Link Not Under Any Circuмstances
by Thomas A. Droleskey
So many Catholics in the United States of America, entirely unaware of how they are influenced by the prevailing Americanist ethos of sentimentality and emotionalism, react with virulent anger at the least sign of criticism directed at themselves or their friends. It is nevertheless the case that it is never an "attack" to offer words of correction. We must love God and His Deposit of Faith more than we love any creature, and it is to shrink from performing the Spiritual Works of Mercy to refuse to offer public words of correction on matters of Faith and Morals when it is necessary to do so after all private entreaties have failed.
Permit me a brief opportunity to illustrate.
The priest who wrote the summary of the case concerning the child whose beating heart was dissected out of his body so that it could be transplanted into the body of a newborn baby whose parents had been advised by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen that such a transplantation was morally permissible as no true pope had spoken against heart transplants sent me a note yesterday after I sent some comments made by the leading expert against the profiteering medical-industry's manufactured myth of "brain death" concerning the priest's summary and accompanying article. The priest, as will be demonstrated in this article, deferred to the medical expertise of Dr. Byrne, something that is a rare example of humility not found too frequently in the rubber room of sedevacantism, where acme or do-it-yourself theology takes the place of actual Catholic teaching in a lot of instances.
The priest informed me that he had offered the Requiem Mass for Albert F. "Bud" Droleskey on June 25, 1991, in Utica, New York. Bud Droleskey was a first cousin of my late father, Albert Henry Martin Droleskey, who died on September 5, 1992. Bud and his wife Irene were pioneering traditional Catholics in the Utica area. I was not ready, however, to listen to what they had to tell me on November 25, 1976 (which was Thanksgiving day that year and the day after my twenty-fifth birthday), about the true state of the Church Militant on earth. What? Paul VI was part of a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic-Communist plot to destroy the Church? You can't be serious? Well, Bud and Irene were quite correct. Although I was six months away from securing my doctorate and teaching full-time at Mohawk Valley Community College, I had a whole lot to learn. I was very blind.
It was nevertheless the case that Bud and Irene planted seeds in the soul of a young man who was not ready to accept the truths that they told me. I did listen, though. And I remember to this very day what they told me. They were correct. I was not.
Criticism is sometimes very difficult to take. Sometimes it is just and well-deserved while at other times it is unjust, at least according to human judgments, recognizing that each chastisement we receive is from the loving hand of God to strip us more and more of our disordered self-love and to attempt to beat our pride out of us so that we might bend to His Holy Will more fully and thank Him for whatever few gifts that we have been given and for the opportunity embrace our crosses as the means of our very sanctification and salvation.
There was a time when a student in a political science class of mine at a formerly Catholic college was very upset that I was teaching my subject matter as a Catholic, mentioning such things as Original and Actual Sin and the necessity of conforming public policy to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls and thus of the entirety of social order. This was not supposed to be done in a college that had taken down its Crucifixes over two decades before in order to receive grant monies from the Federal and state governments. As is the case with almost all of the formerly Catholic colleges in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries, this institution had become thoroughly secularized.
The student complained to the chairman of my department who, along with administration officials, were already upset with me for having addressed a student rally organized to protest a proposal to eliminate several liberal arts major fields in order to focus the college's curriculum more in the direction of a business or technical school. I indicated to those students that it was no accident that the college had suffered a decline in enrollment in the previous decade as it had taken down the very instrument with which its patron saint had performed many miracles. That did not sit well with the administrators, who jumped at the opportunity offered them by the student's complaint to refuse to tender me a contract for the succeeding academic year. I was informed by my chairman about this decision at a luncheon that was more or less moderated by a colleague who knew the news that I would receive. The colleague absented himself discreetly, whereupon I was given the news of the non-renewal of my teaching contract. "You just don't stick to the subject matter," the chairman told me.
My response was that one must incorporate the Faith into the teaching of political science and history. Father Denis Fahey, for example, wrote the following in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, about how we are to study true history, which is precondition for teaching political science:
History is concerned with individual and contingent facts. In order to discern the supreme causes and laws of the events which historians narrate, we must stand out from, and place ourselves above these events. To do this with certainty one should, of course, be enlightened by Him Who holds all things in the hollow of His hand. Unaided human reason cannot even attempt to give an account of the supreme interests at stake in the world, for the world, as it is historically, these interests are supernatural.
Human reason strengthened by faith, that is, by the acceptance of the information God has given us about the world through His Son and through the Society founded by Him, can attempt to give this account, though with a lively consciousness of its limitations. It is only when we shall be in possession of the Beatific Vision that the full beauty of the Divine Plan which is being worked out in the world will be visible to us. Until then, we can only make an imperfect attempt at what be, not the philosophy, but the theology of history. The theologian who has the Catholic Faith is in touch with the full reality of the world, and can therefore undertake to show, however feebly and imperfectly, the interplay of the supreme realities of life.
The philosopher, as such, knows nothing about the reality of the divine life of Grace, which we lost by the Fall of our First Parents, and nothing of the Mystical Body of Christ through which we receive back that life. The philosophy of history, if it is to be true philosophy, that is, knowledge by supreme causes, must therefore be rather the theology of history. Yet how few, even among those who have the Catholic Faith, think of turning to the instructions and warnings issued by the representatives of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, when they wish to ascertain the root causes of the present chaotic condition of the world! (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
What do I keep telling you about root causes?
Well, I accepted the news of my being non-tendered another teaching contract at this institution as coming from God, although I had a lot more to learn about the Church's Social Teaching and I had to divest myself of humorous and satirical asides in classroom lectures that were influenced by the double-entendre humor of the world. Yes, I know full well how naturalism can influence one's life, which is why my discussions of it on this site come with a great deal of personal experience of having been immersed into various, although not all, aspects of the world, shaped as I was in a very naturalistic home environment back in the 1950s and 1960s. I have much for which to make reparation before I die, which is why I could accept what was a de facto firing as coming from the hand of God.
