procedure or any theorem, which treats human life "•! the basis of arguments which might equally well apply to a bea; is unacceptable and is a violation of natural law. Thus, the feminist argument for abortion, is a violation of natural law. Or the Freemasonic argument for abortion, is a violation of natural law, and therefore, abortion practiced with the intent of the feminists or the Freemasons is a violation of natural law pure and simple, because it by intent attacks the axiomatic features of natural law; whereas on the assertion of anti-abortion as a doctrine, that is much weaker, in terms of authority, even though it has been made an official Church doctrine and thus is often mistakenly interpreted to have an axiomatic bearing. For example, let's take the case of the celibate priesthood. The celibate priesthood is obviously not an axiom. It is not an axiomatic value of Christianity. There is no basis for saying so: as a matter of fact, it was introduced, apart from the monastic part, which has a very nasty aspect in many quarters, particularly Eastern monastic cults; it was introduced essentially by Gregory, against corruption of the priesthood by the inheritance business and so forth and so on, though there were many other arguments for it. So in effect, it was a postulate, not really a theorem, but a postulate of the Church, that priests should be celibate. And that has been maintained as an institution for essentially pragmatic reasons in the best sense of pragmatic, that is, for institutional reasons, and it's deemed that the practice in history, shows that the celibate priesthood is a better institution from some standpoint of the Church, though the rise of homosexuality as an advocacy, rather than treating it as a disease, puts that itself into question, particular in the case of the United States, where you see the homosexual factor taking over the priesthood to such a large degree, that that shows what the problem is. So, abortion, of course, is much stronger among the three denominations, the Protestant as well as Catholic and Jewish, than the celibacy issue, but is a theorem of belief, which has been made into a doctrine. And thus we have to look at the question of abortion policy from two standpoints. To the extent that it is consistent with the axiomatic features of natural law—i.e., imago viva Dei and what that implies—there is a positive, natural law smiles on the anti-abortion doctrine. To the extent that abortion is promoted by feminists or Freemasons, it must be opposed as an outright evil, not merely because what is proposed is an individual abortion; but what is proposed is a policy which is itself a theorem of Satanic premises. That is, I think, the summation in a nutshell of the problem, and if one argues from that standpoint, I think one has it correctly situated within the terms of natural law. But you must include consideration of the fact, that feminism and Freemasonry are both Satanic doctrines in principle; and that the advocacy of abortion from either standpoint, is purely evil and must be fought, on those grounds; whereas the claim for the absolute against abortion, from the Christian standpoint, is on strong grounds, but is not fully on absolute grounds. But rather, the issue is: from what standpoint do you do it? Do you make a decision from the standpoint of a commitment to natural law, that is, the principle of eimago viva Deie; or do you appraoch the question from a pragmatic standpoint or simply an absolute standpoint in itself? If you pose it from a prohibition in and of itself, then you are committing a fallacy. In other words, if you say, this is a doctrine we must defend, disregarding anything else, that doctrine per se we must defend, that is a fallacy. The issue here is, are you acting on the basis of natural law? An example is the single-issue anti-abortion movement, which we saw was, to a very large degree corrupt or politically rotten, we saw that in 1979 and 1980 in that campaign that year, where we saw that the anti-abortion movement played in large degree—particularly the leadership—a very rotten role on all kinds of issues, including euthanasia, on the grounds of a single issue. The issue here is not abortion as such—that is an issue—but the primary issue is from what standpoint do you approach the decision? If you approach the decision from the standpoint of the axiomatic, absolute value under natural law of eimago viva Deie, and you act in a manner which is in intent and efficiently consistent with "imago viva Dei," then your action is within natural law. If you act from an axiomatic assumption, which rejects "imago viva Dei", as does the Freemasonic or feminist system, then if you are opposed to abortion from that standpoint, you would be doing something evil, because the intent was evil, from a philosophical standpoint. So that again, in sum, I think is a fair description of the situation.