killing the aggressor, if I cannot otherwise save my life...I may also do the same in [an innocent person's] defense. Although I may lawfully do this, yet there is seldom an obligation of doing it, for the obligation would only arise in charity...(See A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:198-199; Emphasis mine). 

Jone: The defense must be moderate, i.e., the assailant must not be injured more than is absolutely necessary to ensure self-protection known as moderamen inculpatae tutelae, or moderation of blameless defense. (See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 141; Emphasis mine). 

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church and Greatest of Moral Theologians: The law of nature permits that you may repel force with force and that you may forestall and kill an assailant who unjustly tries to take your life from you or those things that are necessary for you to lead a worthy life, such as temporal goods, honors, chastity, or the integrity of your members. Nevertheless, that it is done with a mind to defend yourself and with moderamen inculpatae tutelae, namely not by causing greater damage or using greater force than is necessary to prevent harm. (See Theologia Moralis, Book IVa, pg. 408; Emphasis mine). 

To intentionally kill another innocent human being is morally unjustifiable. It should also be (and is) legally unjustifiable (except in the case of abortion). An abortionist can hardly be labeled innocent. Nevertheless, even in self-defense or defense of others, against an aggressor, the intent must be to defend rather than to kill. One who shoots an abortionist has the motive to save children. However, his intent in shooting the abortionist is to kill the baby's murderer to achieve that purpose of saving children. Apart from capital punishment, the just war, or the justified rebellion, which derive from God's authority, no one may ever intentionally kill anyone. God is the Author of Life, therefore only God--and those who are given authority by Him--may take human life. 

In countries that have legalized abortion, is rebellion against the government justified? This is where the attempted analogy to Nazi Germany breaks down as shall be shown in the next section of this post.

The Conditions When Justified Rebellion Are Permitted
People have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government that goes against God's law. However, to resist the government is always an extreme measure, and therefore it can only be resorted to in extreme cases and under certain well-defined conditions of Natural Law. The most terse and eloquent exposition of the four (4) requirements when open opposition to the government is permitted was penned by theologian Rickaby in the Dublin Review, April 1865 on resisting tyrannical government; De Regimine Principium. 

The First Condition. The government must become substantially and habitually tyrannical. It must lose sight of the common good, and pursues its own selfish objectives to the manifest detriment of the people, most especially when their religious interests are concerned. The people cannot resort to physical resistance for the redress of any and every grievance.  If they could, civil war would be the common condition and peaceful progress would wholly cease. In every nation there are innumerable conflicting interests to be considered and some people are bound to suffer injustice. These ordinary injustices should be remedied through the lawmaking authority available to them, whether by voting, or by appealing to those in power. Resistance to the government can only be tolerated in the case of a government that is substantially and habitually tyrannical and therefore opposed to the common good

The Second Condition. All legal and peaceful means have been tried in vain to recall the ruler/government to a sense of duty. The conditions of lawful self-defense are substantially the same in the case of resistance to private, individual aggression and that of aggression by the government. Now, in the former case, a man cannot kill another in self-defense if he can escape the aggression in any other way. [In secular law, this is also applied in many states. Here, in New York, if someone tries to start a fight with you, there is what the law calls "The Duty to Retreat," whereby you must try to get away from the aggressor. This duty extends to all situations except if you are in your home or in your place of business. Then you may immediately fight back---Introibo] So also, if a tyrannical government can be brought back to reason by legal means it has the right to be brought back by legal means. In a republic, such as the United States, rebellion is very difficult to justify because the government can be rejected at the polls. 

The Third Condition. There must be a reasonable probability that resistance will be successful, and not entail greater evils than it seeks to remove. Therefore, the reasonable hope must exist that the tyranny will be overthrown and end, or at least the beginnings of improvement will be effectuated. If the uprising would result in greater misery and suffering for the people, resistance cannot be undertaken.

The Fourth Condition. When the judgement is formed as to the evil of the government, and the resistance necessary, it is not the opinion of a few, or some instigating group, but it is the manifested sentiment of the majority of the people, so that it may be morally considered as the judgement of the nation as a whole. In countries, there is often a group trying to incite revolution "for the good of the people" when it is actually for the group's own good.  They have no right to incite the masses through fear-mongering and acts of violence. 

