The Importance and Need for Stay-At-Home Moms

… to ensure happy families on earth and in heaven.

The importance of having mothers at home was recognized for thousands of years.  It was just common sense.  The fathers earned a living, while the mothers were home tending the home fires.

This was not seriously challenged until World War II, and in a major way, later, by feminism.  (More on this later.)  

It was not easy to pry the American woman out of her home.  Her contributions (as nurse, teacher, cook, baker, cleaner, nurturer, etc.) had always been recognized as essential to the well-being and happiness of the family.  However, the push for women to get the vote in the 1920s was used as a push to get women out of the home.  If it wasn’t very successful then, its time arrived in the ‘40s when World War II called millions of American men to fight for their country.  This must have been the moment the Left had been waiting for: a logical call for American women to replace their husbands in the factories for patriotic reasons.

“Rosie the Riveter” was the symbol.  In posters and billboards everywhere, curls stuck out of her red kerchief while she took her husband’s place on the production line, making it clear she was a female “doing her part.”  And the media loved it.  Even when the war ended, they encouraged women to “seek fulfillment” in their lives, not so subtly suggesting that, of course, they couldn’t expect to find fulfillment as housewives.  Thus, when the men came home from the war, some women weren’t in any hurry to return to the domestic scene, and many were persuaded that it was more exciting to work outside the home.  It was only later that the women were bombarded with the idea that being a housewife was just a job – and that what she wanted was a CAREER.  You had to have a career or you were a dull, boring person who didn’t have this exciting other dimension to you.

But overlooked in the scramble to get a job was the question of who would take her place at home?  Who would take care of the children?  In the beginning, grandma.  However, the advent of the commercial daycare centers greatly reduced having to ask grandma to care for her grandchildren so mom could work outside the home.

(The other side of the coin was the devil’s other solution: to use birth control and have fewer children.  This contributed to the birth rate being way down across the world.)


Even so, daycare was not the perfect solution, of course.  Not only does daycare cost so much that it takes a serious bite out of the extra income that mom brings in, but it is notorious for passing on sickness from one child to another.  The problems of the daycare centers have been widely documented.  Some are sub-standard, unsanitary, poorly regulated, and run by incompetents, as well as those that are ably and reasonably proficient.  There was (and is) a huge disparity between them. 

But if the daycare centers provided the illusion that the little ones were adequately cared for, then that seemed to solve the major impediment to mom getting an outside job.

A second major reason that some women left their homes for the job market was the lure of a second paycheck.  Where their parents’ and grandparents’ generations had been willing to wait for those extras like new carpeting, nicer homes, and new cars, most of today’s families were persuaded that they didn’t have to wait to have a boat or fancier vacations if the mother of the family was bringing in a paycheck too.

And as to this paycheck, women were told they should expect to earn the same as men.  This brought things like the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) into being, opening the door for multiple other items on the liberal/feminist agenda.  (Side note for younger readers, perhaps:  The ERA might have sounded like a fair and just amendment, but in reality, it would have caused great havoc with our society, negatively impacting American life in general, and the well-being of women in particular.)

Here are just a few of the ERA’s harmful consequences:

1.    The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion;

2.    The ERA would be used to mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions;

3.    The ERA would remove gender designations from bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and hospital rooms;

4.    The ERA would not give women any more rights than they currently have; and

5.    The ERA would overturn laws and practices that benefit women because they would be viewed as showing preferential treatment to women.

For example:

  Workplace laws that provide special accommodations for expectant mothers;

  State labor laws and guidelines which benefit women who do heavy, manual labor;

  Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s income; and

  Exemption of women from the military draft and front-line combat.

 Here is the ERA’s history in a nutshell:

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the ERA in 1972, but by law, it had to be ratified by ¾ of the states within seven years in order to be a part of the Constitution of our country.  After untold Conservative efforts to educate people on the dangers of this amendment, the ERA failed to be ratified. 

Unfortunately, the Left was able to get a three-year extension, which (thankfully) ended in 1982 without the required number of states ratifying it.  (Also, five states that had approved it, rescinded their ratification after better understanding the dangers of the proposed amendment.) 

Currently, there is a new push to entice additional states to ratify, with Nevada succumbing in 2017, Illinois in 2018, and Virginia in 2020.) 

End of this brief history lesson. 

Let’s get back to our look at women and how they were enticed out of their homes.  What had been (disastrously) overlooked was how important the mother was to the family and how the family would suffer in her absence.