God is merciful to terrible, erring sinners such as this writer. As His Divine Providence would have it, the student whose complaint against me was the proximate cause of my dismissal came to class one day about two months later, bringing me a red rose. She said to me before class, "I have made a terrible mistake. Can you forgive me?" I reminded her that we are to forgive others as we are forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. I also said that her complaint simply provided the administrators with an excuse to fulfill what one of those officials had said after I had addressed the students five months before, "He won't be back here next year." Nothing anyone does to us or says about us is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer during His Passion and Death and that brought such untold suffering within the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.
Criticism based in a stated desire to provide evidence as to the erroneous nature of a position or positions taken on (or understanding of) a particular issue by others is not an "attack," admitting, of course, that the use of. the ad hominem (that is, to argue against the person rather than his position or knowledge of facts and principles) detracts from the credibility of one's work. One may state that a person or persons are ignorant of a particular point or fact. That is not an attack, but merely a statement of fact. I was ignorant of the state of the Church for a long time. Far too long.
Although I had attempted to preface Just Another Day In The Rubber Room of Traditionalism with a set of remarks asking readers to bring dispassion and detachment to bear on the information that was to be provided, some, of course, have construed the article as an "attack" on the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. It was not.
As I indicated at the beginning of that article, published three days ago, the insularity of the microscopically small world of sedevacantism has shielded some clergy and members of the laity from having any exposure to the give-and-take on issues that has occurred throughout the history of Holy Mother Church. Saint Jerome, for example, was not exactly a wilting wallflower when writing about his critics--and he did use the ad hominem argument quite a bit to justly characterize the stupidity and/or dishonesty of his opponents. The disputants during the Great Western Schism went after each other with a vengeance. The current conflicts, although very regrettable, are really nothing new in the history of the Church. How many of you have conflicts within your own families concerning the state of the Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal? Well, it should stand to reason that there are going to be times when differences occur that require a degree of clarification for the sake of truth and out of true charity for the good of all involved.
This is one of those times.
Words Really Do Matter
Some people have written to say that the use of the phrase "Natural Family Planning," which refers to an ideological slogan that flows from the personalist philosophy of the ends of Holy Matrimony found in Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, and to nothing taught by the Catholic Church at any time in her history, is not that important as long as there is adherence to the true teaching of Holy Mother Church concerning the use of the privileges proper to the married state at times when the conception of a child is unlikely.
Yes, words really do matter. Precision of words really has to matter to a teacher, especially to one who is teaching future priests and who is giving pastoral advice to others.
Mrs. Randy Engel, who is one of the world's leading experts in matters pertaining to family and marriage and who took great pains to review each of the three articles on this subject that were published on this site recently (Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change), provided me with a sobering reminder that two simple words, "family planning," have wrought great evils in the midst of the world:
At some future point when you revisit the subject you may wish to stress the fact that most abortions are carried out as a method of “family planning” that is, women do not want to have this particular child born at this particular time. Since the principle of “fp’ is that a woman has the “right” to have children only when she wants them, once she has conceived, the only two solutions are birth or death by abortion.
Many of us have fallen into the use of the language of the devil in our lives as a result of the fact that we live in a world shaped by the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the various, multifaceted and interrelated forces of naturalism that can be called ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry.
Indeed, I referred to "Natural Family Planning" in my "conservative" days, doing so also in my indulterer days in the 1990. I did so in a foolish attempt to defend the "orthodoxy" of Humanae Vitae because "Pope" Paul VI had upheld the Catholic teaching in opposition to contraception. While I did not quite say "it's better 'NFP' than contraception" and was queasy about the expansive reasons for its use, I did use the term and sought to justify the use of the methods. I was wrong.
There were several occasions when questioners grilled me on this after talks in the 1990s and as late as early-2001. These questioners, far from being on the "attack" against me, got me to re-read Humanae Vitae again, prompting me to revisit the issue and thus to begin to recognize it as the ideology that it was. The Achilles' Heel of my position at that time was that I was trying to find some way to maintain the legitimacy of the "pontificate" of Paul VI while admitting that he had taught error, which is why I was very interested in a superb article written by Mr. John Galvin in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture in early-2002 on the matter (and Mr. Galvin was a very tough critic of the first draft of Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae that I submitted to him for his review, and he was absolutely correct.) My first article critical of "NFP" was published in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos in late-2001, aided by the advice given me by a then conciliar presbyter who later left the conciliar structures to join the Society of Saint Pius X.
One proposing to teach on matters of moral theology has to use careful precision of words. This is not something extraordinary as the sloppy, careless or thoughtless adoption of a phrase popularized by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is indicative of a willingness to accept uncritically the slogans of the day, believing that they reflect Catholic teaching. One cannot be angry with seminary students who have understood this to be the case. Truth matters, and truth in this instance is that the phrase "natural family planning" is a tool of the adversary to condition believing Catholics into accepting the concept of "family planning" as a natural and normal part of married life.
This issue is not something theoretical. Nothing other than the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage is at stake. The very existence of souls who are meant to give honor and glory to God here in this life as members of His true Church and to be with Him for all eternity in Heaven is at stake. Words matter. The words "Natural Family Planning," which have been used interchangeably with rhythm by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas and many of the priests in the Congregation of Mary of Immaculate Queen, convey, if only entirely unintentionally, the belief that parents can "plan" a family according to their circuмstances.
As noted in my previous articles on this subject, human beings are prone to look for the easy way out. Young people today have been brought up in an ethos of "family planning" and self-indulgence. It was never the mind of Pope Pius XII that engaged couples be given instruction in various natural methods of avoiding the conception of children, although, as demonstrated in Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change, there were theologians in the 1950s who believed that the indiscriminate, unrestricted practice of rhythm was morally justified. The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church cannot do this. Those seeking to defend or minimize this use of words must, therefore, use the same illogic that "resist but recognize" Catholics attempt to bring to bear when seeking to defend or minimize Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict's abuse of words ("Well, he really didn't mean to deny the Resurrection or the Ascension. He doesn't really mean to violate the First Commandment when he esteems the symbols of false religions and claims that adherents of those sects can "build" the "better" world"). It is thus as irresponsible and indefensible for Catholics who accept the true state of Holy Mother Church to try to indemnify, that is, to hold harmless, sedevacantist clergy who fall into serious mistakes of speech and thought as it is for those in the "resist but recognize" camp to try to clothe their emperor in the mantle of Catholicism.
