Vatican should engage SSPX with detailed theological arguments

 The Society of St Pius X, without Vatican permission, proceeded with consecrating new bishops on July 1st 2026. This was done under appeal to a "state of necessity" as described in canon law as an exception to normative ecclesial law.

KEY TAKEAWAY: VATICAN HAS TO ENGAGE CONCERNS 

In their June 2026 Profession of Faith, the SSPX raised concerns about several "modern errors" harming souls in the Church today, such as: naturalism which attacks the necessity of grace, subjectivism, immutability of dogma, false ecumenism, and liturgical attacks, to name a few.

In moving forward with these bishop consecrations, the SSPX frequently referenced the Code of Canon law #1324, which states the penalty of violating a law

"must be diminished or a penance substituted in it's place, if the offence was committed by...one...who acted by reason of necessity. ...in the circumstances mentioned, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae [i.e. automatic] penalty, but may have lesser penalties or penances imposed for the purposes of repentance or repair of scandal.”

That paragraph corresponds to the 1917 Code of Canon law, which says in paragraph 2205:

"Additionally, grave fear, even if it is only relative, necessity, and even grave inconvenience for the most part thoroughly toll a delict, if it concerned a merely ecclesiastical law."

You see in each case the concept of "necessity" can be a deal-breaker in part or entirely when violating a particular ecclesial law.

Because this exceptional circumstance is described in Canon Law, it is reasonable to expect those who opine on the current SSPX situation to account for that exception, given that the SSPX is appealing to it. A large number of commentators have not done so. Pointing out the normative ecclesial laws is insufficient. An analogous situation would be the obligation a child has to obey his parent. This is normative lest the parent issues an immoral or unfulfillable directive, for example. And pointing out the normative law to honor one’s parents minus the existing context would be insufficient to address such a situation.

Ultimately, the SSPX believes their role in preserving Church Tradition and the Traditional Liturgy is one of serving souls. On May 12, 2026, the SSPX explained how even in the current pontificate, Cardinal Roche wrote that allowing the TLM was a "concession that in no way envisioned its promotion." The SSPX lamented this as one of the Church hierarchy's "modern errors" and therefore it is:

"more necessary than ever to allow the maximum number of souls to benefit from the treasures of Tradition and, given its worldwide expansion, two bishops aged nearly 70 are no longer sufficient to meet the expectations of all the faithful and seminarians."

The problem is neither the Vatican nor the Pope have confronted this the SSPX argument that they are in a state of necessity to proceed with the ordinations. The closest the Vatican has come to addressing the SSPX's contention is an invitation to "dialogue" about what the SSPX is required to believe – not, apparently, to address the SSPX’s concerns about the state of the Church in lieu of Vatican II or otherwise.

Some have criticized the SSPX because they are not the sole order promoting the Traditions they seek to restore to commonplace. Other societies or orders include the ICKSP or the Canons Regular. Yet, given the SSPX’s desire to serve the “maximum number of souls” with Traditional Rites and culture, this criticism falls short that would require the SSPX to be the only such society in order to justify consecrations.

SSPX-VATICAN RECENT TIMELINE 

Let's look at a general timeline of key events.

A February 8, 2026 statement by the SSPX seminary director stated:

"[O]ur Superior General requested an audience with the Pope several months ago. But alas, this audience has still not been granted. He has written several letters to the Pope and, so far, the only response he has received from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is a negative one."

The SSPX requests for meeting with the Pope extend back several years.

Finally, they were able to meet with Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fernandez is known for a number of scandalous sexual writings in his past and more recently his heretical opinion endorsing the blessing of same-sex "couples" as “couples” in his work Fiducia Supplicans and since.

On February 12, Fernandez met with the superior general of the SSPX, Fr. Davide Pagliarani. After the meeting, Fernandez invited the SSPX for further "dialogue." Fernandez mentioned that they discussed "certain points" that the SSPX had brought up as far back as 2017, such as the "question of the divine will regarding the plurality of religions." He said "the aim of this dialogue is to highlight, in the topics under discussion, the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church..."

Pagliarani responded within a week, rejecting this invitation to "dialogue" on several grounds. Among them are that Fernandez allegedly told them no text of the Vatican II council can be corrected nor the legitimacy of the liturgical reform challenged. Another reason Pagliarani gave is the Vatican’s desire to now "dialogue" instead of approving the consecrations and still offering dialogue. Pagliarani stated: "We have been waiting for seven years... only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional." He also mentioned that Fernandez included publicly made "threats" of schism as part of his communication inviting dialogue. Pagliarani also noted that what is the "minimum requirement" to be believed has already been established in Tradition and isn't something their dialogue can re-evaluate.

Later, Fernandez addressed the SSPX on May 13, 2026 in a 2-paragraph message saying the SSPX "do not have the requisite papal mandate" to ordain bishops.

The communication still lacked engagement with the SSPX's concerns about the Vatican Council or otherwise; nothing about their claim to "state of necessity" to ordain bishops; and no engagement with the SSPX's larger concerns about the state of the Church or "modern errors." Fernandez's statement merely says no, and does not provide any theological satisfaction as to why. A sound confrontation with grievances issued by the SSPX in a manner transparent to the entire Church could have gone a long way. If the Vatican had good reason to deny the episcopal consecrations, it would have been edifying for the entire Church to see that laid out.

For his part, Pope Leo has been mostly silent. During an informal media Q&A, the Pope said, "[The SSPX] refuse to accept some fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with several points of the Second Vatican Council." Yet, he offered no specifics on what these “fundamental” points of the Second Vatican Council are.

On June 29, two days prior to the consecrations, the Pope issued a short letter to the SSPX. He neither engaged with any of the SSPX's concerns. He merely asked them to not commit a "schismatic act" and to "please turn back."

EXCOMMUNICATION IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH 

July 1 came and went and the Vatican quickly issued a statement that the SSPX members were excommunicated and considered schismatic. https://wherepeteris.com/decree-of-excommunication-for-the-sspx/

Even after Fernandez declared the SSPX excommunicated, he issued a statement meant for any priests and lay faithful with the SSPX. Fernandez's statement included the command to "accept the Second Vatican Council." Many have observed: what exactly does that even mean?