Yes, this article focuses on the absence of mothers in the home, but for just a moment let us digress and talk briefly about the absence of fathers in the home.  This move was facilitated by a huge change that was thrust on the American ethos with the idea of “single mothers.”  This was a new term that was introduced and repeated to legitimize the idea of women “voluntarily” raising their children by themselves.  The gradual acceptance of the idea of “single mothers” contributed to the assault on marriage by the huge increase of couples temporarily living together without the benefit of marriage.  The removal of the stigma attached to this sinful way of life accomplished the disastrous objective of making it so common that it spread far and wide.

What greatly contributed to the rise of “single mothers” was the destructive welfare system, which increased the monthly check for every baby she bore out of wedlock.  It was a money-maker for some.  (What does that teach the next generation?) 


Another evil result of the absence of fathers in the home was that boys lacked a male role model, and thus, many tended to become feminized, (which may contribute to the confusion in so many young minds as to whether they should use the boys’ or the girls’ bathrooms, for example.)

Returning to our subject of women being absent from the home.  Women moved from factory jobs into offices, stores, industries, etc.  Home life suffered.  Many tried to “do it all” but found it impossible, merely a step along the path toward frustration, exhaustion, and ulcers.  Seemingly, common sense would tell you that working at an outside job for 40 hours a week is hardly compatible with a smoothly-running home where laundry is done in a timely manner, beds are changed regularly, nutritious meals are the norm; where children can be listened to, instructed, guided, monitored, etc

(Note to widows or mothers involuntarily in circumstances where they are doing the job by themselves: You are not included in this disparagement.  The valiant job you find yourselves required to do needs no explanation or justification.) 

However, it might be instructive to consider some of the possible consequences of women taking jobs outside the home:

1.    As mentioned above, the cost of hiring a sitter or paying for daycare is formidable.  It swallows a big chunk of that extra paycheck;

2.    There is little or no supervision of the children after school.  This can’t be a good thing.  The children become part of that sad world of Latchkey Children coming home to an empty house;

3.    Second car expenses must be figured into any financial cost;

4.    More money spent on more clothes for the women;

5.    Rushed meals, in many cases more expensive meals, thrown-together with increased fast food elements and convenience foods; not particularly healthy meals;

6.    The time crunch leaves little or no time for problem-solving family discussions around the dinner table (where problems often are first recognized and resolved);

7.    Guilt at spending less and less time with the children.  (There’s always so much to do she doesn’t have time to sit and find out how things are going in their lives, at school, in the neighborhood, etc.)  This is also where some strange idea that the student picked up might come to light and be explored, explained, and debunked, if necessary.

8.    It often precipitates arguments about whose job it is to (fill in the blank here, e.g., empty the dishwasher, throw the next load in, make the lunches);

9.    Frequently can’t scrutinize the children’s friends;

10. Often hasn’t the time to follow up on whether homework is finished or chores completed;

11. Discipline usually suffers;

12. No time for a kneel-down family rosary; and

13. Impossible to monitor children’s time with entertainment, as well as a tendency toward laxity in using entertainment such as TV, video games, social media, or electronic devices.

 Now, if you are a traditional Catholic home-schooling family, you may be way ahead of the game because you may not have to worry about most, if not all, of those 13 problem areas listed above.  For example, you may not have a TV.  And the home-schooling family tends to have a closer eye on who their children are playing with. 

And the children don’t need latchkeys, and a rosary always begins the class day, etc.  But let’s get real, right?  Can being a stay-at-home mother guarantee life will be a bed of roses?  Frankly, no.  But learning what works (and what doesn’t) goes a long way toward making your load easier.  And having the mother in the home is a huge step toward successfully raising and educating your family.

Now it is not pandering to women to point out how indispensable they are in the family.  When I hear someone speak condescendingly about women wasting their time (and talents) changing diapers, and making snarky remarks about the “little woman” baking her chocolate chip cookies, I want to sit her down and explain the facts of domestic life to her.  (Because it’s almost always “working women” – often guilt-filled – who attempt to disparage the stay-at-home mom.)  I want to point out to her that it isn’t vacuuming the house, shopping for groceries, doing the laundry, etc. that make that mother’s job important, essential as those things are.  It’s being there:

·         to comfort a child with a skinned knee;

·         holding her daughter’s hand when she gets her first shot;

·         listening to her son’s grievance against the neighbor kid;

·         taking him to the orthodontist;

·         instructing her daughter how to write a thank you note to her grandmother;

·         listening to her spelling-words;

·         teaching her son his Mass server’s Confiteor;

·         helping her daughter on her first sewing project;

·         guiding her son’s preparation for the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test);

·         etc., etc

And that doesn’t even include the obvious things like: making a child’s special birthday dinner, taking the dog to the vet; and two of the most important things: – recognizing that that kid from the end of the block is up to no good, and guiding her son away from him; and also, welcoming home at the end of the day the father of the family.