While Bishop Pivarunas has given his assurances to several people that he does teach what the Church teaches, there is evidence that a very liberal interpretation of that teaching prevails in at least some CMRI venues.
To wit, my wife Sharon informs me that she, a pagan at the time who was taking instructions in the Faith, was rather repulsed to hear married women talking openly after Holy Mass now and again about what they called "Natural Family Planning" methods as they spoke in the most immodest terms imaginable about matters of personal privacy that must never be uttered publicly. Would Louis and Zelie Martin have spoken this way after Holy Mass? Would the Cure of Ars, Saint John Mary Vianney, or Padre Pio have countenanced such talk? If the teaching of Pope Pius XII is being adhered to within the CMRI, there must be a number of couples who fall within the grave circuмstances that he outlined in his October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, to say nothing of speaking publicly in a manner that is unbecoming to the Holy Purity and, in the case of women, demeaning of the true feminine bearing with which they are to comport themselves after the model of true femininity, Our Lady herself.
This all stems from the misuse of language and a refusal to see that there is a disconnect between saying one rejects the legitimacy of the conciliar "popes" while one practices what they teach and adopts their very revolutionary language that was itself shaped by the anti-life, anti-family forces of population control at work in the world-at-large. What's the point of rejecting the legitimacy of the conciliar "popes" and the conciliar church if one believes and speaks as do the conciliar revolutionaries? The Novus Ordo revolution is all about making concessions to the world. How can it be that way in any sedevacantist venue on matters of marriage and family or on maters of modesty of dress and decency of speech?
Consider once again the wisdom contained in the late Monsignor George A. Kelley's The Catholic Marriage Manual:
If the necessary conditions are not met in a particular case, would a couple commit sin in practicing periodic continence? And if it is sinful, how serious is the sin? Writing in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Father Goodwine has answered:
"If any one of the required conditions (that the parties be willing to abstain, that they be able to abstain without proximate danger of serious sin, and that they have a justifying reason) is not met, recourse to periodic continence will be sinful.
"In certain cases it may even be seriously sinful,"For instance, if the first condition is not verified and the practice of periodic continence is insisted on by the partner against the reasonable objections of the other, a sin of injustice would be committed. In such circuмstances one partner would be unjustly depriving the other of his right to the marriage act during the fertile periods. So also, if the second condition is not met and the practice of periodic continence becomes a proximate occasion of sins against chastity, there would be serious sin. The otherwise permissible practice of periodic continence becomes seriously wrong when it leads to grave danger of other mortal sins. Similarly there would be serious sin if the practice involves a proximate danger of divorce or breakup of the marriage, or of other sins against the obligations of married life."
Large families the Christian ideal: Pope Pius XII has described large families as "those blessed by God, beloved by the Church and considered by it as one of its most precious treasures."
In an address to the Association of Large Families of Rome and Italy, His Holiness restated a truth that is sometimes forgotten that "faith in God supplies parents with the strength necessary to face the sacrifices and renunciations required for the rearing of children; Christian principles guide and lighten the difficult task of education; the Christian spirit of love watches over the family's order and tranquillity while it dispenses, almost drawing upon nature itself, the intimate family joys common to parents, children and brothers. . . . "But God also visits large families with His providence, to which the parents, especially poor ones, give an open testimony by placing in it their entire trust when human efforts are not sufficient. It is a trust well founded, and not in vain . . . God does not deny the means to live to those He calls to life."
In this connection, the following comments by Father Goodwine should be carefully considered.
"There is a tendency to limit the discussion of periodic continence to questions of strict morality, to concentrate almost exclusively on right and wrong, to attempt to draw the line between what may and what may not be done without committing sin," Father Goodwine states. "All too often such discussions lose sight of the Christian ideal of family life. Hardly ever do we hear any mention of the ideal of parenthood or of family life as the ideal type of married life.
"God instituted marriage as the means for the propagation of the race. The fruitful marriage, therefore, and not the sterile marriage, is the marriage that falls in best with God's plan. Having children is the primary goal of marriage. The family, therefore, consisting of father, mother and children is the ideal for the Christian.
"There is something amiss when a couple wishes to marry, yet does not want to have any children; or determines to postpone having children for one, two or more years; or intends to have only three or four or six children but no more. A priest friend of mine likens such people to a young man seeking ordination to the priesthood who makes the stipulation that he will never have to say Mass, administer the sacraments, preach, or take duty. Such a young man would be seeking to avoid the very purposes for which men are ordained to the priesthood. So, too, the married couple who, without sufficient reason, seek to avoid children, fail to fulfill their purpose in life. Even the couple who has a sufficient reason for practicing rhythm can be counseled to do more than is required by duty; to strive deliberately and consciously after the ideal.
"The present Holy Father has said: It is one of the fundamental demands of right moral order that a sincere inner acceptance of the office and duties (of parenthood) correspond to the use of conjugal rights.' There must then be a willingness on the part of married persons and on the part of couples entering marriage to 'serve' motherhood and fatherhood a willingness to become parents. Perhaps more attention should be paid to what Dr. John Kane, of Notre Dame, calls the 'almost unanimous conclusion' of sociological studies on marital happiness: 'Happiness in marriage is not associated with the presence or absence of children in the family, but with a strong desire to have children. (Text as found in Monsignor George Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, Random House, 1958, pp.58- 60.)
Monsignor Kelly put it very concisely in this short paragraph:
Holy Father's statement on rhythm: Who may practice the rhythm method? A clear answer was given by Pope Pius XII in 1951 in an address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives. His Holiness pointed out that married couples are obliged to procreate and to help conserve the human race. In the Pontiffs words: "Matrimony obliges to a state of life which, while carrying with it certain rights, also imposes a fulfillment of positive work connected with that state of life." This means that rhythm is not to be used indiscriminately. The small-family or no-family state of mind is not necessarily good simply because contraceptives are not used. (Monsignor George A. Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, published by Random House in 1958, pp. 55-56.)