There has been no public communication from the Vatican as to why the SSPX request to ordain bishops was denied, nor what these mysterious fundamentals of the Second Vatican Council are that apparently contradict the SSPX's June statement of faith?

It's also worth noting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI, said of Vatican II: 

"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of “super-dogma” which takes away the importance of all the rest." 

What are we to do with that fact? If Vatican II defined no dogma, then what "fundamental" "points" does it uniquely contain that are apparently so important as to be held lest one risk excommunication?

The SSPX issued a lengthy Profession of Faith in June. If parts of that Profession contradicted Church teaching - whether articulated through Vatican II or otherwise - what were those objectionable parts, according to Fernandez? He never addresses the question.

The faithful are left with three main options here:

One, is to speculate what "points" in the documents of the Second Vatican Council rise to the level of dogmatic requirement of belief? - points that evidentally escaped the notice of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI who said the council issued no dogmas?

Second, is to adopt a cynical belief and presume Fernandez (and the Pope by permission) seek to stifle the ministry of a traditional society to protect the very modernist path the SSPX says is poisoning the Church.

Third, is to acknowledge the complexities of the whole scandal and let the matter play out without drawing any consequential conclusions.

DAMAGE TO VATICAN'S MORAL AUTHORITY 

This lack of theological engagement by the Pope and Vatican officials is significant, particularly when the last two pontificates have so frequently pushed the concept of "synodality" and "dialogue" with everyone on the planet, but not the SSPX. It’s hard to accuse the SSPX of avoiding dialogue when they waited unsuccessfully for several years for papal engagement, issued lengthy detailed theological positions, and were met almost entirely with silence or vague denials.

So the situation the Church is now in, with relation to the SSPX, is that this order and it's members merit decrees of excommunication and schism, but not bishops who promote "LGBT" or who even call to "bless" same-sex "couples" as does Cardinal Fernandez – the very man who is supposed to uphold the doctrines of the Church. We are told the SSPX merits excommunication but not the bishops in China who the rest of the world understands as appointed by the state government. Even this past week a bishop with heretical views on sexuality was appointed bishop of a new ordinary in Germany.

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons - in an article condemning the SSPX for breaking unity with the Pope - still recognized the Vatican's hypocrisy: 

"Popes meet with every heretical Christian leader on the planet, with promoters of immorality, and with degenerate Hollywood celebrities, but not with the head of a thriving, growing community within its ranks. All because the community supposedly doesn’t “accept Vatican II” (a sin the Vatican will not actually define). If only the Vatican had been so bold over the years in disciplining Catholics who rejected Vatican II’s condemnation of birth control (Gaudium et Spes 51) or the Council’s defense of the necessity of the Church for salvation (Lumen Gentium 14)." 

In their untoward treatment of the SSPX, or even other traditionalists in recent years, while cozying up to numerous persons or groups promoting immorality and outright heresy (like the recent female in the Anglican Church pantomiming as a "bishop"), Vatican officials have been sterilizing their moral authority. Henceforth, some form of "why didn’t you treat the SSPX this generously?" will accompany Vatican officials' future collaborations with anti-Catholic parties.

This decree of schism and excommunication is particularly vexing coming from Fernandez because in October 2025, Fernandez censored the title of "Co-redemptrix" for Our Lady because, according to him, "When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful." Yet, here is Fernandez's decree of schism and excommunication, accompanied by zero explanation, no engagement with the SSPX's concerns, leaving the faithful unclear as to what parts of Vatican II rise to the level of dogma in contradistinction with the SSPX's statement of faith, etc. Under this vague nebula, Fernandez declared a religious order schismatic and excommunicated.

Remember, the only hint Fernandez provided as to why the SSPX is excommunicated and schismatic is that they don’t “accept” unspecified points of Vatican II. Yet, there are plenty of statements from the documents of the Second Vatican Council that many priests disobey, including the Vatican itself at times.

For example, Vatican II confirmed that salvation only exists through the Catholic Church, yet in September 2024, Pope Francis famously said, “Every religion is a way to arrive at God.”

Sacrosanctum Consilium #36 states: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Yet the Vatican hasn't remotely enforced this directive.

Nowhere does Vatican II call for ad populum posture when the priest says mass facing the congregation, instead of ad orientum as he had for centuries.

One criticism of the SSPX that some traditionalists are making is the timing of the SSPX's consecrations. For example, Dr. Taylor Marshal expressed reservations "about the prudence of doing this this early in the pontificate of Pope Leo." Other traditionalists hedged there criticism as well. In his Crisis Magazine article, Eric Sammons said the SSPX should not have done the consecrations because it set them against the Pope, the source of unity in the Church, however, he said, "I think the pope should have approved the episcopal consecrations in an act of mercy and reconciliation."

What many of the faithful would like to have seen is the Pope or his Vatican representative present a thorough engagement with the SSPX's concerns, to handle the matter with full transparency, in a manner easy to understand.

IS THE DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM AGAINST THE SSPX VALID? 

There are at least 3 perspectives on this question.

The first argument is YES - that the decree of excommunication and schism against the SSPX is valid because it belongs to the office of the Papacy or his representative to wield this jurisdiction. The Vatican holds this position and have declared the SSPX excommunicated automatically for ordaining bishops without papal permission and thus schismatic for disuniting with the Pope on this matter.

This argument is also predicated on the Papacy as the source of unity throughout the centuries. What complicates this position is that the SSPX openly recognizes Pope Leo XIV. The question is whether their disobedience constitutes disunity with the Pope in the sense it has meant throughout the centuries.

The second argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the SSPX is said to be innocent of the crimes which they are accused of doing. Prior to the declared excommunication/schism, Monsignor Jaime Mercant Simo, professor and doctor in Thomistic Studes, address the questions this way: 

But the "latae sententiae" excommunication will occur, that is, automatic and immediate, right? — From a canonical perspective, yes, but, in my humble opinion, such excommunication will be null; I believe there are sufficient theological and legal-philosophical reasons to conclude this, although I know that a large part of canonists will deny it to me from a purely legalistic viewpoint. However, I think that, in addition to the "state of necessity" being present as the fundamental motive, the "formal reason" for which such a penalty should effectively occur fails, given that there is no objective intention of formal schism nor will a parallel jurisdiction be created, I repeat. 

