The notion that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived

 As reported here:

"In a recent video, Kelsi Sheren, a Canadian combat veteran, host of The Kelsi Sheren Perspective, and an outspoken opponent of Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) policies, shared how Canada’s government-controlled healthcare system plans to euthanize an estimated 15 million Canadians between 2027 and 2047, a staggering figure justified under the pretext of cost savings.

While doctor-assisted suicide in the U.S. has not yet reached the alarming extremes observed in Canada, the 'death with dignity' movement is actively attempting to change that. Pending Governor Hochul’s signature on New York’s recently passed bill, 11 states and Washington, D.C., will permit this abhorrent and immoral practice.

Fortunately, dedicated coalitions – including the disability rights community, pro-life organizations, leaders within the Catholic Church, and other advocates – have helped slow its expansion.

Since Oregon first legalized assisted suicide in 1997, nearly 10,000 deaths have occurred under such laws. Nevertheless, with a culture increasingly embracing death as a solution, it’s difficult to predict whether the U.S. will ultimately follow Canada’s troubling example by normalizing assisted death instead of prioritizing compassionate care.

What often goes unnoticed, however, is that existing U.S. healthcare policies are already enabling the quiet killing of vulnerable Americans – not through legalized suicide, but through hospital protocols and policies that deny care, withdraw treatment, or subtly hasten death.

______________________________________________

For the Nazis, "euthanasia" (which is translated as "good death") represented a euphemistic term for a clandestine murder program created for the systematic killing of mentally and physically disabled patients living in institutional settings throughout Germany. The National Socialist's "Euthanasia" program would set the stage for the Holocaust: the mass murder of Jews and others who were deemed either racially inferior or ideologically unsuitable. In the words of Dr. Leo Alexander, Chief U.S. Medical Consultant at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials: 'Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings."

Dr. Alexander referred to "a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of physicians." These physicians came to accept the notion that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. We are witnessing what appears to be a similar "subtle shift in emphasis" with regard to human life today.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that: "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

We ignore this warning at our own peril.

Same sex "marriage" and sanity

 As noted here:

"A legal fight in Kentucky that erupted when same-sex marriage activists demanded a Christian clerk violate state law and grant them a "marriage" license just hours after the Supreme Court created that status in America, now has returned to the Supreme Court.

The case is asking the justices to reverse their decision from 10 years ago, and it uses the same arguments used several years back to successfully overturn Roe v. Wade, that longstanding, and error-loaded, ruling from 1973 that created an abortion right.

The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also could be used against 'same-sex marriage.' Neither abortion nor marriage actually is in the U.S. Constitution, so justices over the years have manufactured reasons to support both 'rights.'"

__________________________________________

When the European Parliament passed a special resolution encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II responded in protest: "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts. To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)....

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder. Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...

Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family."

Let us all pray that the United States will return to sanity. Why do I say this? In the words of the late (great) F.J. Sheed: "..if we see anything - ourself or some other man, or the Universe as a whole or any part of it - without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong. If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world at all, but in some fantastic world of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on walls by their own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held in existence by God, then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world. Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity; but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him...To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." (Theology and Sanity, p.6).

Bishop Michael Martin considers himself wiser than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI

The National Catholic Register is reporting that:

"Controversy in a North Carolina diocese has broadened beyond traditional Latin Mass restrictions after it was revealed that the local bishop had also planned to ban the use of Latin, altar rails, and other traditional practices in all diocesan liturgies — a development with implications far beyond the Tar Heel State.

Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte proposed the restrictions in a leaked draft of new liturgical norms, which was first made public by the blog Rorate Caeli on May 28 and confirmed by the Register. Bishop Martin wrote that the purpose of the new norms, which also included barring ad orientem worship and traditional prayers at the foot of the altar, including the St. Michael Prayer, were made with the intention of “purifying and unifying the celebration of the Mass” in the diocese. 

The bishop also wrote that the proposed norms are called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s pastoral constitution on the liturgy, a perspective that has been widely challenged in reactions to the document."