The use of periodic marital abstinence is the exception, not the rule in married life, and the use of the phrase "Natural Family Planning" gives the logical impression that the reverse is true. Anyone who denies that this is the case is not thinking clearly and/or is seeking to minimize something that is far more than a mere slip of the tongue or a thoughtless remark. Imprecision of speech demonstrates imprecision of thought. Imprecision of thought on matters touching upon Faith and Morals can convey the exact opposite of what Holy Mother Church teaches, no matter the good intentions of those who use phrases thoughtlessly.
As noted earlier, each of us has been influenced by the ways of the world, the flesh and the devil even though we have never defected from a single article of the Catholic Faith. It takes time and grace to divest oneself of these nefarious influences as one seeks to do reparation as the consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary to make reparation for our sins in this regard. It takes time to study and research. And it takes humility to admit and then to abjure the errors of his ways.
Father Louis Campbell, who was ordained to the priesthood for the Order of Saint Augustine on September 3, 1961, the Feast of Pope Saint Pius X, is a very well-trained priest and scholar. He taught for many years, teaching for five years at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter before leaving the conciliar structures in 2001. Father Campbell is a seeker of truth, one who does not cursorily review a subject or who remains fixed in a given position or belief if it is proven to be erroneous.
Indeed, Father Campbell told us at dinner on Tuesday, December 19, 2006, in Sugar Land, Texas, about ten miles away from Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, that he was able to think clearly about issues for the first time after leaving the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. It is a very difficult exercise to seek to reconcile the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church with that of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which teaches numerous propositions that have been condemned by Holy Mother Church. The residue of the conciliar confusion, however, can continue to cloud one's thinking, something that Father Campbell admitted very humbly to me after he had taken the time to review Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae:
You have done us all a great service in demonstrating very clearly that we must return to the sound teachings of Pope Pius XII concerning the true ends of marriage. The deception and confusion caused by the Margaret Sangers and the false teachers of the ‘Vatican II’ Revolution have taken their toll, even among those who claim to hold to the Church’s traditional teachings. We have yet to see the full consequences of their evil plotting.
The countries of Europe have sealed their doom because of the virtually universal use of contraception and ‘family planning’ in the European countries. I have read that their birthrates have declined beyond the point of no return, so that they will be unable to sustain their languages and cultures, and such vestiges of Christianity that still remain. Strangers speaking different languages, and of a culture and religion foreign to Europe are already invading, and there will be a violent struggle. Unless God sees fit to intervene European civilization is about to fall. The Vatican and many beloved Christian churches and shrines of Europe will be destroyed.
Unfortunately, we must say the same for the United States and Canada. They will not be able to remain as they are. There will be invasions, violence and bƖσσdshɛd, and our beloved countries will never be the same again. May God protect us!
I have to admit that I have not totally escaped the general confusion that still affects the whole Novus Ordo scene. I was a part of it, so I took for granted much of its erroneous thinking and teaching. But, thanks be to God, I returned to the Traditional Latin Mass, or at least a facsimile of in the Fraternity of St. Peter for five years, until ten years ago I was invited down to St. Jude’s Shrine. And I have come back to the more traditional teachings of the true Church concerning marriage. When I prepare young couples for marriage I do teach them that God decides how few or how many children they will have, as well as whatever else is necessary for their marriage.
Father Campbell took the time to read and to digest information. He did NOT respond defensively, saying, "I've been a priest for fifty years. What do you, a layman, know about anything?" Blessed with a true priestly bearing and the dignity befitting a Catholic priest, Father Campbell was, having been academically trained, able to assess information presented in front of him.
Yes, you see, it's not so bad to admit that one has fallen into an abuse of language that has conveyed something other than what the Catholic Church teaches. Indeed, it is of the essence of intellectual honesty to do so. It is not, therefore, to beat up on Bishop Pivarunas or anyone else in the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen to invite them to admit their errors in this regard and to recognize that "family planning," natural or otherwise, has no place in the teaching of the Catholic Church. There are no circuмstances that justify any kind of "family planning," admitting that there may be cases where periodic marital abstinence is morally justified.
Yes, this seemingly "minor" point is quite important when one considers his responsibility to speak to the truth without making any concessions at all, even inadvertently, to the ways of the world and to the ways of a false religious sect that has made its accommodations with the prevailing spirit and ethos of Modernity.
There can be no compromises or concessions on such matters. It is not to be an "idealist," as a priest in the CMRI once said to me about my positions on matters of the incompatibility of popular culture with the Holy Faith, to insist on no compromises with the revolutions abroad in the world and that in the conciliar sect. It is to be, despite one's own sins and faults and failings, a Catholic. Nothing more. Nothing less.
No Killing of Human Beings Under Any Circuмstances
As noted two days ago in Just Another Day In The Rubber Room of Traditionalism, the adoption of the language of the conciliar revolution by some within the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen places it in perfect alignment with the conciliar sect's belief that there is such a thing as "brain death" and that vital organ transplantation is thus permissible as a matter of moral principle.
There is no such thing as "brain death." This is a manufactured myth of the medical industry to make money off of the selling of body parts that are of no use at all for transplantation unless they are taking from a living human being. There is so much scientific evidence concerning the myth of "brain death" today that it is completely irresponsible for any priest, no matter how long he has been ordained, to insist that there is such a thing. Bishop Pivarunas told me personally in a telephone conversation in December of 2007 that he has been told by his brother, a medical doctor, that there is such a thing as brain death. He was not interested in speaking with Dr. Paul Byrne to learn that his brother is tragically mistaken.
Dr. Paul Byrne, one of the foremost experts in the world today on the myth that is "brain death," has held conferences in Rome to convince Vatican "cardinals," of all people, that there is no such thing as "brain death" despite what the conciliar "popes" and their "experts" have taught. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict/XVI has signed up to be an "organ donor." How is it possible that anyone who rejects his legitimacy as a Successor of Saint Peter can be in perfect alignment with him on the matter of a direct, intentional violation of the Fifth Commandment's prohibition against willful murder of innocent human beings?