Why isn't it formally [schism]? — Because, for a "perfect schism" to occur, there must be a clear intention to perform a schismatic act and to establish, with the new bishops, a hierarchical jurisdiction parallel to the one existing in the Roman Catholic Church. Now, in this case, neither one nor the other will happen. 

After Cardinal Fernandez issued his excommunication and schism decree, a number of canon experts opined that the penalty lacks force. Those holding this view include InfoVaticana and Canon of Shaftesbury - a judicial vicar in a major archdiocese.

The Canon of Shaftesbury amplifies what appears to be a relevant canon in the penal process. Canon 1720 states that in a penal process, the ordinary must "inform the accused of the accusation and the proofs, giving an opportunity for self-defense..." It seems neither of these requirements were met.

Fernandez, as we have mentioned several times above, has issued no detailed rebuttal nor "proof" of what beliefs the SSPX hold that are objectionable. The generic idea that they must "accept the Second Vatican Council" is not-specific enough to be understood and cannot qualify as a "proof" of impropriety. It follows that the SSPX was not afforded an opportunity for self-defense either.

Others, like EWTN canon lawyer Fr. Gerald Murray, have observed that Pope Francis had endorsed the SSPX's faculties to hear confessions and preside over marriages. Cardinal Fernandez's decree claims to have revoked those privileges. However, those faculties require papal reversal given that they were issued by a prior Pope.

Related to this second argument is one posited by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who observes that the Church even unto ancient times did not consider an episcopal consecration made without papal approval a schismatic act. Rather it was disobedience given a suspension.

The third argument is NO - that the decrees of excommunication and schism against the SSPX are void because the one issuing the decree - namely Cardinal Fernandez - is himself a heretic and thus his faculties to issue such a degree were forfeited. This argument would point to something like Fernandez's apparent denial of an objective truth like the objective immorality of same-sex behavior, which he denies in his encouragement to offer a blessing over that objective immorality. Or it could be another of his positions that are considered heretical.

This third argument also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa 2.2.39, who stated: 

"On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid."

This third argument would have difficulty if Pope Leo formalizes the excommunications while no sound case of heresy was established of him. In any case, it is implausible that the Pope would declare Fernandez heretical at this point, and he would be the most fitting one to do it. If this third argument were true, it would foremost beheld in the eyes of God.

AN AVOIDABLE SCANDAL 

This entire scandal could have been avoided on several fronts.

Obviously, the modernist tendencies of the Church have been poisonous for several decades, from liturgical abuses to "cancelled" priests to affronts to dogmatic sexual teaching to contradicting Sacred Tradition. These matters are serious and are the impetus for the SSPX's actions.

Of course, the SSPX, for their part, could have submitted to the Pope's request to not consecrate the bishops, or they could have given the Pope more time, etc. Certainly, the Vatican's failure to give the SSPX a reasonable engagement with problems in the Church today also contributed to any impatience of which the SSPX may be guilty.

The Pope also could have simply approved the SSPX's request for consecrating the bishops. Why was this denied? Because the SSPX had grievances about the trajectory of the Church that were so untenable to Fernandez as to remain unspecified? But that would not explain why Fernandez wouldn't have declared the SSPX schismatic and excommunicated prior to the consecrations. If the Pope (and Fernandez) truly desired the dialogue they claimed to desire, this could have been done just as easily if the SSPX had 4 more or less bishops.

At worst, the Vatican through Fernandez have committed an injustice against the SSPX and the Church throughout centuries of Tradition. At best, the Vatican rightfully sanctioned the SSPX, but their hypocritical in how they treat other clearly heretical clergy is amplified.

Ultimately, the faithful are left with yet another scandal.

If the death penalty violates human dignity, so does a $5 fine

Recently, Pope Leo XIV echoed the sentiment of his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis, on the admissibility of the death penalty. In so doing, he joined Francis' departure from hundreds of Popes and Tradition prior. Other sound articles have examined the Tradition on the death penalty, such as “Two problems with Dignitas Infinita” by Dr. Edward Feser.

What this article will do is examine two aspects of Leo's (and Francis's) argument. 

First: Why appealing to human dignity as a disqualifier of the death penalty, Leo necessarily disqualifies any punishment that is ordinarily an affront to the human person.

Second: A rebuttal to the assertion that the death penalty uniquely deprives the guilty from the opportunity to repent.

HUMAN DIGNITY AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Pope Leo stated: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

In saying this, Leo appealed to the right to life that is natural and properly due to the human person. Man, in the image of God, is a moral creature with various obligations and due rights associated with that dignity.

In saying man’s dignity is “inviolable,” Leo implies that a man guilty of, say, murder, is always due his right to life since that is a right due to man naturally.

Leo added: “The right to life is the very foundation of every other human right.”

But if a guilty man retains his right to that which is his right naturally, then by the same reasoning, so too would imprisonment or even a monetary fine violate the guilty man’s dignity. After all, freedom is a right of man naturally. The right to one’s possessions is a right of man naturally.

"The Ten Commandments...bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person." (CCC#2070)

The Catechism section on the 7^th commandment (Thou Shall Not Steal) specifically states man’s right to his own money flows from his dignity:

"In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice...of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor's rights and render him what is his due." (CCC#2407)

And yet, in punishing the guilty, monetary fines are often given. But if man’s dignity is “inviolable” in the context that Popes Leo and Francis have applied, then a monetary fine would violate the seventh commandment as robbery of the guilty man—an affront to his inherent dignity by which he has the right to his own possessions. It would merely be a lesser affront to the guilty man than the death penalty. But it equates to the two latest popes endorsing a lesser sin by their own reasoning.

OBJECTION TO DEATH PENALTY DEPRIVING THE GUILTY A CHANCE TO REPENT

Leo also singled out the death penalty suggesting it was an impediment to repentance. He stated:

“Effective systems of detention can be and have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Therefore, a defender of Pope Leo might argue that the death penalty is different than imprisonment or a monetary fine on this notion that the death penalty deprives the guilty of a chance to repent.