Bishop Martin is either supremely ignorant on this matter or he is a contemptible liar. Readers of this Blog know full well that I do not sugar coat the facts. This in keeping with the teaching of Saint Francis de Sales that the wolf is always called the wolf.

Now with regard to the Bishop's nonsense:

In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said that, "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

And, in his book "Salt of the Earth," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

To be sure, Vatican II called for an extended use of the vernacular. But nowhere did Vatican II call for the Latin language to be abolished from the liturgy. And anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) No. 36 states clearly that, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Number 54 of this same Vatican II document teaches that, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

This is the teaching of Vatican II and the mind of the Church on the use of Latin and the attitude Catholics should have toward those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition.

Perhaps instead of appealing to some vague bullshit "spirit of Vatican II," Bishop Martin should sit down and actually READ the Conciliar documents.

Is that really too much to ask? If the Bishop cannot do his one job, perhaps it's time for him to step down.

Cardinal Cupich: Liar

Pro-LGBT Cardinal Cupich is asserting that Saint Pope John Paul II would have supported Francis's crackdown on the Traditional Latin Mass. See here.

What to make of this load of bovine scatology?

The facts:

In his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II said that, "Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

And, in his book "Salt of the Earth," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "I am of the opinion, to be sure, that the old rite should be granted much more generously to all those who desire it. It's impossible to see what could be dangerous or unacceptable about that. A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what until now was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent."

To be sure, Vatican II called for an extended use of the vernacular. But nowhere did Vatican II call for the Latin language to be abolished from the liturgy. And anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a liar. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) No. 36 states clearly that, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

Number 54 of this same Vatican II document teaches that, "In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

This is the teaching of Vatican II and the mind of the Church on the use of Latin and the attitude Catholics should have toward those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition. While we should thank God for those positive developments in the liturgy over the past 40 years (and contrary to what some "traditionalists" would have you believe there have been many), still, we must not foster an atmosphere of hostility toward those who prefer the Latin Mass. As Pope Benedict XVI has been teaching for so many years now, there is no "pre-Vatican II Church" and "Post-Vatican II Church." There is one Church with a continued Tradition and a richness of expression.

I am one of those Catholics who has always hoped and prayed for a "Reform of the Reform." As one of the few Catholics who has spent a considerable amount of time actually reading and studying the 16 documents of Vatican II, I look forward to that day when the teaching of the Council is actually followed. In both letter and spirit.

Is Francis showing respect for  "the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition...for the use of the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition"?

The answer is obvious.  Cardinal Cupich, you are a liar.

Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo and Reinhardo

 As noted here, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx said in an interview published on Thursday that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is “not set in stone” and “one is also allowed to doubt what it says.”

While Reinhard Marx is anxious to build a Queer Church, where homosexual and lesbian sex are sacramentalized, the teaching of the Church is most clear. The First Vatican Council:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

In his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II said that, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!"

A sure norm for teaching the faith!  But Cardinal Marx the clown believes himself wiser than all those who worked on this Catechism. And just who was that?

Again, Pope (Saint) John Paul II:

"It can be said that this catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church, who generously accepted my invitation to share responsibility for an enterprise which directly concerns the life of the Church. This response elicits in me a deep feeling of joy, because the harmony of so many voices truly expresses what could be called the symphony of the faith. The achievement of this catechism thus reflects the collegial nature of the Episcopate: it testifies to the Church's catholicity."

What this Marx brother forgets is that it is intrinsic to the Catholic religion, that before one can become a member, he must satisfy himself that the answers to all questions of faith or morals are contained in a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error. 

There are many who consider themselves to be "Catholic" even as they reject the Church's teaching while striving to erect a church in their own image and likeness. Such confused souls will willingly embrace the Man of Sin when he enters the Church to rule her.

The Biden Administration wants to treat some parents as domestic terrorists

 

Parents expressing concerns over mask mandates or critical race theory are being labeled as "domestic terrorists" who pose a threat to public school teachers and administrators as well as school board members.   See here.