The priest who wrote the article in 1998 concerning the dissection of the beating heart that belonged to Baby Trevor was humble enough to defer to Dr. Byrne's medical expertise on the matter, accepting corrections made to his article by Dr. Byrne that are useful for the readers of this site, few in number though you may be, to consider. Dr. Byrne's observations are noted in blue for easy referencing:
On April 17, 1998 a newborn baby named Trevor was murdered by the surgeons who removed his heart to give it to another newborn baby. Bishop Pivarunas and the priests of the CMRI (i.e., the Mt. St. Michael group) were consulted by the [baby's] family. Pivarunas & the CMRI clergy not only failed to oppose this evil act but they indeed gave their approval to this horrible deed. The doctors who removed the heart from little Trevor are guilty of willful murder. The advice given by the clergy of the Mt. St. Michael group was intrinsically evil.
[The baby's parents] knew before the birth of their daughter that he had a heart defect and would certainly not survive without a heart transplant. Their doctor (clearly seeking publicity) arranged with CBS to docuмent this story (and to cover the expenses). So it was that the CBS (now-canceled) news program ‘The Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel’ aired an hour-long program on July 8, 1998 featuring the [parents] and Fr. Radecki.
It was in February of 1998 that Fr. Cordova traveled to Spokane and there with Pivarunas and his cohorts held a ‘Council Meeting’ to discuss this issue. The Pivarunas ‘Council’ decided that the heart transplant was acceptable [Dr. Byrne observation: IT IS ALWAYS A BEATING HEART THAT IS VIVISECTIONED OUT OF A LIVING PERSON, AFTER WHICH THE ONE FROM WHOM THE HEART WAS STOLEN IS THEN DEAD] and assured the family that they could proceed with the plans for the transplant to take place as soon as the baby was born.
[The baby's parents] thus relocated to Loma Linda, California (the hospital that ‘specializes’ in heart transplants for children -- you may recall that it was at Loma Linda that they did the unsuccessful baboon heart to human baby transplant a number of years ago). [A sister of the baby's father] called and spoke with Fr. Cordova who assured her the Bishop Pivarunas and the ‘Council’ had approved this procedure. When she asked for an explanation she was told that Pope Pius XII had approved the transplanting of human cornea (see reference below)!
[Dr. Byrne observation: THE CORNEA CAN BE TAKEN FOR TRANSPLANTATION HOURS AFTER CIRCULATION AND RESPIRATION HAVE CEASED. The cornea is a tissue and not an organ. POPE PIUS XII CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT”THE TRANSFER OF A TISSUE OR OF AN ORGAN FROM A CORPSE TO A LIVING PERSON IS NOT A TRANSFER FROM MAN TO MAN; THE CORPSE WAS A MAN BUT IS ONE NO LONGER.”
[I ADD THIS TEACHING IS AS TRUE AND ACCURATE AS IT WAS IN 1956. PLEASE SEE RENEWAMERICA.COM FOR MY RECENT WRITINGS. A CORPSE OR A CADAVER IS A DEAD BODY. WE HAVE A LIVING BODY. THE LIVING BODY CHANGES TO A DEAD BODY AT TRUE DEATH WHICH IS THE SEPARATION OF THE SOUL FROM THE BODY.] On April 6, 1998 [the baby] was born. On April 17, 1998 a little baby named Trevor was murdered (with the approval of Pivarunas the CMRI clergy) and his heart was given to [the baby of the parishioners of the CMRI]
Here are some references:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the only certitude of death is the general putrefaction of the body. (Medical Ethics — Loyola University Press - 1956 and which bears the ‘Imprimatur’ and the ‘Nihil Obstat’ by Edwin F. Healy, S.J. — page 382)
[Dr. Byrne observation: THE FOUL ODOR THAT ACCOMPANIES PUTRFACTION IS IDENTICAL FOR NIGHT CRAWLERS, A PRAYING MANTHUS AND THE DEAD HUMAN BODY. (PERSONAL EXPERINCES)]
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:
“It is interesting to note that recent investigations have made it plain that it is no longer possible to determine even within a considerable margin the precise moment of death. “ [The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. IV page 662]
Is this not precisely because the immortal soul animates the human body and thus human life ends when the immortal soul is separated from the human body. Is not this then the only true Catholic definition of (real) death?
You may find it interesting to note that Dr. Norman Fost, a well known ethicist and professor at Princeton University, states (as quoted in a recent article published in the New York Times): “The notion of brain death , Dr. Fost said was concocted about twenty years ago by medical specialists who wanted to increase the supply of organs for transplants.”
[Dr. Byrne observation: TRUE AND ACCURATE!]
In the February 1998 edition of The Catholic World Report in an article entitled: ‘Not Quite Dead?’ by Monica Seeley one reads: “The term “brain death” entered common usage in the medical world at approximately the same time that new technology made possible the first transplants of vital organs. In 1968 the ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death’ stated: “…the report argued that “obsolete” criteria for the determination of death were aggravating the shortage of organs available for transplant.…” In this same article Dr. Christopher DeGiorgio, an associate professor of neurology and neurological surgery admits that the term ‘brain death’ is a misnomer. “From a purely metaphysical point of view, one can still argue that as long as the heart is beating, you have a human being.”