The Principles of Justified Rebellion As Applied To Legalized Abortion
A justified rebellion involves the assumption by private persons of the prerogative of the State to wage a just war. In a rebellion the war is waged against the State itself. The rebellion itself would be a just war, in which the abortionist, as someone directly a part of the "substantially and habitually tyranny" justifying the rebellion, would be rightly regarded as a combatant and therefore a legitimate target. (See Prof. Charles Rice & John P. Tuskey, The Legality and Morality of Using Deadly Force to Protect Unborn Children from Abortionists, 5 Regent U. L. Rev. 83 (1995), pgs. 83-151). Remember that all four conditions must obtain to have a justified rebellion; the Church sets a high standard to meet.

As to the first condition, I would argue that the government has become "substantially and habitually tyrannical" by stripping a whole class of human beings of their right to life. This condition (in my opinion) is satisfied.

As to the second condition, I argue it is not satisfied. Overall, pro-life initiatives have been winning at the state level, and the Supreme Court has upheld most of them. Expect more victories with three new pro-life Trump-appointed Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett). We also have elections, and not all can be classified as "stolen." Therefore, we must bring the government back by legal means only, not rebellion--and there is hope for success.

As to the third condition, I argue rebellion would bring about greater evils than good. Take the case of an active shooter in an elementary school who has killed several children and threatens many more. If you kill the shooter, the threat is neutralized and no other children will suffer. However, if you kill an abortionist the mother can simply find someone else to murder her child. The killing of individual abortionists is ineffectual; there is no evidence that murdering abortion providers has prevented the murder of any unborn children, nor is there any reasonable assumption that it would ever do so. The only thing violence would do is paint pro-lifers as "radicals," "hypocrites," and draw sympathy for the abortionists. No one would look at the horror of abortion--it would be overshadowed by the violence of shootings. Abortionists would just dig their heels in deeper and hire armed bodyguards (as some already do). 

As to the fourth condition, I argue it has not been met because there is no clear pro-life consensus as the manifest sentiment of the majority; nor is there a clear consensus by a majority that rebellion is necessary. 

Therefore, with three of the four conditions not having been met (and all four being both necessary and sufficient for justified rebellion), there is no right to a justified rebellion in the case of legalized abortion.

Abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn child. It is therefore one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. I have been involved in the pro-life movement since age 16. We must not allow our zeal for the unborn to blind us to the principles of true morality. In an age were antiheros like Dexter are cheered, it's no wonder people lose their moral compass. Compound this with the Church driven underground, and the Vatican II sect being led by a moral relativist. It's no wonder people are confused in making good moral choices.

Killing abortionists is immoral and would only be a setback to the right-to-life movement. Let us remember the words of St. Augustine, "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evildoer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him." 


  1. Abortion is a crime against humanity, an humanicide. If we can't kill an abortionist, the only solution is to declare abortion forbidden as a murder. But this is not something that will happen soon because society is largely in favor of abortion and so-called "conservative" politicians, here in Canada anyway, do not want to ban it (nor sodomy either). I think we have to leave it to God to punish unborn baby murderers like the evil Morgentaler. And the world will suffer the wrath of God through pandemics and other future calamities.

    1. Simon,
      Both in this life, and especially the next, those who commit such vile sins will reap what they sow. God pity them.

      God Bless,


  2. While I agree with all the theologians, including St. Alphonsus on the principles of self defense, I have to admit that it would be pretty hard not to "cause greater damage or using greater force than is necessary to prevent harm" or "not injure him (a person) more than is absolutely necessary to ensure self-protection, because if somebody has an intent to kill me and I merely stop the person and the person lives, who is to say the person won't come back out of revenge and try again at another time to kill me once he recovers?

    I agree with your conclusions of the four "Conditions When Justified Rebellion Are Permitted" but under the second condition when you say "We also have elections, and not all can be classified as "stolen." Therefore, we must bring the government back by legal means only, not rebellion--and there is hope for success" would that mean that if I lived in a state which contributed in stealing an election that I should just accept it and hope they won't cheat in the next election and continue to obey any unjust laws or mandates passed by the invalid (seen as valid) elected officials?


    1. Lee,
      The principles of morality often don't align with our feelings or worries, yet we must align them with our reason and actions; otherwise we behave immorally.

