Home
Page Faithful
to the Magisterium Ubi
Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia Write
to Marty 
Why Catholic? Because True. Home
Page Faithful
to the Magisterium Ubi
Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia Write
to Marty
Why Catholic? Because True.
Pro Life Abortion Capital Punishment Contraception Euthanasia Suicide Voter Guide
O Most Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of mercy, at this most critical time, we entrust the United States of America to your loving care. Most holy mother, we beg you to reclaim this land for the glory of your Son. Overwhelmed with the burden of the sins of our nation, we cry to you from the depths of our hearts and seek refuge in your motherly protection. Look down with mercy upon us and touch the hearts of our people. Open our minds to the responsibilities that accompany human freedom. Free us from the falsehoods that lead to the evil of abortion.
Grant our country the wisdom to proclaim that God’s law is the foundation in which this nation was founded, and that He alone is the true source of our cherished rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. O merciful mother, give us the courage to reject the “culture of death” and lead us into a millenium of life. Trusting in your most powerful intercession, we pray: Remember O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence we fly unto thee, o virgin of virgins, our mother, to thee we do we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us. Amen.
This prayer originally appeared in a Florida Catholic newspaper in 2000. The Catholic League re-printed it in October 2008.
John Paul II teaches us in Evangelium Vitae (EV) that we can never support an intrinsically unjust law in any way:
EV §73 “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
Holy Mother Church is serious.
EV §74 “Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement.”
John Paul explains:
EV §74 “Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).”
The excellent Catholic Answers Action Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics identifies five intrinsically evil actions that are subjects of current political controversy: Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and homosexual “marriage.” There are more Catholic primary moral principles involving intrinsic evil, such as contraception, but they are not subjects of current political controversy.
Let's look at what the Catholic Church says about each of these five:
EV §73 “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
CCC 2270 “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”
CCC 2271 “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
CCC 2272 “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. [Canon 1398] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
Euthanasia is abortion of the elderly. Since 1973, some 50 million Americans have been surgically aborted, murdered in their mothers’ wombs, about one-third of the U.S. population under the age of about 35. A substantial percentage of those 50 million young people would have been available as nurses and other caregivers, but we have allowed their mothers to murder them in their wombs, so now we do not have enough caregivers for the huge U.S. baby boom population now fast approaching retirement. The Catholic principle on euthanasia is the same as for abortion:
EV §73 “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
The Catholic Church teaches that we become complete human persons at the moment of conception. Pope Pius IX’s Apostolic Constitution on the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854, states:
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin …”
This tells us infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s immortal soul was preserved free from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. Therefore, we know infallibly that God implants in us a human soul, and therefore that we are a complete human person, in the first instant of our conception.
Embryonic stem cell research produces human embryos, tiny but complete human persons, and them destroys them for the purpose of research. Killing an innocent human person at any age is intrinsically evil. God has given us the Fifth Commandment: Ex 20:13 You shall not kill. This Hebrew word ratsakh refers specifically to murder. God is the author of life. He alone has authority to give life and take it. Jesus took the Fifth Commandment even farther in His Sermon on the Mount: Mt 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”
Catholic teaching is clear: The Pontifical Council for the Family’s Charter of the Rights of the Family, § 4b, says:
“Respect of the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo.”
And Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, writing for the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in his Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, November 24, 2002, § 4:
In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo.
It is remarkable that, for six years, from 2001 to 2007, embryonic stem cells were a primary focus of popular science. Scientists and biotech spokesmen explained that only embryonic stem cells were pluripotent (could assume any human cellular form) and could therefore deliver extraordinary medical benefits. Stem cells from adults, we were told, were only multipotent, and therefore had much more limited potential.
But then, in November 2007, two independent teams published papers−one in the journal Cell, and the other in the journal Science−about the production of pluripotent human stem cells without using embryos or eggs or cloning.” Pluripotent cells, the kind that had come only from embryos, would be available in unlimited quantities at far less cost with no resistance from pro-lifers.