To sum up, the mother’s job is one of the most important jobs in the world: to create a happy, God-centered family, to make a home that is a good place to be.  

Our Duty not to “Donate” or Accept Donated Vital Bodily Organs

Catholic Candle note: Recently, Catholic Candle examined the permission the Church traditionally gives to a person who is in danger of death, to confess to a priest whom an uncompromising Catholic could not otherwise support (or confess to) because that priest is a compromiser, an apostate, or someone whom it is otherwise impermissible to support.  Find the article here:

Catholic Candle also addressed how uncompromising laymen can bury their dead in these times of great apostasy when an uncompromising priest is not available.  Find the article here:

Between this last confession (discussed in the first of those articles) and the burial (discussed in the second article), is the crucial moment of death.  We gave recommendations how to assist at a person’s death, based on the experience of some of the Catholic Candle Team, who recently assisted at the deaths of two uncompromising Traditional Catholics.  Find the article here:

Also, in our last days of life, we must continue to give sufficient care to sustain our life – even as it is waning – and must not yield to the culture of death, which promotes euthanasia.  Therefore, we examined the minimum care we are obliged to provide to sustain our life even when we are dying.  Find the article here:

Again, because we live in a culture of death, part of our using sufficient care to sustain our life – even as it is waning – we must never acquiesce in being murdered by having our vital organs removed to be “donated” to another person.  Further, we must never accept the “donation” of a vital organ from someone else, as we would then become complicit in his murder.  Below, we examine the evil of such murder by the “donation” of a vital organ.

We recommend that you save these articles for future reference and use.



What is death?

Death is the separation of body and soul.[1]  Death occurs at an instant.  In other words, death is not something that occurs gradually over a period of time, although the subsequent corruption of the body does occur gradually. 

A dying person is a person who is still alive.  A deeply comatose person is still alive; (a corpse cannot be comatose).

Although we know that death is the separation of body and soul, we usually do not know exactly when this separation (viz., death) occurs.  We usually can only know with certitude afterwards, that a person has already died.


Corruption of the body – gangrene contrasted to a person’s death

Our soul is what makes our body to be what it is, viz., a human body.  Without our soul, our body becomes merely a decaying lump of organic matter which is on its way to becoming dirt, dust or ashes.[2] 

It can happen that the soul ceases to be present in a bodily part of a person who is still alive.  In other words, that part of a person’s body is no longer vivified by his soul.  This can happen, e.g., in the limb of a diabetic person who is still very much alive.  When the soul ceases to vivify part of the body, that part of the body dies and rots.  This is called “gangrene”.[3] 

If some parts, e.g., the person’s feet, are dead and begin rotting (i.e., have gangrene), but other parts, e.g., his heart and other internal organs, remain uncorrupted, this lack of corruption is a sign that the person is not yet dead – because those internal organs do not yet exhibit the corruption which would tell us that his soul is no longer vivifying any parts of his body (i.e., preserving them from corruption). 

Just as gangrene shows a part of a body is no longer vivified by the soul, likewise general corruption throughout the whole body shows the entire body is no longer vivified by the soul.  This tells us that the person is certainly dead.[4]

Although the Catholic Church uses the safer and more reasonable standard requiring general corruption of the body as a condition for certainty that a person is really dead, people sometimes use the “cold, blue, and stiff” standard to determine death.

This “cold, blue, and stiff” standard for determining death could leave room for different interpretations in some circumstances, e.g., how cold is the body and for how long?  Where, and in how many places, is the body’s temperature measured?  Moreover, particular circumstances can add uncertainty of whether a person is really dead, e.g., when a cold, non-responsive swimmer is pulled out of cold water.


What are “vital organs”?

A “vital organ” is an organ (i.e., a part of the body) the loss of which results in death.  If a person consents to the removal of one of his vital organs while he is alive, he would be consenting to his own death.

Even if a person were unavoidably near to death, he still must not consent to having his life shortened by having a bodily organ removed which brings about his death.  This is like the fact that a person’s nearness to death does not permit him to jump off of a cliff or do anything else which would cause his death to come sooner.

Therefore, because a person must not consent to his own murder, a person cannot agree to “donate” one of his vital organs (such as his heart) until his body (including his heart) has begun corrupting (showing us that he has truly, already died).  Once he has truly died and his body has begun a general corruption, then his body can be donated to help others, e.g., in medical research.