Again, in this same article, Dr. Paul Byrne, a pediatrician and neonatologist states: “To refer to someone who is in an intensive care unit on a ventilator, whose heart is beating and who has blood pressure and other findings that we identify with being alive as a cadaver, is simply not the truth.” Moreover, surgeons have observed that ‘brain-dead’ patients frequently react strongly to surgical incision at the time of organ procurement, with a rapidly increasing heart rate and a dramatic rise in blood pressure. Because of these signs of distress, donors are sometimes anesthetized during organ retrieval. One must ask, what purpose would anesthesia serve for a corpse? Dr. Byrne brings the argument to its logical conclusion by stating that it is impossible to remove vital organs from a corpse and successfully use those organs for transplant. If brain-dead patients were actually dead by classical criteria, the lack of oxygen would quickly cause their organs to deteriorate. “The present state of the art for these vital organs is such that they have to come from someone who is alive. It takes about an hour of operating to get the heart out during which time the heart has to be living and many other organs and systems of the body are functioning.…”
“Injustice is done not only by destroying the life of a human being, but also by harming him in his rights to bodily integrity or well-being.” [Moral Theology — Volume II McHugh & Callan 1958]
“In general, any act which injures or impairs bodily integrity is called mutilation. … is any cutting off, or some equivalent action, through which an organic function or a distinct use of a member is suppressed…” [Moral Theology — Volume II McHugh & Callan 1958]
“The basic principle governing the morality of mutilation is: Man is not the master of his own life, but only the custodian. Accordingly, neither is he the master of his own body. Thus, Pope Pius XII speaking of the ‘Surgeons Noble Vocation’ declared: “God alone is the Lord of the life and integrity of man, Lord of his members, his organs, his potencies particularly of those which make him an associate in the work of creation. Neither parents, nor spouse, nor the individual in question may dispose of them at will.” [Moral Theology — Volume II McHugh & Callan 1958]
The problem of mutilation involved in organ transplantation for the benefit of a neighbour is highly controverted at the present time. Pope Pius XII discussed the legality of corneal transplants from the dead to the living but he did not touch the matter of transplants from living bodies. [Moral Theology — Volume II McHugh & Callan 1958]
[Dr. Byrne observation: NOT TRUE OR ACCURATE. PIUS XII STATED: “THE PHYSICAL ORGANISM OF ‘THE MAN’ IS ONE COMPLETE WHOLE IN ITS BEING. The members are parts united and bound together in their physical essence. They are so absorbed by the whole that they possess no independence. They exist only for the sake of the total organism and have no other end than that of the total organism.”
[I ADD: EVERY ORGAN THAT IS TRANSPLANTED MUST BE HEALTHY. IT COMES FROM A LIVING PERSON. If it is heart the donor is killed; if it is a kidney the donor is weaker (or dead.)
The CMRI made a major error in this regard. A major error. There is no connection between a corneal transplant and a heart transplant. None whatsoever. They are in defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law that were defended so ably by our last true pope, Pope Pius XII.
This point needs to be clarified in some detail.
The following is an accurate description of Bishop Pivarunas's position on "brain death," taken from his own words in a letter to a parishioner dated February 7, 2001:
In response to your question, "Do you and the CMRI approve of "heart transplants"?, I answer that the CMRI and I have neither approved or condemned of heart transplants. Although there are opinions for and against the procedure, only a true pope can make an authoritative decision on this issue. The crux of this matter is the definition of death. There are many traditional Catholic physicians who support the "brain death" for death.
Pope Pius XII declared, "It is in the physicians' domain . . . to give a clear and precise definition of 'death' and of the 'moment of death' for a patient for a patient who dies without gaining consciousness . . . As to the pronouncement of death in certain particular cases, the answer cannot be inferred from religious and moral principles and consequently, it is an aspect lying outside the competence of the Church." [Acts of the Apostolic See 45 (1957 1027-1033.]
There have been individual cases in which, in my opinion, organ-donors were certainly dead. An example was from the Loma Linda hospital in California in which a 12-year old girl was decapitated in an automobile accident. With her head severed from her body and with most of the blood lost, I do not believe that there was any doubt of her death upon arrival at the hospital and the subsequent removal of her organs.
In the particular case of the [baby in question], the donor-baby died by suffocation, having been drowned for over an hour in the amniotic fluid of his mother's ruptured uterus. [The parents of the recipient baby] were convinced that that hear transplants based on the "brain dead" criteria were lawful. They made the decision, not the CMRI. CMRI and I are not in a position to approve heart transplants; however, neither are we able to forbid those who are convinced of the "brain dead" criteria and the morality of organ transplants. The majority of Catholic physicians who are very much pro-life also support the concept of "brain dead" and organ transplants.
This one letter explains why there is a need for Saint Athanasius Seminary.
First, the clergy of the CMRI suffer from a Protestant mentality that requires everything about Faith and Morals to be "written down" in order to have a foundation to act. As can be seen from the letter above, Bishop Pivarunas contended that the CMRI can take no position for or against heart transplantation as no true pope has pronounced on the matter.
This is erroneous. We are supposed to use our reason, informed by the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, to apply principles in concrete circuмstances. Not everything is "written down" in those old ethics books that Bishop Pivarunas has memorized so well. Not everything is to be found in a papal allocution or encyclical letter. We must reason to conclusions based on right principles. This is basic Catholicism.
Pope Pius XII presumed that physicians would make decisions based on the truth, not engage in utilitarianism to redefine when bodily death occurs in order to create a money-making industry for the harvesting of organs. One must look at the actual circuмstances as they are. Reality was not frozen in place on October 9, 1958, when Pope Pius XII died. Our last true Holy Father could presume that physicians would be servants of truth. How can any reasonable person contend that the medical industry has not created a vast industry of body-snatching that has resulted in the murders of countless numbers of people?
The evidence on the myth of "brain death" is so vast, so widespread, so irrefutable that even the New England Journal of Medicine published an article three years ago to state that this was the case. The authors of the article, however, concluded that this was no impedient to taking vital organs, including a heart, from living human beings as ethicists could simply change the "dead donor" rule as "brain death" patients are truly dead, meaning, of course, that doctors should feel free to take vital organs at will as long as relatives or some other authorized individual give their "consent" to this dissection:
BOSTON, August 14, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an article that is sure to rock the world of organ donation, the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has published an article which backs up the objections of various pro-life groups, as well as some scientists and physicians, to certain types of organ donation which involve the removal of vital organs from patients believed to be dead. The problem, say the authors of the NEJM article, is that in many cases these patients may not be dead at all.
Key experts in the medical field have, since its inception, considered the 1968 invention of ‘brain death’ and the more recent criteria of ‘cardiac death’ as unsupportable criteria for true death. If it is true, however, that brain death and cardiac death are invalid as criteria for true death, it would make morally illicit vital organ donation, since such donation would in some cases result directly in the killing of the donor for the purpose of harvesting his organs.
The two authors of the article in the NEJM, both proponents of organ donation, argue that "as an ethical requirement for organ donation, the dead donor rule has required unnecessary and unsupportable revisions of the definition of death."