However, not only does the death penalty not deprive the guilty of a chance to repent, but tradition has interpreted the death penalty as a mechanism by which the guilty is moved to repentance. For example:

“They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 3.146)

According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2.2.64.2)

“It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace.  ... because there is hope that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis 13, 1588)

Even in the case of the execution of one condemned to death, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. It is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the 'good' of life, in expiation of his fault, after he, through his crime, has dispossessed himself of his 'right' to life. (Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, September 14, 1952)

"The sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the criminal’s reconciliation with God." (Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., Catholicism & Capital Punishment, First Things, April 2001)

Catholic Morality Check 2026

GK Chesterton said Catholicism “is the only thing that saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.” 

This means a foundation built on Christ—who is truth itself—is able to bypass biases, propaganda, and tribal mentality. Catholicism capacitates one to call out an injustice based on the object of an act, not on whether the culprit is a republican, democrat, man, woman, etc. But we have seen in recent months Catholics or other conservative thinkers that have strayed from such basic principles and logical deduction. They have fallen into a variety of logical fallacies. In many cases they hold positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching in favor of political or other loyalties.

A critique of a so-called conservative or someone thought to be a populist, like Trump was at one point, doesn't equate to an endorsement of other corrupt politicians in the past like Obama or Biden etc. Conservatives were able to specifically identify immoralities during those administrations, from sexual perversions in schools to their own share of corrupt wars. Yet this continues under Trump in various forms. 

There are analyses observing how the occupant of the White House is irrelevant because the system is rather a "continuity of agenda" run by other handlers.  In many ways, Republican versus Democrat is a "boomer" politics that no longer applies. In the following analysis, the betrayals attributed to the Trump Administration are to the extent he and his team are the current vessels carrying out that continuous agenda. 

Gustave Dore, "The Judas Kiss," (detail) ca 1866

IMMIGRATION

Let's start with the immigration issue. As the Catechism teaches, a nation has the right to apply "juridical conditions" to regulate immigration.  The mass inflow of foreign individuals by illegal means in recent years has resulted in a variety of financial and criminal problems, both in the US and Europe. It is an acceptable position to support licit deportation, especially of those who have compounded criminal activity while on America's soil, while still supporting legal migration. 

On the one hand American bishops have been reckless in trying to characterize all migrants as if they met the criteria of being a refugee in need of basic resources. The millions of migrants in the current situation do not all meet this status. The bishops have not been entirely open about this nor have they afforded adequate attention to the Church teaching that a nation has the right to regulate migration, because unfettered immigration is unsustainable.

That being said, many Catholics are conflating the just cause of enforcing proper immigration law with the methods to accomplish that. The Trump Administration has employed federal agents throughout the country, heavily armed, with military vehicles, who are themselves masked. In January 2026, the world witnessed videos of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in Minnesota.  A viewing of both sets of the available video angles of these two incidents reveals that neither victim committed an act that merited lethal force from the masked federal officers. 

Catholics, including Vice President JD Vance, incorrectly described what was evident in the Renee Good video footage. They often built arguments on statements about how you can't assault an officer, yet that didn't happen in this incident. It was disturbing to see how many conservatives—who in the past would have broken down in detail videos like Rodney King or the forensics with Michael Brown—avoid that kind of scrutiny of the evidence in this instance. 

The video footage shows Good turning the wheel of her vehicle away from the eventual shooting officer, who leaned toward the vehicle to shoot once through the windshield and twice through the side window when she was clearly past him. Her turned wheels were consistent with an attempt to drive away.  An examination of the various camera angles of the killing reveal that the officer who killed her was not in danger at any point.  He unnecessarily initiated contact with her windshield while holding a cell phone and pistol. The Department of Justice has a protocol  pertaining to use of lethal force if a perpetrator is using a vehicle as a deadly weapon. This protocol forbids lethal force if simply moving "out of the path" is an option. In this case, stepping aside was obviously an option, because the officer did that as he fired.

Any blocking traffic mischief on the part of Good prior to the killing did not merit lethal force. Many drew attention to Good being in a lesbian relationship or that her "partner" on the scene was verbally taunting. None of this justified lethal force either. The discussion isn't whether or not she is a leftist. The legal responses to mischief or obstruction of a police vehicle were not applied. Lethal force was applied. There would be no such controversy had she been arrested on those grounds or if she had fled the scene and was arrested later.

Many conflated the killing of Renee Good with support for immigration control in general. But this is the sort of politicized thinking that abandons the facts on the ground and adheres to something more tribal. It seems even Catholics were unable to objectively interpret this incident for fear that doing so would somehow be tantamount to supporting illegal immigration or the Democrat party in general when the two positions are not codependent. It is possible to simultaneously think all three of the following: Lethal force was not merited against Good, unfettered immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed, and the Democrat party is full of corruption. 

The Trump Administration and others compounded the problem by their histrionic use of the word "terrorist" to describe Renee Good. It was tantamount to years past when the Left would incessantly brand everything they didn't like racist or sexist, etc., diluting the significance of the words. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called Good's actions "domestic terrorism."  Vice President JD Vance called Good's actions prior to being killed as "classic terrorism." 

The Alex Pretti killing was arguably a worse injustice (Video). He was standing on the sidewalk holding a cell phone. He had a concealed pistol that he was licensed to carry. An ICE agent shoved a female civilian to the ground near Pretti.  Pretti stood over the woman and held up a "whoa" hand toward the agent as he was backing up and turning away. The agent then shoved Pretti in the back. Pretti attempted to pull the woman up. He is then swarmed by agents who disarm him and shoot him multiple times, apparently disarmed. 

Keeping in mind our Catholic faith that measures "object"-ively, even if one wishes to interpret Pretti pulling on the woman as interference with police activity, that does not merit lethal force. Catholics and others also tried to justify the killing of Pretti by pointing to a video of Pretti over a week prior in which he was yelling and kicked out an ICE vehicle's taillight.  However, again, none of this merited lethal force on the day he was shot.

To compound the horror of Pretti's killing, members of the Trump Administration again took to defaming the victim. FBI Director Kash Patel lied to the public in an interview when he said, "You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines (sic) to any sort of protest you want."  The Minnesota carry law has no such restriction.  US Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino took the histrionics to another level, asserting gratuitously that Pretti "approached US Border Patrol agents with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun ... [and] wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement."  Trump official Stephen Miller called Pretty an "assassin."  President Trump recklessly (and incorrectly according to the law) said regarding the Pretti incident, "You can't have guns."  Catholics and any reasonable person who supports Second Amendment rights to self-defense should be scandalized by this entire incident from start to aftermath. 