The multi-billion-dollar industry of transplanting vital human organs

In 1967, a cardiac surgeon, Christiaan Bernard, performed the first human-to-human heart surgery.[5]  This landmark surgery opened up whole new possibilities for patients, but such organ transplant surgeries obviously require a supply of “donated” hearts and/or other vital organs.

Today, the transplantation of vital organs is a many-billion-dollar industry.[6]


The organ transplant industry gets vital organs by murdering living people who are labeled as dead.

Although the organ “donor” and his family cannot receive any payment, there are many billions of dollars made collectively, by many persons and organizations involved in this industry, e.g., the hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies, and the surgeons.[7]

The organ transplant industry’s problem is a shortage of high-quality human organs.[8]  If the “donor’s” organs are not cut out of his body until after he is really dead and has begun corrupting, then his organs are worthless for transplantation into another person.  Even under the alternate standard for determining death – the “cold, blue, and stiff” standard – all vital organs are useless for transplanting into another human.[9]

Thus, the organ transplant industry saw that it needed to remove the “donor’s” vital organs while he was still alive.  But the transplant industry needed to label him as dead and pretend he was dead so that surgeons would be legally permitted to extract the organs and also in order that the public would accept this practice.[10]

The result was a legal and medical fiction[11] beginning with a Harvard Medical School proposal in 1968.  Under this proposal a person who is in a so-called “irreversible coma” would be relabeled as “brain dead” and then the medical establishment would pretend this so-called “brain death” was the person’s real death.[12] 

Obviously, when a person is in a supposed “irreversible coma”, he is still alive.  No cadaver could ever be in an “irreversible coma”.

Those “brain dead” persons are often euphemistically called “beating heart cadavers”, tacitly showing that everyone knows those “brain dead” persons are really alive.[13] 

The authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article quoted and cited above, promotes organ “donations” from so-called “brain dead” persons.  The authors do not dispute that “brain death” is not real death.  However, they advocate that the medical profession should stop pretending that the “brain dead” person who is “donating” his organs is not being killed by having his vital organs “harvested”.[14]


The evidence shows conclusively that “brain death” is not real death

Whereas a body’s general corruption tells us that the person has died, likewise while a body’s vital functions continue, they tell us that the person is alive.  This is true even if the person receives assistance from medical machines, such as a respirator.  Here is how Pope Pius XII taught this truth:

Human life continues for as long as its vital functions – distinguished from the simple life of organs – manifest themselves spontaneously or even with the help of artificial processes.[15]

So-called “brain dead” persons are really helpless living persons whose vital organs are “harvested” by murdering them.  These persons are often warm and pink, with a normal pulse and blood pressure.[16]

The bodies of so-called “brain dead” persons are able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, and retain their spinal reflexes.[17]  A “brain dead” person can survive for months on life support equipment.[18]

When a “brain dead” person is cut open to extract one of his vital organs, he moves in reaction to the pain, unless he is paralyzed by drugs”.[19]  Obviously, such a “donor” is not really dead because a corpse does not need anesthesia or react to pain.  When a “brain dead” person is cut open, his pulse rate and blood pressure rise[20] just as any other person during surgery.[21]

A so-called “brain dead” expectant mother can be kept alive for months, for the sake of her baby.[22]


There have been many examples of so-called “irreversible comas” being reversed

Because of advancements in medical treatments since 1968, there have been very many persons whose supposedly “irreversible coma” was reversed and the person made a full or substantial recovery to an independent life.

For example:

  Trenton McKinley, a 13-year old Alabama boy, was declared brain dead after suffering skull fractures and a traumatic brain injury in March 2018.  All the usual tests showed he was “brain dead”.  His mother signed papers to donate his organs.  Fortunately, he regained consciousness before his vital organs were removed.  Trenton was taken off the ventilator and eventually went home.  He is now conscious, walking and talking.[23]

  In 2007, Zach Dunlap, a 21-year-old Oklahoma man, flipped over on his 4-wheeler and suffered catastrophic brain injuries.  A day and a half after his accident, doctors at United Regional Healthcare System in Wichita Falls, Texas determined he was "brain dead.”  They had subjected Zach to a battery of tests including a scan that showed a complete absence of blood flow to the brain.  Preparations to harvest his organs were underway when a relative scraped the bottom of his foot with a pocket knife and he jerked his foot away.  Just months later, Zack was walking and talking.  He recalled hearing a doctor say he was dead and being “mad inside” but unable to move.[24]