      One of the conditions for using self-defense is that the unjust attack must be an immediate threat. According to theologian Slater, " private person can take vengeance for violence which has already been done...NOR MAY ONE WHOSE LIFE IS THREATENED ANTICIPATE THE ATTACK; DEFENSE IS ONLY LAWFUL WHEN THE ATTACK IS PRACTICALLY BEING MADE OR IS AT ANY RATE IMMINENT. UNLESS THE ATTACK IS PRACTICALLY IMMINENT IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO RESORT TO OTHER MEANS THAN HOMICIDE FOR THE DEFENSE OF ONE'S OWN LIFE; ONE MAY INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW OR AT LEAST FLEE THE INTENDING ASSAILANT." (See "A Manual of Moral Theology" [1925], pg.198; Emphasis mine).

      Therefore, even if a well-founded belief, you may not kill someone because they MIGHT come back to kill you or threatened to do so in the future. Here, in New York, there is a similar "Duty to Retreat." Under this legal doctrine, if there is an attack or an impending attack, you must make every good faith effort to flee if it can be done. If you do not do so, you can be brought up on assault or murder charges, and can be sued for battery or wrongful death depending if you killed him or not. The only three places where there is no Duty of Retreat (in NY) is if you are attacked (a) in your home, (b) in your place of business, or (c) in your car.

      You ask "...would that mean that if I lived in a state which contributed in stealing an election that I should just accept it and hope they won't cheat in the next election and continue to obey any unjust laws or mandates passed by the invalid (seen as valid) elected officials?"

      Answer: If it is the STATE, then you must bring in the Federal government to help clean it up. If that is ineffectual, the second condition would be fulfilled, but not necessarily the third and fourth conditions. As to laws that directly go against the Natural Law or Divine-Positive Law, they do not bind and are non-laws (e.g., a law that requires a women with one child to have a mandatory abortion should she get pregnant).

      As Pope Leo XIII beautifully summarized: The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men." And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. (See "Diuturnum," para. #15)

      You would definitely have the right to civil disobedience, but not necessarily justified rebellion.

      God Bless,


    2. Thanks Introibo. Good explanations. I do agree with all the theologians on what is lawful in regards to self-defense, but in my mind I was just making up an argument to make sure there wasn't any nuance that I was missing.

      "You would definitely have the right to civil disobedience, but not necessarily justified rebellion." That's a good answer, and it seems like more of that (civil disobedience) is happening across the world because more people are waking up and getting sick of the control concocted by the globalist like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and big bankers, in order to get rid of humanity.


  3. Definitely a hard subject to wrestle with I think. Kind of unrelated but similar in terms of justified force,

    Take an armed car jacking.A Theif puts a gun to a driver and tells him to get out he's taking his car. Driver gets out and the theif gets in and goes to leave, but the driver also has a gun which they now pull. Would that be justified if they shot and killed the theif? They are no longer threatening the driver and are going to leave.

    1. David,
      The approved theologians all agree that you may kill an aggressor who attempts to steal something of great value. This is where the application of the principle gets tricky. Is it your only car necessary for work? Will your insurance pay for a similar car in a timely manner?

      In your hypothetical, the most probable answer is that it would NOT be moral. Here in New York it is illegal to attack someone who, although WAS an unjust aggressor, now takes flight an is no longer an immediate threat. If someone is breaking INTO my home here in NYC, I have the LEGAL right to immediately use deadly force since the law presumes the person to be a threat to your life and limb (even if he is not). If I shoot and kill him while ENTERING or WHILE INSIDE it would be justified homicide for which I could be neither arrested nor sued. If, however, I kill him AS HE LEAVES MY HOUSE, I would be arrested for murder.

      God Bless,


    2. Yeah it's a tough call I hope I don't ever have to make. It honestly seems like even if all the conditions are met we might be in some conflict with a different teaching on moral theology. I wouldn't want Our Lord to say "why didn't you just turn the other cheek?" Almost feels like a lose-lose. If in the scenario say the driver shoots his arm, or even kills him, does God see it as justified or does he see the plight of the theif who perhaps "needed" The car more? Should we just accept the evil like the martyrs of old and not resist at all? Difficult decisions, that, hopefully none of us will face.

      God bless as well my friend.