The article was co-authored by Dr. Robert D. Truog, a professor of medical ethics and anesthesia (pediatrics) in the Departments of Anesthesia and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Division of Critical Care Medicine at Children’s Hospital Boston and Dr. Franklin G. Miller, a faculty member in the Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
The many cases hitting the media of patients pronounced ‘brain dead’ and living to tell their stories have already led the public to question the notion of ‘brain death’. A recent case in France where a patient revived on the operating table as surgeons were about to remove his organs, is only the latest in a string of such events. (see:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061308.html )
Troug and Miller, after admitting that the scientific literature does not support the criteria for ‘brain death’ and ‘cardiac death’ as being real death, suggest instead that ethicists should simply remove the requirement for dead donors. "The uncomfortable conclusion to be drawn from this literature is that although it may be perfectly ethical to remove vital organs for transplantation from patients who satisfy the diagnostic criteria of brain death, the reason it is ethical cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead," they write.
Similarly they note that with ‘cardiac death’, "although it may be ethical to remove vital organs from these patients, we believe that the reason it is ethical cannot convincingly be that the donors are dead." Troug and Miller suggest that, rather than insisting on dead donors, "ethical requirements of organ donation" should be looked at "in terms of valid informed consent under the limited conditions of devastating neurologic injury." (New England Journal of Medicine: 'Brain Death' is not Death.)
Catholics, no less clergy who run seminaries and teach moral theology and give pastoral advice on matters of morality to the laity cannot live in some kind of fantasy world that is detached from any understanding of these facts as they await for the election of a true pope. They must recognize what is true and then act upon it. Heart transplantations occur only as the result of the killing of a living human being and are thus intrinsically evil.
Second, Bishop Pivarunas misstated the facts of what happened to Baby Trevor. He did not "die" in his mother's amniotic fluid. He was born as a living human being, otherwise his heart would have useless to the newborn baby girl who received it as the CMRI neither "endorsed" or "opposed" the transplant, telling the parents to act upon their acceptance of "brain death" and its morality. Baby Trevor was born as an oxygen-deprived baby, meaning that he would have his life as suffering from some form of retardation. This is nothing other than the same kind of monstrous medical malpractice that was sanctioned by Adolf Hitler's 1939 eugenics laws that were condemned so forcefully by Bishop Clemens von Galens (see Appendix B below) of Munster, Germany, in 1941. My wife grew up with a neighbor who was oxygen-deprived at birth. He is still alive. He is functional despite his retardation. What happened to Baby Trevor was a clear case of eugenic killing. It was nothing other than that. Nothing.
The CMRI may claim "clean hands" because they, lacking a pronouncement of a true pope, could neither endorse or oppose heart transplants. What is incontestable is that the CMRI accepts the manufactured myth of "brain death" despite the fact that some secular medical experts have rejected it entirely. One of the CMRI's priests told a family a few years ago that they could make their "brain dead" relative's body organs available for donation, believing precisely what the the conciliarists believe.
Third, Bishop Pivarunas has willfully persisted in a refusal to examine the facts concerning the myth of "brain death," stubbornly resisting any suggestion to speak with Dr. Paul Byrne, who is willing to travel anywhere and everywhere to give his clear, compelling summary of truth, on the matter. He is thus in no position to be trusted as a reliable teacher of moral theology, and this is just one of the many reasons why there is such a need for Saint Athanasius Seminary.
Fourth, the sister of the father of the recipient-baby asked the priest whose article is cited above to intervene against the heart transplantation. The woman told the priest that Father Affirm Cordova, CMRI, the pastor of Holy Rosary Church in Phoenix, Arizona, explained to her the "council of Bishop Pivarunas" "authorized" the transplant on the basis of Pope Pius XII's teaching that endorsed the transplantation of corneas after death, meaning that he would have also endorse the transplantation of a heart after "death." This is a fact omitted in Bishop Pivarunas's letter of February 7, 2001, and illustrative yet again of the sometimes shifting nature of explanations given by the CMRI on various matters (a phenomenon that was at work in the dismissal of the seminarians and can be proved in a train of e-mails if the CMRI wants to deny that various explanations and promises were given at various times as to when and why those dismissals took place).
This is what Dr. Byrne wrote to me this morning concerning the difference between corneal transplants and heart transplants:
The cornea is a tissue that gets its oxygen via tears. Thus it can be without blood supply for some time (hours) and still be viable, thus not disintegrate.
The heart is an organ that requires a continual supply of oxygen. Without circulation in 4-5 minutes the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation.
The truth is so easy; propagation of a lie requires more lies.
There is much more that can be said. Perhaps Saint Augustine of Hippo put it best in the Book Twelve of the City of God
It is foolish, then, to say that a man is ‘in death’ before he arrives at death—for, if he is, then toward what goal is he approaching while he is finishing the course of his life? In fact, to declare that a man is alive and dead at the same time is as monstrous as to claim—what is impossible—that he is awake and
asleep at the same time. This being so, the question arises: When is a man a dying man? Before death comes, he is not dying but is living; when death has come, he is not dying but dead. The one state, then, is before death, and the other after.
Just when, then, is man ‘in death,’ that is to say, when is he dying? Now, there are three distinct periods of time— 1) before, 2) in, and 3) after death—
corresponding to three states of a man 1) living, 2) dying 3) dead; but it is difficult to determine just when a man is dying, that is to say, ‘in .death.’ For, he cannot be living, since that is a state ‘before death’; nor can he be dead, for that is a state‘after death.’ As long as the soul is in the body, especially if sensation is present, undoubtedly a man, composed of both soul and body, is still alive and, therefore,‘before death,’ and not ‘in death.’ But, once the soul has departed and taken away all bodily sensation, then the time ‘after death’ has begun and the man is pronounced dead.
Between ‘alive’ and ‘dead’ there is no room left for a third state in which a man is ‘dying’ or ‘in death’; for, if alive, the time is ‘before death’; if he has ceased to live, the time is ‘after death.’ It is clear, then, that he is never ‘dying’ or‘in death. It is like trying to find the ‘present’ in the course of time and failing because it is merely the unmeasurable transition from ‘future’ to ‘past.’ Does it not seem that, for the same reason, there is no such thing as the death of the body?