This represents an attack on the role of parents as primary educators of their children. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio, No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances." And Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation which would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that legislation and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Pope Saint John Paul II Homily, Ash Wedesday during the Jubilee Year

ASH WEDNESDAY

HOMILY OF JOHN PAUL II

Wednesday, 8 March 2000




1. "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your holy Spirit from me" (Ps 51: 10-11).

Today, Ash Wednesday, this is how the Psalmist, King David, prays:  a great and powerful king in Israel, but at the same time frail and sinful. At the beginning of these 40 days of preparation for Easter, the Church puts his words on the lips of all who take part in the austere liturgy of Ash Wednesday.

"Create in me a clean heart, O God, ... take not your holy Spirit from me". We hear this plea echoing in our hearts, while in a few moments we will approach the Lord's altar to receive ashes on our forehead in accordance with a very ancient tradition. This act is filled with spiritual allusions and is an important sign of conversion and inner renewal. Considered in itself, it is a simple liturgical rite, but very profound because of its penitential meaning:  with it the Church reminds man, believer and sinner, of his weakness in the face of evil and especially of his total dependence on God's infinite majesty.

The liturgy calls for the celebrant to say these words as he places ashes on the foreheads of the faithful:  "Remember, man, you are dust and to dust you will return"; or, "Turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel".

2. "Remember, ... to dust you will return".

Earthly life is marked from its beginning by the prospect of death. Our bodies are mortal, that is, subject to the inevitable prospect of death. We live with this end before us:  every passing day brings us inexorably closer to it. And death has something destructive about it. With death it seems that everything will end for us. And here, precisely in the face of this disheartening prospect, man, who is aware of his sin, raises a cry of hope to heaven:  O God, "create in me a clean heart and put a new and right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your holy Spirit from me".

Today too, the believer who feels threatened by evil and death calls on God in this way, knowing that he has reserved for him a destiny of eternal life. He knows that he is not only a body condemned to death because of sin, but that he also has an immortal soul. Therefore he turns to God the Father, who has the power to create out of nothing; to God the Only-begotten Son, who became man for our salvation, died for us and now, risen, lives in glory; to God the immortal Spirit, who calls us to life and restores life.

"Create in me a clean heart and put a new and right spirit within me". The whole Church makes the Psalmist's prayer her own. These are prophetic words that penetrate our spirit on this special day, the first day of the Lenten journey that will bring us to the celebration of Easter during the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000.

3. "Repent and believe in the Gospel". This invitation, which we find at the beginning of Jesus' preaching, introduces us into the Lenten season, a time to be dedicated in a special way to conversion and renewal, to prayer, to fasting and to works of charity. In recalling the experience of the chosen people, we too set out as it were to retrace the journey that Israel made across the desert to the Promised Land. We too will reach our goal; after these weeks of penance, we will experience the joy of Easter. Our eyes, purified by prayer and penance, will be able to behold with greater clarity the face of the living God, to whom man makes his own pilgrimage on the paths of earthly life.

"Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your holy Spirit from me" - this man, created not for death but for life, prays in exactly this way. Although he is aware of his weaknesses, he walks sustained by the certainty of his divine destiny.

May almighty God hear the prayers of the Church which, in today's Ash Wednesday liturgy, lifts up her heart to heaven with greater trust. May the merciful Lord grant us all to open our hearts to the gift of his grace, so that we can all take part with new maturity in the paschal mystery of Christ, our only Redeemer.

Francis and the watering down of the supernatural faith of Catholicism

From Les Femmes:


"Remember when Pedro Arrupe was removed as Superior General of the Jesuit Order by Pope John Paul II? No? No memory of that?

It's no use consulting the Internet for validation. It has no memory of that event. However both Wikipedia and a few articles from the leftist Jesuit magazine, America, say that Arrupe "resigned". The Jesuits won't admit that John Paul II removed Arrupe. They say that Arrupe resigned due to his failing health. They say that Arrupe was going to recommend American Jesuit Vincent O'Keefe, S.J., as his replacement when instead John Paul II "intervened" and appointed two other Jesuits, Paola Dezza and Giuseppe Pittau, to oversee the Society of Jesus until a new Superior General could be elected.