  Kate Allat suffered a stroke at the age of 39 and spent the next ten days in a coma.  Allat later revealed that she heard everything going on around her in her hospital room and she was fearful her life support would be turned off.  Her mind was functioning normally during her coma but everyone around her thought she was “brain dead” as she laid in her hospital bed paralyzed and unable to speak or breathe on her own.  She listened in fright as medical staff discussed switching off her life support with her family.  …  “They thought I was in a vegetative state.  I couldn’t move a muscle.  There was no signal I was in there,” she said.  “I was on life support and they might have turned it off.”  “I couldn’t breathe for myself but I could hear conversations that I didn’t want to hear.”  Kate made a full recovery.[25]

  Steven Thorpe suffered devastating injuries in a car crash.  His parents were told there was no chance of their son surviving.  But they refused to give up hope – despite four specialists declaring that the 17-year-old was “brain dead”.  Steven’s parents were convinced they saw a “flicker” of life as Steven lay in a coma.  They refused to allow the hospital to switch off his life support machine.  Two weeks later, Steven woke from his coma. Within seven weeks, he had left the hospital.  And four years later, Steven was working as a trainee accounts clerk.[26]

It might surprise readers that so-called “brain death” does not even require confirmation that the person has no measurable brain activity.  Some co-called “brain dead” persons can continue to have brain activity[27] (as well as many other bodily functions which prove they are still alive). 

Furthermore, a “brain dead” person’s brain can “fall silent” in response to a decreased blood flow, even if his brain remains uninjured.  This is called “ischemic penumbra”.[28]


Summary of “brain death” and deep coma

It is obvious that a “brain dead” or comatose person is alive.  Would anyone ever bury a person showing so many signs of life?  No!  Because he is alive!  Yet, he is labeled as “brain dead” and so he can be considered fit to be murdered by “harvesting” his vital organs.


Some countries have “laws”[29] which automatically designate everyone in the public as a “donor” of his vital organs unless he opts out.

In the transplant industry’s tireless pursuit of vital organs, some countries take advantage of most people’s inattention and inaction by passing “laws” which declare everyone as a consenting “donor” of his vital organs unless he opts-out of the country’s organ harvesting program.

For example, in 2020, England passed a “law” presuming people consent to “donate” their vital organs when they become “brain dead”, unless they register on a government website to opt out of being thus murdered.[30]

Other countries which have opt out “laws” are Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Austria, and Belgium.[31]  The state of California now has an opt out “law” too.[32]

Obviously, the Catholic Faith, the Natural Law, and sound thinking require a person to opt out of this type of murderous organ “donation” program.


Pressure and false compassion

Vital organ transplantation should be recognized for what it is – murder – and should be a felony.  But today, it is common for people to be pressured into agreeing ahead of time to “donate” their vital organs, often in the name of “charity” and “compassion”.  This pressure often occurs when they renew their driver’s license.

People are told that “donating” their vital organs is unselfish.  They are told that “your heart will continue living in someone else”, etc.  Ironically, people are told that donating their heart – which murders them – is “lifesaving and lifegiving”.[33]

Even if many people act in ignorance or with misplaced “charity” when they agree to “donate” their vital organs, they are nonetheless agreeing to be murdered.  But such organ “donation” is not real charity any more than it is charitable to commit suicide for ecological reasons such as to “reduce greenhouse gases” to “save the planet”.

Therefore, it is plain we must not agree to the “donation” of our vital organs.  But even if a person does not explicitly consent ahead of time, a person could still be murdered for his organs in the future, as he lies helpless and defenseless in a coma.

Therefore, no one should remain silent on this issue.  Everyone should explicitly reject the “donation” of his vital organs and reject receiving another person’s vital organs, using a declaration such as this:

I reject any treatment that uses an organ or tissue of another person obtained in a manner that causes, contributes to, or hastens that person’s death.  I reject any treatment that uses a vital organ “donated” by any other person who is declared “dead” (usually this declaration of “death” is made shortly before the organ is removed).  I also reject any treatments that use an organ or tissue of an unborn or newborn child who has been subject to an induced abortion.  I do not want any of my organs to be donated.[34]


Donating non-vital organs

Although it is a mortal sin to consent to murder by “donation” of a vital organ, it is a good and generous work for us to donate even an important bodily organ which does not cause our death.  For example, we can donate one of our two kidneys, a lobe of our liver, or a lobe of a lung, part of our pancreas, a cornea, or bone marrow, none of which impede our continued life.  These donations are a charitable work for those in need.


Beware of cooperating in any way in murder to “harvest” vital organs!

Not only must we never consent to murder by “donating” or receiving a vital organ, we must also never cooperate in any other way, when people commit this evil.  A person can be responsible for another person’s murder through organ “donation” in nine separate ways,[35] including by remaining silent (when we should object), by expressing approval, or by advising a person to “donate” his vital organ (or to receive the transplant of a vital organ). 