If there is, just when can a thing exist which cannot be in anyone and no one can be in it? If a man is still alive, his death does not yet exist, since being alive is‘before death,’ not ‘in death’; and if being alive has ceased then his state is ‘after,’ not ‘in death,’ and again death has no existence. Now, if there is no death either before or after something, then what do the expressions ‘before death’ and ‘after death’ mean? It is silly to use such terms if there is no death. Would to God that in Eden we had lived so well that, in truth, there were no such thing as death. However, as things now are, death is so bitterly real that we have neither words to bewail it nor ways to escape it.
Let us, then, follow established usage (as, of course, we ought) and say‘before death,’ before death occurs, as Scripture does: ‘Praise not any man before death.’1 And when death has occurred, let us say: After the death of this man or that one, this or that happened. And let us use a kind of continuous present tense, as we well may when, for example, we say: ‘While he was dying, he made his will,’ or ‘While he was dying, he left such and such to so and so,’ although, of course, the man could do nothing of the kind except while he was living, and, if anything, he did it ‘before death’ rather than ‘in death.’ However, let us follow the usage of Holy Scripture which does not hesitate to say even of those who are dead that they are ‘in death,’ not ‘after death.’ Take, for example, the verse: ‘For there is no one in death that is mindful of thee.’
Until the day of resurrection we can rightly say that men are ‘in death’ as we say that a person is asleep until he awakes. However, although we say that those who are asleep are sleeping, we cannot likewise say that those who are dead are dying. When it is a question of the death of the body—the subject I am now discussing—those who have already been separated from their bodies cannot be said to be still dying. Now, this is, as I have already said, something that cannot be put into words—just how the dying can be said to be alive, or the dead, even after death, be said to be in death.
For, how can a man be after dying if he is still dying, especially since we do not use ‘dying’ as we use ‘sleeping’ for those who are asleep, and ‘fainting’ nor those in a faint, and ‘sorrowing’ for those in sorrow, or ‘living’ for those who are alive. The dead, however, before they rise again are said to be ‘in death,’ yet cannot be said to be dying.
Thus, quite fitly and consistently, I think, it has happened, not by any human plan but perhaps by a divine purpose, that grammarians are not able to conjugate the verb moritur in Latin according governing other verbs. The perfect tense of the verb oritur is ortus est and the tenses of all similar verbs are derived from the perfect participle. Yet, if we ask what is the perfect of motitur, the answer is mortuus est with a double u; mortuus being pronounced in the same way as fatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and such like words which are not perfect participles but, like nouns, are declined without reference to tense. But mortuus, a noun, is used as a perfect participle, as though something indeclinable were meant to be declined. Thus, there is something congruous in the fact that the word expressing death can no more be declined than the reality of death.
What can be done, however, by the grace of our Redeemer, is to decline, at least, the second death, which is much more grievous—in fact, the worst of all evils—since it is not the result of a mere separation of soul and body but of a reunion for the purpose of eternal punishment. In eternal life, as distinguished from temporal life, men will never be before or after but always in death, that is to say, never alive, never dead, but eternally dying. And never is a man worse off in death than when death itself is deathless. (Saint Augustine, City of God, Chapter XI, pp. 312-314; my thanks to Dr. Byrne for sending me first part of these passages; THE CITY OF GOD: BOOK XIII SAINT AUGUSTINE.)
None of this would be relevant now if Bishop Pivarunas had not reacted with such defensiveness as simply being a priest for twenty-six years and a bishop for twenty years does not mean that is immune from criticism or critical self-evaluation or correction when the facts are presented before him. He is duty bound before God to admit and then to abjure his errors in accepting the medical industry's manufactured myth of "brain death."
It is not to be "mean-spirited" or "idealistic" or to go on some kind of "attack" to point out that acceptance of the medical industry's manufactured myth of "brain death" at this late date, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that exists and the clear teaching of the Catholic Church, is irresponsible. And the need to point this out time at this arises solely from Father Markus Ramolla's decision to open a seminary to accommodate the true priestly vocation of men who recognize such errors that remain entirely uncorrected, wanting to having nothing to do with such errors that have never been the subject of any kind of apology from Bishop Pivarunas or the clergy of the CMRI, a decision to which Bishop Pivarunas has reacted with anger and denial. (For some further information compiled by Dr. Byrne about the myth of "brain death," please see Living Body v. Brain Dead and Vital organ transplantation.)
As these points are so essential to demonstrate the deficiency of thought and praxis at work so frequently in the CMRI, here is Bishop Pivarunas's February 7, 2001, letter as commented upon by Dr. Byrne, to whom I forwarded it earlier today:
Bishop Pivarunas letter: In response to your question, "Do you and the CMRI approve of "heart transplants"?, I answer that the CMRI and I have neither approved or condemned of heart transplants.
Dr. Byrne comments: WHAT HAPPENS IN A HEART TRANSPLANT? THE DONOR IS ON A VENTILATOR THAT PUSHES AIR INTO THE AIRWAY. UNLIKE A CADAVER, THE CHEST EXPANDS; THERE IS RESPIRATION (OXYGEN IN, CARBON DIOXIDE OUT); CHEST CONTRACTS PUSHING CARBON DIOXIDE AIR OUT. THE HEART IS BEATING PEOVIDING CIRCULATION TO ALL ORGANS AND TISSUES OF THE BODY. IT TAKES ABOUT 3 HOURS OF OPERATING TO GET THE LIVER, PANCREAS AND KIDNEYS OUT. THEN THE HEART IS PREPARED FOR EXCISION. THE BEATING HEART IS STOPPED BY THE TRANSPLANT SURGEON AS THE HEART IS LIFTED FROM THE CHEST.
Bishop Pivarunas letter: Although there are opinions for and against the procedure, only a true pope can make an authoritative decision on this issue.
Dr. Byrne comments: OR ANYONE WHO CAN REASON AND HAS EVER HAD A GOLDFISH STOP SWIMMING, THEN LAY ON SIDE WITH GILL MOVING
Topic: SSPX on brain death and organ donation (Read 2455 times)