In both the Good and Pretti killings, it was also disturbing to see how many who profess to be pro-life tribally cheering their deaths. Some even went so far as to use the vulgar taunt FAFO, as if chanting at a sporting event and killing the other "side" equals a touchdown.  Even if these killings had merited lethal force—which they did not—to be pro-life is predicated on the value and dignity of human life. And it is unbecoming to cheer on the killings of individuals based not on some tragic-but-justifiable use of lethal force, but based on a politically motivated support of groundless use of lethal force.  These are the types of mentality that gave rise to the gestapo in the Third Reich, which also operated as a Police State and with immunity. Despite a reasonable desire to address the immigration problem, cheering on federalized police force on the streets, who operate with disguises and immunity, is a recipe for long term disaster.

IMMIGRATION BIG PICTURE

But there is yet a larger picture missed throughout all this. Catholics and others are acting as if the concept of ICE—trying to round up millions of individuals, wearing masks, acting with brutality, and according to the Vice President with immunity —were the only way the immigration problem can be addressed. However, not only are ICE's recent methods paving the way for a Police State intentionally or not, they are not addressing the larger picture. 

Both Trump and a host of conservatives pointed out how politicians were inviting people into the country illegally in order to skew elections with illegal votes or artificial alterations of district populations. 

The people voted for Trump based on his apparent intent to address this broken system. But where are the Administration's efforts—at least as aggressive as what ICE is doing in the streets—to serve justice to those politicians? Where is the Administration's effort to prosecute corporations that were also part of the illegal entry system that exploited the labor illegally? ICE has verbalized threats against the executives running corporations but where are the mass raids on them on any scale?  Where is the Administration's effort to prosecute NGOs, including supposedly Christian ones, that may have been involved in the illegal transportation or harboring of individuals across the border?  How many times during the campaign were we told by Conservatives about the bussing that was going on bringing individuals into the country illegally? 

Furthermore, US sanctions against other nations have—by their own admission—caused civil unrest among those countries' populations.  When done in Latin America, it incentivizes illegal migration, which is then brought to the public as a problem to be solved, even though at every turn, the powers-that-be engineered the whole problem.

Why is there basically zero effort to break the system of the criminal wealthy and elite? These are part of the Swamp Trump incessantly promised to drain. Catholics should not be missing this point. This intentional network is the main source of the problem, not the individuals who accepted their invitation. The current method is tantamount to going after every single drug user in the country instead of going after the dealers. It's not only inefficient but it won't solve the problem. Deportation according to the law is licit, but isn't the root cause.

What's also disturbing is that the Administration shows an awareness that you have to go after the orchestrators of a scheme. On the January protest that occurred inside a church, Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon vowed to go after whoever "paid for, coordinated, or participated" in the crime. Great. Why are they not doing the same with those who coordinated the immigration problem in the first place?

VENEZUELA

Catholics and others might consider a refresher on Just War Theory, including: 

• grave and certain damage from an aggressor
• exhausted diplomacy or alternatives to war
• prospect of success based on the previous
• result must not produce greater evil than original condition

Many Catholics were okay with the indiscriminate bombing of Caribbean speedboats without knowing the identity of the boatmen, had no ability to reach the American border (that Trump said his Administration "closed" in February 2025) because they were thousands of miles away in a small speed boat. 

Furthermore, the Administration kidnapped Maduro, the president of Venezuela, based originally on the narrative that Venezuela was, according to Trump, killing 25,000 people every time a speedboat from there supposedly came to America with fentanyl. Yet, in the Trump Administration's own DEA National Drug Threat Assessment report from May 2025, Venezuela does not appear once under the fentanyl section and only once in unrelated street trafficking. 

The fentanyl narrative then morphed. The US tried to justify Maduro's kidnapping because he was the ringleader of a drug gang called Cartel de los Soles. But the Adminstration subsequently had to admit no such organization still exists.  

Multiple reports in October 2025 said Maduro had offered the US oil deals according to what the Trump Administration was demanding, but was refused. After having refused Maduro's offer, Rubio later said Maduro was "simply not a guy you can make a deal with." 

The entire affair failed to meet Just War's main criteria of no immediate or certain threat and no exhaustion of diplomacy. 

Later, Rubio also denied that the kidnapping or bombing of speedboats constituted an "act of war," which would require Congressional approval. Despite an "armada" of US military involved for months on Venezuela's doorstep, including for the kidnapping, Rubio argued that the kidnapping only took 4-some hours and was a "law enforcement" operation, so it couldn't be an act of war.  The operation killed over 80 Venezuelans and Cubans stationed there. Senator Rand Paul pointed out the nonsensicality of Rubio's testimony,  positing how the kidnapping would have been perceived by the US if it had been done to the US, and concluding: "Of course it would be an act of war."

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons succinctly described the matter:

The president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted and captured... It is Orwellian to claim this was merely a law enforcement function. We literally had our military enter another country without invitation - that is, by the way, called an invasion. They captured and abducted the head of state and then took him to our country. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what is. Okay. If somebody did that to us — if some other country came in, went after Trump, and got out — would we not think that's an act of war? There's not a single American who wouldn't think that's an act of war. 

Sammons also pointed out how Catholic just war theory "cuts through the propaganda." 

In another interview, Rubio let out the underlying motive for Venezuelan regime change. It wasn't to protect Americans or stop drugs or any of the original narratives. It was to control the oil and prevent China, Russia, and Iran from lawfully buying it as they had done.  The US wanted to control those purchases, which is not a grave matter justifying a war. It's violation of other nations' own sovereignty. This isn't much different than the mobster who says "I control this street corner" and takes over the shop infringing on the mobster's profits.

IRAN

Catholic professor and philosopher Dr. Edward Feser expounded on why US getting involved in war with Iran failed to meet Just War theory criteria.  Reasons include specious claims that have persisted for decades that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that Middle East regime changes by the US have consistently resulted in a worse outcome for the region.

In June 2025, the US involved itself in war against Iran on the false premise that Iran had or was days away from having a nuclear weapon and was about to use it unjustly. The United States National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard testified about 12 weeks prior to the US-Israel bombing of Iran that "Iran is not building a nuclear weapon..."