And suddenly the media fell silent. A rational observer would think that, if pluripotent stem cells offered such tremendous potential when they were extremely expensive and hard to obtain, that they would offer far greater potential when they became much more widely available and less expensive so that every competent research lab could get them. But no. We have heard no excitement among researchers, no promises of dramatic health breakthroughs from pluripotent stem cells, nothing. It’s as if the killing made them exciting. Jn 8:44 “[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning.”
But we still hear some political promotion of embryonic stem cells, so we must remain vigilant.
Every human person has inherent dignity: We are God’s image and likeness, redeemed by Jesus on the Cross. God has ordained that a husband and wife, acting together with God and with one another, produce a new human person. It is true pro-creation: we participate with God in His beautiful and mysterious ongoing creation of the universe. Creating a human person in a laboratory is intrinsically evil because it withholds respect for our God-given human dignity. It makes us products of a purely mechanical process. Even if it could be done with perfect precision and reliability, human cloning would still deprive the cloned person of his God-given right to dignity.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, § I:6, declares:
“Attempts … for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union.”
But there are also practical problems. At present, unsuccessful embryonic clones are aborted, which adds murder of the innocent to the denial of human dignity. When human cloning can be accomplished with perfect reliability, the moral questions will remain: Who owns the cloned human person? If anyone owns him, he is a slave. Are we prepared to pass strong laws against the man whose genes were cloned using his clone for spare parts, or killing him at his convenience? Suppose the clone grows up and wants to get married; would he need the permission of his owner? And what of the morality of producing six hundred clones to work in a factory? Or six hundred thousand to serve in a nation’s armed forces? Aldous Huxley dealt with some of these issues in his 1932 novel Brave New World.
There is a story I like to tell in connection with human cloning. On the day the scientists finished mapping the human genone, they met in a garden and exulted, “Now we can make a man the same way God does.” God heard them, and thundered, “You can’t use the genes I made. Make your own out of dirt, the way I did!” One of the startled scientists bent down and picked up a lump of dirt to look at it. God thundered again, “You can’t use the dirt I made. Make your own out of nothing, the way I did!”
In our own time, so much confusion fills the world that it has become necessary to get back to basics. The Catholic Church teaches this about homosexuality:
CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Catholics vote against intrinsic evil because we follow all that the Church teaches, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, § 10:
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality,” on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
Dr. Jeff Mirus defends traditional marriage from a specifically Catholic perspective. Concerned Women for America (CWFA) defends it from a more broadly Christian and sociological perspective. Particularly striking is this from the CWFA article:
When the traditionalist Rev. Earle Fox was accorded three minutes for dissent at the consecration ceremony for New Hampshire’s homosexual Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, the Rev. Fox began listing the practices in which homosexuals typically engage. “I wanted them to know what they were blessing in God’s name,” he said. The chairman cut off the Rev. Fox in mid-presentation. Even three minutes of truth is too much for those who pretend that homosexuality is normal and harmless.
Catholic social teaching addresses many subjects in addition to these five. For example, Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus § 57, declared:
Today more than ever, the Church is aware that her social message will gain credibility more immediately from the witness of actions than as a result of its internal logic and consistency. This awareness is also a source of her preferential option for the poor, which is never exclusive or discriminatory towards other groups. This option is not limited to material poverty, since it is well known that there are many other forms of poverty, especially in modern society—not only economic but cultural and spiritual poverty as well.
This preferential option for the poor, which Jesus Himself identified when He declared, Mt 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” is among the Church’s highest priorities. However, Catholic social teaching supports many ways to provide physical and spiritual sustenance to the poor. The Democratic Party emphasizes government redistribution of its citizens’ income. The Republican Party emphasizes helping the poor escape from dependence on government redistribution of income according to the proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, July 2004:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Pope Paul VI taught us, in Humanae Vitae § 14:
It is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it.
This principle goes all the way back to St. Paul:
Rom 3:8 “And why not do evil that good may come? —as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.”
Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and same-sex “marriage” are intrinsic evils. By contrast, “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” We therefore return to Evangelium Vitae:
EV §73 “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”
Some liberals say that social programs will reduce abortion more than making abortion illegal. They argue, face it, we’ve lost the war to make abortion illegal. Whatever may have been the case a half-century ago, tens of millions of women believe today that abortion is a constitutional right and will not let it go. Better to end this divisive war and work with Democrats to enact social programs that provide crisis-pregnancy women with alternatives such as adoption services, health care services, day care services, etc., so that young women would have a complete set of alternatives to abortion.