Society has sunk into the murderous practices of the pagan Aztecs

We see that, in a way, our society has sunk back to the evils of pagan times, murdering people to obtain their beating hearts (or hearts still able to beat).  Here is what the Spanish encountered when they first went to Aztec Mexico:

In 1519, at the time when Spanish Captain Hernán Cortez, came to Mexico, the barbaric, pagan Aztec Indians offered human sacrifices almost daily.  The Aztecs, who ruled from Mexico City, offered about 20,000 human sacrifices every year to their pagan (false) gods.  That is an average of more than 50 each day!  These victims usually had their hearts cut out while still beating; then their bodies were dismembered.  The Aztecs sometimes ate body parts.  At the Aztecs’ inauguration of their pagan temple at Mexico City, they massacred about 20,000 victims in four days.  That averages about one such gruesome murder every 17 seconds, all day and night![36]

Whereas the Aztecs offered their human sacrifices to their false gods, modern man offers similar human sacrifices to a creature lower than a “god”, viz., to a fellow man.  The modern “harvesting” of vital organs is, as it were, merely Aztec human sacrifices committed under surgical draping and using sterile technique.



“Harvesting” a person’s vital organs is premeditated murder.  Your organ donor card might be your death warrant. 

Catholics should never give permission to “donate” their vital organs and should not allow this authorization to be indicated on their driver’s license.  Such permission would be to consent to their own murder. 

Likewise, Catholics should be careful to opt out of organ “donation” in those countries such as England, where permission to “donate” organs is assumed unless a person opts out.

[1]           Here is how Fr. Spirago explains this truth, in The Catechism Explained:


At death, the soul is separated from the body ….  The body, deprived of the soul, is no longer alive, because it has no longer the principle of life ….


The Catechism Explained, Rev. Francis Spirago, Benziger Bros., New York, 1921, Eleventh and Twelfth Articles of the Creed, The Last Things, §1, p.254.


[2]           We owe respect to the human body as a temple of the Holy Ghost.  This means that it is a mortal sin to cremate the body (except in very unusual circumstance, such as where this is necessary in order to protect the living from a deadly, widespread plague).  For a further analysis of the evils of cremation, read these articles:






Although the human body deserves a respectful burial, this does not mean that, in itself, a dead body is other than organic matter returning to dust.  On Ash Wednesday, the Church reminds us what happens to a person’s body when his soul departs: “Remember Man, that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.”


[3]           Here is how the Mayo Clinic explains this truth:


Gangrene refers to the death of body tissue due to either a lack of blood flow or a serious bacterial infection. Gangrene commonly affects the extremities, including your toes, fingers and limbs, but it can also occur in your muscles and internal organs.

[4]           Here is how Fr. Henry Davis explains this truth, in Moral and Pastoral Theology:


Now we know as a fact that life often persists after apparent death; advanced decomposition is the only certain sign of death especially after drowning, paralysis and death from sickness.


Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Sheed and Ward, New York, ©1959, Vol 2, Ch. 6, Section: The Fifth Commandment, Appendix 2, Point 16, Embalming, p.168 (emphasis added).

[9]           Here is how this truth is stated in one article published in the New England Journal of Medicine:


[It used to be that] the diagnosis of death was relatively straightforward: patients were dead when they were cold, blue, and stiff.  Unfortunately, organs from these traditional cadavers cannot be used for transplantation.


The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation, Robert D. Truog, M.D., and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., published August 14, 2008, at: (emphasis added).


Similarly, whistleblower Doctor Cicero G. Coimbra, MD PhD, a neurologist and professor of neuroscience at the Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil, who warns about the murder involved in “harvesting” a person’s vital organs, states plainly how crucial a person’s beating heart is for “harvesting” his vital organs:


if it’s not beating you cannot use vital organsIf there is an arrest in circulation, you have damaged organs that you’re trying to transplant to other people. 


Read the June 5, 2019 interview of Dr. Coimbra here: (emphasis added).

[11]         Two advocates for vital organ transplantation candidly admitted that “brain death” as real death is considered a fiction which is expedient in order to obtain vital organs.  In an article published in Intensive Care Medicine, they state:


Brain death is, since the first definitions in the scientific literature in 1968, closely related to organ donation.  This is why, some scholars consider equating brain death to death as a moral and legal fiction.  […] Without the needs of transplantation medicine, ‘brain death as death’ would not exist at all ….