Also in June 2025, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who functions as a UN inspector of nuclear capabilities, said, “We did not have elements to prove that Iran had a plan or a systematic effort towards a nuclear weapon.”

In collaboration with Israel, dozens of Iranian officials were assassinated on June 13, 2025.  The Trump Administration then directly bombed Iranian facilities, supposedly containing imminent nukes. 

After the whole fiasco, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Trump had dealt the "final blow" to Iran's nuclear program  That "final blow" lasted all of 6 months as the Trump administration has again reignited tensions with Iran. Currently, a US military armada has been sent to the region on the pretext of the exact same "nuclear weapons" matter they claimed they solved months earlier. 

Saying the quiet part out loud again, Rubio admitted that the US used their aggression against Iran to pressure China who purchased oil from Iran as well as Venezuela. 

GAZA

The worst war of them all is the US's collaboration in the genocide perpetrated by the State of Israel against the people of Palestine. After Israel had imposed two years of disproportionate and merciless aggression against the people of Gaza, the Vatican's Cardinal Parolin issued a statement:

"[T]he war waged by the Israeli army...disregards the fact that it is targeting a largely defenceless population...buildings and homes are reduced to rubble. ...countries truly capable of exerting influence have so far failed to act to stop the ongoing massacre." 

Pope Leo, when asked about the interview in which Parolin made his comments, said, "The Cardinal expressed the Holy See's opinion very well." 

Conservative estimates of 70,000+ civilians, including many children, have been slaughtered at the hands of Israeli attacks or starvation tactics in the past 2+ years.  Israel has conceded this number, suggesting the total is much higher.  Given the number of bodies beneath the rubble, and given that Israel is reported to have used thermobaric weapons that can vaporize victims, some victim total estimates are over 200,000 . 

In September 2025, the United Nations issued a report, stating, "“It is clear there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention.”

The landscape is demolished. 

WE CANNOT STOP TALKING ABOUT GAZA. The US is complicit. Republicans and democrats funded, supported and empowered Israel to do this. We have a choice America! It’s time we put Americans first! It time we put humanity first! https://t.co/gDisONlK5w pic.twitter.com/jAwclGSQJi

— Anthony Aguilar (@AnthonyAgu88102) February 1, 2026

Colonel Anthony Aguilar, a first-hand witness of the scene, described it as something out of the dystopian Terminator films.  In January, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke of plans to build resorts on the demolitioned landscape. 

Not only has President Trump collaborated in these atrocities but he (i.e. his handlers) appointed Israel—the perpetrator of atrocities in Gaza—to the "Board of Peace" overseeing Gaza going forward (in addition to concerns this is also a scheme to supplant the UN). In November 2025, Trump called for Israeli PM Netanyahu to be pardoned, repeating the demand in December and again in February 2026 when he criticized Israeli President Herzog for not issuing the pardon yet.  Trump also praised Netanyahu—the PM of the political nation responsible for the maiming (graphic warning) and deaths of thousands of innocents and children—for being a "wartime president who’s a hero."  This is arguably the worst holocaust of the 21st century, ironically perpetrated by Israel, and Trump is praising the perpetrator as a "hero." 

Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio, another professed Catholic, has innumerable times espoused a "stand with Israel" policy.  A leaked 2015 email revealed Larry Ellison—a billionaire and frequent lobbyist for the state of Israel—said "Marco will be a great friend for Israel.”  As Secretary in 2025, Rubio specifically protected Israel's atrocities in Gaza when he condemned  the International Criminal Court's upholding of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. 

At one point in August 2025, the Trump Administration threatened to withhold federal funds from any US State that engaged in protest against Israel's war on Palestinians.  In February 2026, the Trump Administration was involved in trying to oust Carrie Prejean Boller, a Catholic, from the so-called "Religious Liberty" Commission for declaring that Catholics have a right to speak out against Zionist ambitions in the Gaza genocide. Israel has meanwhile put millions of dollars into media control and openly have called for censorship of opposition. 

It will be very difficult for Trump to politically or morally escape his reputation as a collaborator in the worst genocide of the century. 

EPSTEIN

Addressing one atrocity after another brings us to the Epstein coverup. Relating to the last topic, Epstein was also apparently working for or with Israel's Mossad intelligence division. 

 At the behest of congressmen Thomas Massie (who Trump attacks regularly) and Ro Khanna, multiple files have been released, albeit heavily redacted. (The link references in the following sentence contain disturbing descriptions.) The public has learned that there is indeed a sex and child trafficking movement among the world's elite that apparently involves cannibalism, pedophilia, torture, in addition to major political leverage exercised through the Epstein network on the lives of citizens globally. Multiple global politicians have already resigned from their posts after the recent exposé.  

Both AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have arguably perjured themselves or engaged in public fraud when they denied that the Epstein files had any evidence of criminal activity or minor trafficking. Trump, prior to his second term, spoke of intent to release Epstein files.  Yet, even in recent weeks, he continued to thwart Massie's efforts to release the files and maintained they were a "Democrat hoax." 

During a February 2026 congressional hearing on the Epstein files that expose some of the horrors, Bondi was asked about why names were redacted or why there have been no indictments. Bondi gave devious non-sequitur answers, asking instead why wasn't the previous corrupt AG asked these questions or why not talk about the stock market?  AAG Dhillon, a supposedly pro-life lawyer, said she was "so proud" of Bondi's testimony that blatantly thwarted efforts to expose crimes against children, among other crimes. 

Bondi's testimony, had it been given by a common citizen in a court of law, would have resulted in that citizen immediately held in contempt and taken out in handcuffs.

The nightmarish crimes continue without justice. The network of elites orchestrating the crimes remain in power throughout the world, influencing policy, trade, and wars. When asked about the Epstein network, Trump's press secretary Karoline Leavitt—also a professed Catholic—said in February 2026 "We're moving on from that." 

CONCLUSION

Catholics, conservatives, or anyone of good will should not shy away from identifying moral decadence based on the object of the act, not who is saying it. They should not shy away from acknowledging Trump has been a monumental betrayer on his lack of prosecution of the Swamp involved in the immigration problem, his failed "no wars" promises, his failed Epstein justice promises, etc. 