    3. The Catholic Church has to get up to speed. If a black thug car-jacks a white person he has no right to defend himself or to expect to get the car back. That's an example of white privilege, which they are trying to eradicate. If you are white and spot a black man approaching your car you should immediately get out of the car and kneel. If he wants the car its his. If he doesn't, then get back in your car until it happens again and repeat but under no circumstances is a white person to defend himself or his possessions to people of color. Doing so is racist.

    4. @anon5:37
      How did race get injected into a post on abortion? Granted, BLM are Communist thugs. That having ben said, the principles apply to all races evenly. The Church is always--perennially, as it were--"up to speed."


    5. The Church needs to start re-educating the faithful on the curse of Ham.

      God bless -Andrew

  4. Condition One: I think people commonly think is met.

    Condition Two: I think is also met. The "pro-life" Republicans controlled the entire government for two years and nothing was done. The Federal government continues to top State governments when it comes to abortion. And States are passing some laws but usually a Federal judge overrules them. The Supreme Court that is composed of mostly "catholics" and are "conservative" couldn't even take a voter fraud case from nearly half the states that was cut and dry. These "catholic/conservative" justices could have instantly plucked any pro-life oriented case from the courts and instantly over turned Roe v. Wade. We're told to vote more in, we do and win briefly and nothing is done. Furthermore, the presidential election was clearly stolen. The new "administration" is pushing "legislation" to make it easier for them to "win" next time. And once they amnesty the millions they will import into this country the Republicans will never win a presidency again. Condition met.

    Condition Three: You don't just attack one target in a rebellion. You'd attack multiple abortionists. I'm not sure how killing abortionists would cause greater evils. Abortionists in this country has murdered over 60 million precious children. However, I think the focus is wrong in that it's only part of the equation. These murdered children might not obtain the Beatific Vision but they will be in eternal peace and happiness in the Limbo of Infants. They will be fine. What's the more horrible part is that all of the mothers who have murdered their own children are automatically excommunicated and will go to hell if they don't seriously repent. How many millions of mothers does it take to equal 60+ million abortions? That's tens of millions of murdered babies and tens of millions of their mothers going to hell. That should be the focus of the prolife movement. So killing what a few hundred, thousand abortionists to stop tens of millions of murders and tens of millions of misguided from going to hell? Sounds like less harm to me.

    Condition Four: I can't forsee tens of millions of Christians not supported saving tens of millions of babies and their mothers soul and the soul of the nation by doing this this small act of rebellion.

    Breaking into an abortion clinic and detaining the abortionist will just have the police respond and you will go jail and the abortionist will go right back to murdering babies and souls.

    Maiming him so he can no longer perform an abortion might work but with modern medicine certainly isn't a gaurantee.

    All other methods except killing just puts the guy trying to save lives and souls in jail and the abortionist back in the murder chamber.

    If that doesn't meet all the conditions and that's not morally permissible I don't see the charity.

    1. @anon3:19
      I must disagree. While I despise abortion with all my might, your analysis of justified rebellion is incorrect.

      Condition Two: It is even acknowledged by the Satanic Guttmacher Institute, that pro-lifers are winning (although they won't say so). Here are the facts:

      "The number of abortions fell by 196,000—a 19% decline from 1,058,000 abortions in 2011 to 862,000 abortions in 2017.

      The abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44) fell by 20%, from 16.9 in 2011 to 13.5 in 2017.

      The abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 100 pregnancies ending in either abortion or live birth) fell 13%, from 21.2 in 2011 to 18.4 in 2017.

      The question of what is behind these trends has important policy implications, and the 2011–2017 period warrants particular attention because it coincided with an unprecedented wave of new abortion restrictions. During that timeframe, 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions, with the vast majority of these measures having taken effect (that is, they were not struck down by a court)." (See They have the audacity to claim those restrictions were NOT the "main reason" but the manifest weight of the credible evidence (and their own lobbying against pro-lifers in state government) shows that it IS the main reason.

      You also conflate the Supreme Court in an election case with abortion cases. I think "Roe will go" in the nest 5 to 10 years. Since all legitimate means MUST be exhausted and ineffectual (and neither is true) the second condition is not met.

      Third Condition: You state, "I'm not sure how killing abortionists would cause greater evils." By alienating people in 39 states who are seeing things pro-life.