Erwin J.O. Kompanje and Yorik J. de Groot, Sounding board: is mandatory recovery of organs for transplantation acceptable? Published in Intensive Care Medicine (2015) 41:1836–1837.  This is quoted and cited in ‘Brain death’ is a medical fiction invented to harvest organs from living people: expert, an article found here:


[12]         A definition of irreversible coma: report of the ad hoc committee of the Harvard Medical School to examine the definition of brain death. JAMA 1968;205:337340


[14]         The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation, Robert D. Truog, M.D., and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., published August 14, 2008, at: (emphasis added).


[15]         November 24, 1957, Address to an International Congress of Anesthesiologists, Pope Pius XII (emphasis added).

[16]         Here is how this truth is stated in one article published in the New England Journal of Medicine:


[Brain dead] patients look very much alive: they are warm and pink; they digest and metabolize food, excrete waste, undergo [physical] maturation, …. To a casual observer, they look just like patients who are receiving long-term artificial ventilation and are asleep.


The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation, Robert D. Truog, M.D., and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., published August 14, 2008, at:


[21]         Is “Brain Death” True Death? by Randy Engel, citing Brain Death – A U.K. Anesthetist’s View, by David J. Hill, published in Finis Vitae, edited by Paul A. Byrne, M.D., p.172, and found here:

[22]         See, e.g., a “brain dead” mother was kept alive for three months for the sake of her healthy child.


[24]         Quoted from IS THERE MORAL CERTAINTY THAT "BRAIN DEAD" ORGAN DONORS ARE DEAD?  This article is found here:  summarizing an account given by Natalie Morales, in “‘Dead’ Man Recovering after ATV Accident," Dateline transcript, NBC News, March 23, 2008.


[27]         What You Lose When You Sign That Donor Card, By Dick Teresi, Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2012, page C3.


[28]         Neurologist exposes ‘brain death’ myth behind multi-billion-dollar organ transplant industry,  interview of Doctor Cicero G. Coimbra, MD PhD, a neurologist and professor of neuroscience at the Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil, June 6, 2019 from

[29]         A real law must be reasonable and for the Common Good.  Summa, Ia IIae, Q.90, a.4.  A government’s evil decrees (such as this one) are not real laws.  


[34]         This formula (rejecting vital organ donation is part of a draft living will contained here:


[35]            Here is summary of this basic truth about the various ways we can be responsible for another’s sin:


328. When are we answerable for the sins of others? 

We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. 

329. In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin? 

We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways:


1.    By counsel.


2.    By command.

3.    By consent.

4.    By provocation.

5.    By praise or flattery.

6.    By concealment.

7.    By being a partner in the sin.

8.    By silence.

9.    By defending the ill done.


Quoted from The Penny Catechism, Nihil Obstat, Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D., L.S.S., Censor deputatus, Imprimatur, Georgius L. Craven, Epus Sebastopolis, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, die 20a Junii, 1958, p.57 (emphasis added).


[36]         Quoted from: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, ©2016, Section 2 – (Latin) North America – Mexico, p.38.

The Direct Road from Apostasy to Gender Confusion

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth:

Jesus saith to him:  I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.  No man cometh to the Father, but by Me.[1] 

Truth is the mind’s conformity to reality.[2]

Therefore, when a man (or society) rejects Christ and His teaching Church, he is rejecting reality.

But man is a creature of habit.  He is often inconsistent and takes a while to come to see the full consequences of positions he has already accepted (or already rejected).  In other words, when a man rejects reality concerning one truth, he might continue to hold other truths which are inconsistent with his new opinion and it might take him a while to reject the reality of those further, related truths.

Thus, for example, when man rejects the Catholic Church’s authority, he might continue to believe in the Bible’s authority, although the Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church.

Similarly, Protestants who rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, did not immediately reject a man’s authority over his wife.  For a time, those Protestants only took rebellion from authority “so far”, and only gradually did their rebellion spread further, to other authority given by God and willed by Him. 

But when a man rejects part of reality, he embarks on a reckless path leading to rejection of other parts of reality.  That is, rejecting a part of reality inevitably leads to rejecting more of reality – the only uncertainty is how long it will take to reject additional, particular parts of reality. 

Thus, the Protestants reject the reality of the Catholic Church’s authority and this leads them down the road to feminism (which is rejecting the reality of a husband’s authority) and also to rejecting the different and unique roles of the sexes.[3] 

Perhaps the Protestants who had first denied the authority of the Catholic Church, had thought it absurd to deny that man is the head of (and authority over) his wife.  This is because, while denying the Church’s authority, the difference between the roles of the sexes is a natural and supernatural truth which remained obvious for a time, even to Protestants.