There's often a philosophical or sci-fi scenario where people imagine going back in time and what they would do to stop various horrors. Those horrors are today, from crimes against children, wars, legal injustices, genocide, abortion holocaust too. They are here and must be first recognized before they can be addressed. And not enough are recognizing the crimes. Cling to the Catholic faith to cut through the noise.

Beware of "pro-life" warmongers

Be wary of "pro-life" war-mongers. Consider a thought exercise. Are there politicians who give lip-service to the pro-life movement, but show elsewhere that their support for human dignity is grossly distorted or an outright fraud? With their lips do they say they support life while supporting senseless deaths in unjust and needless wars—including wars or bombings that victimize civilians, women, and children? Does their desire to serve some war-profiting or political ambition supersede their claimed pro-life stance? 

WHO ARE SOME OF THESE "PRO-LIFE" POLITICIANS WITH DANGEROUS AFFINITY FOR WAR?

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is well-known for his affinity for war.  Graham recently praised Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky for sending Ukrainian soldiers to die instead of American soldiers on behalf of Graham's ambitions.  (See the end of this article for context and source material on the Ukraine-Russian conflict to see how Western forces, including the US, EU, and NATO, provoked the war. (Jump to end))

In 2023, Graham joked with Zelensky about how "the Russians are dying" and said the U.S. funding the war was "the best money we've ever spent." Graham declared that they would fund Ukraine until their last person is killed. In 2016 he urged Ukraine to attack Russians in the Donbas where ethnic Russian civilians were killed. According to a Grok query, Graham has posted on X about Russia and/or Ukraine some 80 times already in 2025 through August 7. He has even called for sanctioning any nation that engages in commerce with Russia. It is effectively economic terrorism against countries that do not pursue Graham's war ambitions. Does he rally for the unborn remotely to this extent?

In 2023, Graham called on Israel to "level the place," in reference to Gaza, which is populated by millions of civilians.   

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for several individuals in Israel and Palestine, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Among the Israeli officials' listed crimes are:

• "crimes against humanity and war crimes" 
• "[caused] lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, [which] created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration."
• "intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza."

Lindsey Graham responded to the ICC's arrest warrants not with outrage of the accusations, not a refutation of the accusations, but by threatening the ICC court itself with sanctions and any "nation or organization that aids or abets" the arrest warrants. He made no mention of the starved and killed Palestinian civilians and children. Graham's calls for sanctions against the ICC were echoed by other "pro-life" politicians including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton, none of whom addressed the arrest warrant details.  Cotton even called on the president to leverage the Hague Invasion Act against the ICC, which calls to "use all means necessary" to respond to such an arrest. 

In June 2025, Graham called for extermination of Iran and regime change and called for sending American troops to Iran.  

Ted Cruz has vocalized pro-life positions, yet recently attempted to use the Bible to justify Israel's June attack on Iran, saying "Biblically, we are commanded to support Israel." The comment is, of course, false.  It is grotesque to support a war by automatically siding with Israel instead of the context of the situation. 

Particularly in this case, it does not appear the attack against Iran satisfied "just war" criteria. On June 13, 2025 Israel conducted bombings and assassinations on the pretext that Iran was imminently threatening Israel with a nuclear weapon that all sides admit they did not have. The action defied the testimony of National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard who reported Iran was not building a nuclear weapon as of March 2025.  The action defied the testimony of the  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi, who said on June 17, 2025 that his inspectors did not identify "any proof" that Iran had the nuclear plans that US-Israel claimed. Grossi said the claims about when Iran would use a nuke were "speculation." The IAEA reported this to the relevant parties. The attack on Iran failed "just war" criteria and was an act of aggression. The culprits offered no evidence that what was done was an act of self-defense. It is particularly vexing given that the President's diplomat in Iran, Steve Witkoff, said only a few weeks prior that negotiations were progressing. In April, Witkoff said the US was not seeking full denuclearization and were working with Iran on enrichment levels.  

Meanwhile, the world—at least the world who managed to avoid the corporate media's censorship of Gaza—has seen Israel committing numerous acts of violence against civilians

In July, Jerusalem Cardinal Pizzaballa responded to Israel striking the only Catholic church in Gaza: "the IDF says by mistake, but we are not sure about this, they hit the Church directly, the Church of the Holy Family, the Latin Church."  Israel's attack on the Church of the Holy Family killed 3 and wounded multiple others. Pope Leo also condemned the "attack by the Israeli army on the Catholic Parish of the holy Family in Gaza City..." The Pope also said, "[T]his act adds to the continuous military attacks against the civilian population and places of worship in Gaza."

Bishop Strickland issued a public letter condemning Israel's genocidal ambitions against the people of Gaza.  The situation in Gaza was described by first-hand witness Lt. Col. Tony Aguilar as "post-apocalyptic."  The Gazan terrain is a landscape of rubble. Cruz didn't even mention Gaza nor the Palestinians when he claimed the Bible condoned modern Israel's political ambitions. 

At least 5 more Palestinians, including two children, have starved to death in the past 24 hours, raising the total hunger-related deaths to 217, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

LIVE updates: https://t.co/pA4LOe8Llx pic.twitter.com/wjERNluDBT

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) August 10, 2025

House Speaker Mike Johnson condemned congressman Thomas Massie who said the US should stay out of other nations' war and that the president has to consult congress first anyway.

Regarding the Israel-Iran conflict, Johnson said Israel's June 13 attack that killed civilians and Iranian officials was "defensive." Johnson has repeated the common phrase among neocon politicians that we have to "stand by our ally Israel," even when they are starving children and killing civilians in Gaza. Recently, Johnson also echoed Ted Cruz's erroneous claim that the Bible says we have to agree with Israel in whatever conflict they're in. 

Former Vice President Mike Pence insisted that "Americans will have to die for Ukraine" if they start losing the war. He was booed in July 2023 for saying the US needed to fund the Ukraine war.  In July 2025, Pence called for sending even more weapons to Ukraine to keep the war going.  

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized the bombing of a civilian building in Yemen to kill a single man. Leaked text messages revealed the aftermath of the bombing: "We had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed." 