Catholics reply that we need both. We need to make abortion illegal, first to reduce the number of abortions as far as possible, but also as a witness that moral men and women stand firm against the murder of innocent children. And we need to make available to crisis-pregnancy women a full range of adoption services, health care services, day care services and all the rest, first because Holy Mother Church supports a preferential option for the poor, and second because telling a desperate mother that she can’t have an abortion without providing pro-life services would only increase her desperation. These services support the lives of mother and child. However, liberals immediately turn to government to provide these services. Many Catholics would prefer to see such services provided through the churches, where the emphasis is on love rather than on law.
Some liberals acknowledge that it would be better if the number of abortions were reduced. Bill Clinton was fond of saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” If abortion were simply removing something of no value, in the manner of a haircut, there would be no reason for it to be rare. No one tries to impose a limit on the number of haircuts a man gets every month. But abortion kills an innocent child. It is never safe for the child and can never be legal in a civilized society.
Doug Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine who argues this case, cites Archbishop Chaput’s book, Render Unto Caesar, in making this case. However, Archbishop Chaput strenuously disagrees, stating, “And because the homicides involved in abortion are ‘little murders’ -- the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives -- it’s easy to look the other way.”
Some liberals deride “one-issue voting” as simplistic. They suggested instead a “nuanced perspective.” In ordinary circumstances, that would be appropriate to an era when government is involved in so many activities. But in our time the circumstances are far from ordinary. Suppose slavery in the United States before the civil war was on the ballot. The slave slates believed that black men and women were subhuman. Because they were not human persons under the law, they could be bought, sold, and forced to do whatever their owners wanted. And suppose the argument had been made, “Well yes, we do enslave black men and women, but we have also reduced the cost of manufactured cotton clothing for the poor.” Would anyone accept this false moral equivalence?
Or suppose Nazi Germany had allowed elections every four years. The National Socialist Party might have argued, “Well yes, we are killing millions of innocent Jews because we regard every Jew as an Untermensch (literal translation: under man). But we have also improved the railroads.” Would anyone accept this false moral equivalence?
Today the Untermenschen are unborn children. We know from biological science that, within minutes after conception, each child’s DNA is already complete, with the same genetic code the child will carry in every cell of his body for the rest of his mortal life. And we know from the Church that in the first instant of his conception he has a God-given immortal soul. Human persons, from the first instant of conception. In the United States since 1973 some 50 million children have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs. And the argument is made, at least implicitly: “Well yes, we do kill millions of children, but we’re helping men enjoy life. When their girlfriends become pregnant we vacuum them out so they can be conveniently used again.”
Here we’re proposing five issues, not one, but they do come together as “the sanctity of life.” Sometimes a moral issue is so transcendent that we cannot pretend an equivalence that does not exist.
Every faithful Catholic has heard a liberal “Catholic” politician say, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t impose my religious beliefs on others.”
We never hear the same liberal politician say, “I’m personally opposed to global warming, but I can’t impose my moral beliefs on others.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, confronted this issue squarely in his Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, November 24, 2002:
John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.
In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.
In short, the liberal “Catholic” politician who says, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t impose my religious beliefs on others,” is making a direct attack on the Church as a whole. “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”
If we truly love God, and truly love man who is Gen 1:27 God’s image and likeness, we cannot kill a child with a human soul at any stage of development. As we have seen above, the Catholic Church teaches ex cathedra: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin …” This tells us infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s immortal soul was preserved free from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception. Therefore, we know infallibly that God implants in us a human soul, and therefore that we are a complete human person, in the first instant of our conception.
It is desirable, but not always necessary, to find out where a candidate stands on all five issues. If the candidate’s worldview is that Christ should be the organizing principle of our lives and the source of all that we need, and if he is strongly pro-life, he probably supports Catholic teaching on all five. If he believes that governments should be the organizing principle of our lives and the source of all that we need, and if he is strongly pro-abortion, he probably opposes Catholic teaching on all five. If his stance is not that well defined, we need to discern whether he is closer to the pro-life position than other candidates in the race.