But when man begins denying reality, the denials continue and become more unhinged from reality.  Man becomes more blinded to what had previously been obvious to him.  Man progressively denies even those things which are according to Nature and to common sense.  For example, man comes to accept that a male can become a female simply by deciding he is a female.

Without God’s help, man does not stop and he cannot stop descending down this destructive road.  Man accepts more and more false ideas he would have previously thought were absurd and impossible to accept.  Just like early apostates from Catholicism would have thought feminism to be absurd, likewise people would have thought it absurd, a few decades ago, that a male would become a female simply by deciding that he is one.

This delusion is not merely a few deranged individuals fooling themselves with this crazy fantasy – like believing they are Napoléon.  Society now accepts this absurdity in public[4] and now viciously attacks those who publicly deny such an obvious delusion.[5]

Similarly, society now accepts that a person can be neither male nor female if he simply decides he is neither.[6]  Society calls this person “non-binary”.  This delusion is a direct attack on Nature and on Sacred Scripture, because:

God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.[7]

People accept these delusions because the rejection of Christ does not end by simply rejecting Him.  He is the Truth and the Author of Truth.  By rejecting Him, man is led to progressively reject more and more aspects of reality.  Nor does he stop with these gender delusions. 

Until man goes back to God and to His Catholic Church – which will happen only through the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart – the steady descent of (blind) society will continue. 

There are many additional delusions – even more extreme and more irrational – which are ahead for blind and unrepentant mankind.  What are those future delusions?  Perhaps one of them is society publicly accepting the absurdity that people are cats[8], dogs[9], hippopotamuses[10] and dragons[11] when people decide that they are.  Society has not yet publicly accepted these delusions but they already exist on society’s fringes – like the gender delusions existed only on the fringes until a few decades ago.

Perhaps also, society will publicly accept the delusions of people claiming that they are whatever age they choose for themselves.[12]

We might think society could never be so blind as to accept these delusions.  However, who could ever have predicted a few decades ago, that society would publicly accept and tyrannically insist (as it does now) that you are whatever sex you say you are, and that you can “change” your gender whenever you choose to do so, by changing your mind.

We can glimpse the future in a survey by the Family Policy Institute in Washington which showed that many college students are ready to accept that a person is whatever gender, race or age he claims to be, no matter how absurd the claim is.[13]

This acceptance of delusion in place of reality, is part of God’s punishment for apostate man rejecting Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Truth. 


When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything![14]


The truth is priceless!  Compromising the truth leads to blindness, delusion, and destruction! 

No “advantage” – including being at peace with those around us – is worth the infinite “cost” of compromising.

Pray for the consecration of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart!

Let us thank God every day for the Traditional Catholic Faith and pray hard to keep it in all its purity! 

Let us profess the Faith, whole and inviolate, until our dying breath!


[1]           St. John’s Gospel, 14:6 emphasis added.

[2]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches this truth:


I answer that, As stated before, truth resides, in its primary aspect, in the intellect. Now since everything is true according as it has the form proper to its nature, the intellect, in so far as it is knowing, must be true, so far as it has the likeness of the thing known, this being its form, as knowing.  For this reason, truth is defined by the conformity of intellect and thing; and hence to know this conformity is to know truth. 


Summa, Ia, Q.16, a.2, respondeo, emphasis added.

[5]           See, e.g., these news reports:


  Construction workers arrested, fined, fired for laughing at men dressed as women, reported here:


  Protest at public library shows LGBT movement won’t stop until it dominates everything, reported here:


Whatever doubts people have about such delusions are whispered behind closed doors because the public levers of society are against them.  Such doubts always occur when swallowing the devil’s delusions because man has an intellect and retains a nagging doubt whenever he accepts “black as white”, i.e., any lie of the devil.  This gender delusion is like many other lies accepted by society, such as the acceptance of divorce even though people understand that it breaks the couple’s vows on their wedding day that they will be faithful to each other until death.


The longer society accepts a particular lie – whether concerning divorce, changing genders or anything else, the more people will be accustomed to taking the lie for granted.


[6]           Marriam-Webster Dictionary has designated the word “they” as its word of the year for 2019, in part because this word is “established in the English language” as a word now “used to refer to one person whose gender identity is nonbinary” (i.e., neither male nor female).


[7]           Genesis, 1:27 (emphasis added).



Interestingly, the only idea these students had much difficulty accepting was the suggestion that the 5’9” tall interviewer was really 6’5” tall, as he told them he was.  Id.


[14]         Emphasis added.  This quote is commonly attributed to G.K. Chesterton although we don’t know specifically where it is found in his writings.