      Moreover, the very idea of the unborn going to Limbo backfires. More than one "Catholic" woman has tried to justify abortion by saying, "I can't raise a child now. If I have an abortion he will enjoy natural happiness in Limbo. If I have the baby, he will be miserable here and might go to Hell later in life."

      The mothers going to Hell is far from assured. Many women greatly regret their abortion and repent.

      Condition Four: You offer no proof that the majority of people want to overthrow the government--which is what justified rebellion is for---and it will result in giving the government an excuse to execute pro-lifers and restrict religious liberty. Most pro-lifers are anti-violence/killing.

      Three conditions remain unmet.


    2. That ease of contraception may be why the numbers are going down.

    3. @anon4:23
      I agree it's part of the reason, but not the main reason.


  5. Soviet Union USSR killed many people and heavily persecuted Catholics (Eastern + Roman Rite) yet no one hardly mentions that Satanic empire.
    Very odd...
    Great article + God bless -Andrew

    1. Andrew,
      Very true!

      God Bless,


    2. Really? No one mentions them?

    3. Pretty sure they're not ignored

    4. @anon6:27 & 6:30
      Andrew can speak for himself, but I took what he said to be hyperbolic. The Soviets are not mentioned nearly as much as the Nazis, who were evil--but not the the length and extent of the Communists in Russia.


    5. Understood, just didn't seem that way to me. Maybe it's just the difference in our social environment.

      For the second sentence, I'm in agreement. Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

  6. You're still left with 862,000 abortions for 2017 and how ever many more almost a million per year after that. Heroic work on the part of the people who reduced it but still far short. Or it can be reduced to near zero in a just rebellion.

    I'm not sure where I'm conflating anything with the Supreme Court as it's the Supreme Court is the reason why we have legal abortion trumping any States efforts to get rid of abortion. They made that right out of the penumbras and emanations of the "Constitution". States had laws against abortion and the Supreme Court blew them out the water. So if the states can make all the laws they want unless they actually rebel themselves against the court then abortion will continue. The Biden administration is currently looking at packing the court. If he does so then Roe ain't going.

    People are already alienated. And furthermore a rebellion is hardly ever done by the majority of the people. Including the American revolution there were many who wanted to stay out of it, and many who were happy to remain British. The rebels who gave us the abomination of that which is Roe certainly wasn't worried about alienating all of America and yet now more Americans happily go along with it because people follow the law. Including not taking out abortionists. And no pressure is put on the people who would happily make a buck murdering a baby. Just like they weren't concern about pushing gay marriage or now the tranny thing. Any yet more people are identifying as both because these rebels pushed it without a care of what the people think. We get to vote for some people who don't listen to us. And some people like Supreme Court Justices we don't get to vote for. And as they serve for life are unaccountable to us. So not sure what your solution is on that. Getting more justices? We've done that. Voting more? We've done that.

    Well no it wouldn't backfire because you should put the shame and the blame on the mother. You killed your baby. You are going to hell. Or if you kill your baby you will suffer in Hell for all eternity. Your child will be happy you will not be. Instead they're told it's ok. You did good for your baby. You can keep your career or keep partying. And you can go get forgiven. By all means try and save the baby that's the just thing to do but you have to tell these women the wrong they're doing and they're responsible for it. And they have to know that they will have eternal consequences.

    Hellfire & BrimstoneTM works, punishments work, shame works it's not to be malicious its used as a corrective.

    A rebellion doesn't necessarily mean just going straight to overthrowing the government especially if it's more powerful than you. And it doesn't mean it will be quick. Rebelling means well rebelling. And if you're going to rebel someone has to get the party started. Otherwise you have happening what happened at the capitol. Nothing was accomplished and thousands of people will be arrested and will rot in jail. One guy was beat up by the guards recently. Hasn't had a day in court but is being tortured. (More evidence for condition one.)

    A rebellion also isn't a democratic vote either. Why would you somehow need to have a majority of the people be in on it? If that was the case then voting should theoretically work. But as our system is designed doesn't. See earlier argument about the Supreme Court. The rebels start and the masses potentially follow. Our Lord and his Apostles certainly started small.