It’s important to vote pro-life even where the elected office has nothing to do with pro-life issues. For instance, an official responsible for road maintenance will probably never make a decision in office on whether to save a baby. But someday the road maintenance official will use his experience as a credential to run for a higher office. We want to have the strongest possible pro-life “farm team” from which to grow new candidates.
For congressional races, when the voting analysis indicates that the number of Republicans and Democrats might be close, I always vote for the Republican. The first thing every newly elected senator or congressman does is vote to “organize” the Senate or the House. If the Speaker of the House is a Republican, he will set the strategy for dealing with pro-life and all other governmental issues. Republican leaders for the foreseeable future will be more pro-life than Democratic leaders. And leadership is where the real power is. Even if a Democratic congressman is pro-life, the first thing he will do is vote to give tremendous power to a pro-abortion leader.
Every Catholic therefore has only three possible moral votes: [1] The most pro-life mainstream candidate on the ballot, that is, with a reasonable likelihood of actually being elected, or [2] The most pro-life candidate on the ballot, whether or not he has any real chance of being elected. In the case of congressional candidates we may add a third: [3] The congressional candidate who, overall, would provide the greatest pro-life political effect.
I recommend this approach: If it’s a close race, vote for option [1] the pro-life mainstream candidate. We need to put him over the top. If either candidate has an insurmountable lead, vote for option [2] as a way to show the pro-life flag.
The murder of innocent children is an evil that, once loosed, turns against its parents as euthanasia. Every argument for extinguishing a human life in the womb is equally applicable to a man or woman of any age: “unwanted,” “a hindrance to another’s health or happiness,” or “unable to live a meaningful life.” It is already common for doctors or nurses in hospitals to silently kill patients they consider too disabled or too old. Jesus said, Mt 26:52 “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.” When we encourage killing for convenience, our words reach those who find us inconvenient.
Words are powerful weapons in this war to protect children. The other side always speaks of “choice,” or “a woman’s right to choose.” We must, every time and without exception, ask them, “Choice to do what?” We must force them to explain again and again that they are advocating the right to kill a living child in his mother’s womb. If they they firmly refuse and just keep repeating the word “choice,” we can ask them gently why they are advocating something they are embarrassed even to name.
We can also begin speaking of a woman’s right to choose her children’s schools. If they oppose school vouchers we can remind them that they said they were pro choice. Obviously, anyone opposed to a woman’s right to choose her children’s schools cannot say he is in favor of a woman’s right to choose. When secular health care professionals who believe they are being helpful by withholding medical treatment in hospitals we can speak of a woman’s right to choose life for her family. When a liberal politician starts proposing government health care solutions that restrict us to plan doctors we can speak of a woman’s right to choose her own doctor. The liberals have a huge investment in the “woman’s right to choose” slogan. Millions of people react to it automatically, without thinking. Right to choose: good. No right to choose: bad. Since free will is particularly a Catholic and conservative issue, we should be able to take it away from them.
The great battle today is between those who believe that Christ should be the organizing principle of our lives and the source of all that we need, and those who believe that government (man) should be the organizing principle of our lives and the source of all that we need. We need political leaders who believe that Christ should be the organizing principle of our lives and the source of all that we need. We certainly want the government to make sure that when we need help a policeman or fireman or ambulance will come, and that when we turn our faucet water will come out.
But, because governments are instituted by men who share in the fallen nature of mankind; there must be limits on their power. The United States Constitution enumerates several powers granted to the federal government. But its Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That is a grave limit on the federal government’s power. During most of the nation’s existence, it was respected. Early in the twentieth century, when Congress wanted to tax its citizens’ income, its members could not find authority to do so under the enumerated powers. They had to pass the Sixteenth Amendment: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” But, during the past half-century or so, the three branches of government have colluded to ignore the Tenth Amendment and do what they please. Only political leaders who believe, at least implicitly, that God should be the organizing principle of our lives and the source of all that we need, will respect principled limits on government power.
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, we fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us.
Amen.
Copyright © 1999-2008 Martin K Barrack. All rights reserved.