In 2022, Texas congressman Dan Crenshaw famously sparred with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on war. Crenshaw supported the war versus Russia in part because he thought US war ambitions could be achieved "without losing a single American troop." This sentiment is similar to what Graham said to Zelensky in celebrating Ukrainian deaths over American.  Greene, among others, challenged this logic that somehow spilling Ukrainian's blood is justification for a war. Crenshaw responded to Greene with a non sequitur, ad hominem attack. 

On another occasion, Crenshaw said he would "kill" Tucker Carlson (who is vocally pro-life and opposed to US war-meddling) if he met him and added that he wasn't joking. Crenshaw later denied ever having said it.  

And there are other politicians who profess to be "pro-life" but who have a propensity for war without cause. These are just a sample.

STATE OF THE PRO-LIFE LANDSCAPE

We know that politicians espousing pro-life sentiments find great favor with pro-life voters. After all, support for the unborn is a "pre-eminent priority" as the USCCB has affirmed. Consider, if a politician leverages this worthy desire for votes, but the pro-life landscape remains worse, unchanged, or marginally better, is it worth demanding more from these politicians in lieu of the wars and travesties they elsewhere promote? 

Many pro-lifers celebrated the recent closure of several Planned Parenthood abortion centers. However, from the perspective of the abortion industry, their primary form of abortion is mail-order abortion pills now. According to the abortion-promoting Guttmacher Institute, at-home chemical abortions went from 6% in 2001 to 31% in 2014 to 63% in 2023.  These are their latest figures.  The figure could easily be over 70% or more by now.  The abortion industry may have already planned to close brick and mortar abortion mills because they don't "need" as many of them anymore. More women and girls are serving as their own doctors in their own homes, aborting their children in private, facing the risks of self-administered abortion like hemorrhaging or potentially fatal infection. The abortion industry shows little to no concern for the women (nor obviously the babies). The Ethics and Public Policy Center revealed data showing over 10% of women taking the abortion pill experience a "serious adverse event."  Taxpayer dollars not paying for abortion is a good thing. But the abortion industry has many more tentacles at work.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard the case on the safety of mifepristone.  The plaintiffs included pro-life doctors who had to absorb the fallout in ER visits and other increased care due to the increase in side effects from more women self-administering abortions at home.  The court ruled 9-0 that the plaintiffs did not have "standing." But ultimately the court did not confront how mifepristone was incorrectly fast-tracked by the FDA in 2000 on the false grounds that it was a life-saving treatment. The abortion pill remains on the market. 

The abortion industry and their political allies have increased the number of Plan B pills in vending machines, including at colleges. The drug is an abortifacient. The FDA's drug label for Plan B admits it can work by preventing implantation after conception has already occurred.  

IVF use is on the rise, and lawmakers are pushing for government funding for that procedure, which typically results in the discarding of some 80% of embryos— human persons—each time.  The National Catholic Register reports more babies die annually from being discarded via IVF than abortion.  They don't need brick and mortar clinics for these types of abortions.  Meanwhile, "pro-life" politicians, like Ted Cruz, proposed a bill that would withhold Medicaid funding from any state that banned IVF.  

Are these "pro-life" politicians factoring in these variables about the abortion pill? Plan B? IVF?  Are they a step behind?  Are their pro-life efforts lacking?

CALLING "PRO-LIFE" WAR-MONGERS TO REDIRECT THEIR WAR ATTENTION

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons synthesized the context of the issues of abortion and war succinctly: "[I]n terms of death and evil, the consequences of our foreign policy are nearly as destructive as the abortion holocaust."  

Like Euthanasia, the issue of lives lost and destroyed in wars is in the scope of pro-life enterprises, particularly when those wars are unjust, senseless, and—like abortion—victimize the innocent.  

Do these "pro-life" politicians fight for the unborn to the extent they fight to protect evident genocides elsewhere? Congressmen celebrate people dying in wars that only benefit the interests of political elites—is that consistent with the belief in the dignity of human life?  Do they fight for the unborn as hard as they fight to perpetuate war?

----------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX: WHY IS THERE A WAR IN UKRAINE?

Western media has insulated the public on how NATO and the West provoked Russia. The following context for the Ukraine conflict is especially relevant in this analysis because the "pro-life" war-mongers flaming this war rarely address these variables:

• RFK Jr explains some of the profit motives for wars like Ukraine.
• Ukraine had and was actively killing ethnic Russians in regions like Donbas at the onset of the war, and the West boasted of arming those attacks.
• Putin cited the Donbas slaughter at the onset of the war.
• The 2015 film Ukraine on Fire by Oliver Stone is valuable in learning about the Maidan coup in Ukraine, orchestrated by Western politicians. The film is especially valuable in the sense that it is not tainted by post-2022 narratives.   A leaked phone call between US diplomats Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt revealed them planning the Maidan coup to install an official that would serve their ambitions against Russia. 
• Professor Jeffrey Sachs explains the Ukraine war in 10 minutes.
• Russia was prepared to stop the war in the earliest days if Ukraine accepted neutrality and avoid NATO membership.  In 2022, former British PM Boris Johnson intervened and stopped that peace deal.
• In January 2025, President Donald Trump—before his anti-Russian aggression of the summer— admitted NATO's encroachment on Russia's "doorstep" was understandably a problem for Russia.
• During 2014 conflicts, Russia had agreed to a ceasefire now known as the Minsk agreement. But former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande admitted they arranged for Ukraine to use this ceasefire as a diversion to rearm and buy time instead of leading to peace. In 2025, Western officials have accused Russia of not wanting peace for not accepting new "ceasefires," but Russians do so in lieu of fake ceasefires in the past like Minsk. 
• RFK Jr. explains how Trump abandoned the nuclear range treaty in 2019 and that Biden and other war neocons have as their goal regime change in Russia.
• Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
• Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
• Russia's terms for peace have been consistent for some time. These are primarily: 1. demilitarizing Ukraine due to its proxy use by NATO and lack of neutrality; 2. return to 1991 borders due to the same violation of NATO agreements and to protect Moscow from ranged missiles; and 3. assurance that Ukraine can never join NATO because that status obligates all NATO members to join any war in which Ukraine engages. 
• A meeting between Trump and Putin is scheduled in Alaska for August 15, the Feast of the Assumption.