    1. @anon4:46
      You are not applying the principles to the situation. The fact that abortion is being greatly reduced is proof that the second condition: "All legal and peaceful means have been tried in vain to recall the ruler/government to a sense of duty." has NOT been met.

      You are also using hypotheticals. The Biden administration COULD pack the Supreme Court, but has not done so.

      The Supreme Court gave us abortion, but now with a solid pro-life majority, Roe could go, and you cannot base rebellion on hypotheticals of court packing. Most restrictions have been UPHELD. The fact that the Supreme Court did not take election cases has nothing to do with abortion cases. That is what you conflate.

      Yes, women should be told that their babies are murdered, but stress on Limbo should be avoided and they should seek Confession and amend their Lives (or convert as the case may be).

      Rebellion is for the whole government--that's Church teaching. It's not violence over an issue no matter how dire. Therefore, "A rebellion doesn't necessarily mean just going straight to overthrowing the government especially if it's more powerful than you." is not true.

      The fact that legal means are working--even though not at the ideal of zero abortions--means the second condition is not met.

      Our Lord and His Apostles didn't come for armed rebellion. "Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (St. Matthew 5:17).

      The conditions as set forth by the CHURCH remain unfulfilled.


  7. I think your all legal and peaceful means would need more clarification. If it literally means all then we're just wasting our time. There will always be one more thing. One would think that diminishing returns would eventually come into play. Meanwhile the babies keep dying and the souls keep burning.

    It's also a hypothetical that the Supreme Court could take an abortion case and make Roe go. And the election case is an example of the character of the court. If we're hoping they're going to do the right thing and actually do things that follow the dang constitution then its an example of don't get your hopes up. And everything isn't always not related. These supposed Catholics/conservatives if they actually wanted to have a better shot then actually taking the case and possibly keeping Trump in would have been way better for the prolife position. Trust me I hope you're right.

    Can you recommend some sources for me to read up on the Church's teaching of rebellion and what their view of it is? Because I don't see why rebellion should lead to an overthrow of a government if in the act of rebellion the government concedes to your demands. Then you save babies and mommas and you avoid all out civil war. Isn't that more just? It almost seems that war and rebellion are being conflated. If you're expecting the majority of the people to take up arms against the government and overthrow it outright that's a war. A civil war. Rebellion without an outright overthrow of the entire government has certainly been effective for groups like BLM or antifa.

    No but God did command the Israelites to genocide the Canaanites for their depravity of which was child sacrifice. Now you'll argue that that was a command from legitimate authority. But that's the whole point of this conversation now isn't it? Our earthly leadership has failed us. If it was worthy to retake the Holy Land in a crusade one would think it would be more worthy to lay down your life for the women and children that are destroyed daily. Millions yearly. But maybe that's just me.

    For the person who mentioned the USSR. I'm also glad that it is gone. It's been much better under Putin. Abortions have come down but unfortunately the abortions are still extremely high. Make sure you pray for them.

    Anyways you have given me food for thought. And I would like to learn more on rebellion if you can provide some sources. And you may very well be right. But I also fear it will mean a very long time with millions suffering. And I fear more that it leads to our destruction for all of the depravity we allow. Pray for me and all of us.

    1. @anon6:05
      I will definitely pray for you, and I ask you to do the same for me. A great place to start reading is my guest poster--A Simple Man--See his post:

      God Bless,


  8. Introibo (or Simple Man)
    I heard an argument in which was alluded that miscarriages are counted in abortion numbers. What is the reality of this?
    Please keep in mind that my question stems from a very brief conversation I had with two women who have had multiple miscarriages and wanted nothing more than to have children. This is not a discussion about them. They are people that I know and can further the discussion at a later date. I would just like to have some background I can go by without seemingly attacking their sufferings.
    I hope I have presented this correctly.

    1. James,
      In some statistics miscarriages are counted as "spontaneous abortion." They should not be talked about as such because it is needlessly hurtful. I hope I understood and answered your query.

      God Bless,


  9. Hi Introibo

    Has nothing to do with the above article but would like your comment on the following.

    I was told the other day about a young woman who attends the SSPX who married a Novus Ordo man is sending her children to a Novus Ordo school where they are required to attend the weekly school celebration of the Novus Ordo "Mass"I cannot believe how someone could do that.As her children get older,they will stop attend the True Mass and give the Faith away as I have seen before so many times.When their mom tells them to go to the SSPX,they will side with their dad and go to the local parish.Very sad.

    1. @anon6:14
      This shows exactly what is wrong with the whole "R&R mentality." I understand there are those who have no other Mass to attend and go to the SSPX. However, those who truly believe as the SSPX find themselves in situations like the one you describe. If Bergoglio is pope, then you necessarily can't object to anyone going to the Novus Bogus because it's "valid but not as good" as the True Mass. (This alone is enough to prove sedevacantism because Cain's gift was not accepted like Able, not because it was bad, but he didn't give God the best! The Church CANNOT give something not pure and holy to God). However, they don't get that far in their thinking.

      "Wanting a pope at any cost" leads them to recognize the Vatican II sect as the Catholic Church. Therefore, the heretical doctrine taught in that school (and false morality) cannot be the object of her rejection. Her husband will say, "If the pope approves of this it can't be wrong." And she really has nothing to say in response.

      The reason those poor kids will lose the Faith is because their mother doesn't truly have it either. She believes that the Church can be both holy in the SSPX and evil everywhere else. Unless she wakes up and rejects Bergoglio, most likely those kids will end up lost in this crazy world. "Sad" doesn't even begin to describe it.

      God Bless,


    2. The Papacy is the key to the Roman Catholic Church. If you give that to Bergoglio and the Modernists, you have given them all they need to one day destroy your faith and that of your family. You may be allowed your little side chapel of tradition in their Pantheon of gods, but you will have to accept some iota of heresy to keep that buffoon on the Chair of Peter.

    3. It's the Noahide heresy not modernism.
      Modernism is what led up to the current Noahide heresy.
      Read Nostra Aetate and you will understand.
      God bless -Andrew

  10. A Simple Man

    As you live in Colorado Springs,have you ever been to the chapel of Father Anthony Ward(once SSPX)?He has his own order called the servants of the Holy Family.

    You might be interested to know that in near by Black Forest,this is where the late Father Fraser Burton came from.He worked with the CMRI wayback btween 1968-1971 and was the priest who advised Francis Schuckardt to get ordained and consecrated by Bishop Daniel Q Brown(Old Catholic Orders)as their was no other Traditional bishops around who said the Chair of St Peter was vacant

    1. Was Bp.Schuckhardt Holy Orders a straight line of succession from the valid Utrecht line?

    2. I've read Fr.Ward uses a valid Catholic Bishop in TX for Holy Orders.
      (Consecrated 1972 by 3 Valid old rite Bishop's and surprisingly used
      Trad Rite of Consecration.)

    3. Andrew.Yes is was.You have to understand back then there was no Traditional Bishops around who held the See of Rome was vacant and Francis Schuckardt did the best in his view.

      Where did you get the info about Fr Wards Bishop?

    4. From what I gather the Utrecht line is just as valid as the other 3 traditional Bishop lines.
      No disrespect intended,just a question.
      God bless -A

  11. Introibo

    When do you hope to publish your article on the third state of life-The religious vocation?Your ones on the Single State and the Married state were excellent.

    we are interested to know your thoughts on the following question.The groups like the Daughters of Mary and the CMRI,their vows are private correct?If a young woman had a call to the religious life and entered and took her final vows would she be expected to hand over her life savings to the group?

    Keep up the excellent work.God bless

    1. @anon6:45
      I never gave it any thought to write on the religious life and the priestly vocation; but now I'll consider it! As to the Traditionalist nuns, you are correct that they cannot be more than private vows (binding under mortal sin of course).

      In my opinion, no young lady or young man should ever be required to give up their money in these times. The smart thing to do is to keep it in savings and never use it. Have a trusted family member given power of attorney over it. Should the order fold (God forbid) they have access to the money. They can also have a simple will stating that should they die, and there is no foul play suspected, then the order inherits the money. Let us learn from the 1950s what happens when any cleric is trusted above and beyond the ordinary way we trust. An honest cleric would have no problem with such an arrangement.

      God Bless,


  12. Hello My Friends
    Can you please comment on this?
    Thank you for your support.

    1. @anon2:09
      I'm really not sure what he is trying to say and therefore how to respond.


    2. Hello
      I want people to visit the link and comment on the art, the essay and answer a question i have.
      Thank you.