In fact, the cold hard truth is that on October 5, 1981, Pope John Paul II rightfully removed Pedro Arrupe, S.J.,  forever from the Generalate, which in turn, moved O'Keefe from his post as Vicar General of the Society and from all hope of being elected General by a subsequent Congregation. Then he (JPII) firmly and resolutely appointed Dezza and Pittau as overseers until such time (two years later, September of 1983) a new Superior General could be elected.

The Pope did this because of Arrupe's mass secularization of the Society of Jesus, the deterioration of obedience to the pope and disaffection from the papacy. The rot had spread too far and too deep. Pope John Paul II was angry. He was going to take no more of it. The Jesuits under Arrupe had set their faces resolutely against the pope, and indeed the very concept of the papacy in the Catholic Church - that is, until now with a Jesuit "pope", Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., who is one of their own.

Now the papacy is OK. Now the pope must be obeyed. Now it is we who disagree who must be dismissed - totally dismissed - removed for Francis said that if we do not obey his pagan rites we will all be in schism...like Arrupe was basically in schism from/against John Paul II.

Admitting that Arrupe was removed by John Paul II would put a blight on Arrupe's memory and definitely impact his being raised to the altar of sainthood which is already in the process - by the Jesuits. And approved - by Jorge Bergoglio, S.J. Pedro Arrupe is now Servant of God Pedro Arrupe, S.J. How do you like them apples? If we know the right people at the right time we too will be fast tracked to sainthood. But beware - don't think about becoming a saint by defying Jorge Bergoglio like Pedro Arrupe defied two popes - both Paul VI and John Paul II. We can only be a saint today by taking part in pagan rituals, bowing down to naked fertility goddesses and verbally denying the existence of hell and the divinity of Christ.

Holding pagan rituals in the Vatican Gardens and the denial of the divinity of Christ are more than equal to what Pedro Arrupe did to the Society of Jesus, for which he - Arrupe - was removed. Therefore, for his horrifying disobedience to Our Lord and His Bride, the Church, Jorge Bergoglio, S.J., also must be removed.

What Pedro Arrupe did to the Society of Jesus is step by step what Jorge Borgoglio is doing to the Catholic Church. A MUST READ on this subject is Malachi Martin's book The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church (ebook link!) If Malachi Martin lived now, he could write another book: Bergoglio: The Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church."

______________________________________

Malachi Martin, in his book “The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church,” says that, “Those who..know the history of Liberation Theology..may point out that Gutierrez’s work [Father Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation] was inspired by a 1968 Conference of Latin American bishops at Medellin, near Bogota, in Colombia, where the delegates highlighted the plight of the poor, and the needy to remedy their awful conditions…

Essentially, Liberation Theology is the answer to that summons to the Church codified so many years before by Maritain – to identify itself with the revolutionary hopes of the masses. The difference, perhaps, insofar as there is one, is that while Maritain adopted a theology of history built on a misapprehension of Marxist philosophy, Liberation Theologians adopted a theology of politics built on Soviet tactics. In essence, the propagators of Liberation Theology took the current of theological thought developed in Europe and applied it to the very concrete situations in Latin America. Suddenly, theological and philosophical theory became the pragmatic proposals and actual programs for changing the face of all social and political institutions in Latin America….

Liberation Theology turned its back on the entire scope of Scholastic Theology, including what was sound in Maritain. It did not base its reasoning on papal teaching, or on the ancient theological tradition of the Church, or on the Decrees of the Church’s Ecumenical Councils. In fact, Liberation Theology refused to start where Councils and Popes had always started: with God as Supreme Being, as Creator, as Redeemer, as Founder of the Church, as the One Who had placed among men a Vicar who was called the Pope, as Ultimate Rewarder of the Good and Punisher of the Evil. Rather, Liberation Theology’s basic presumption was ‘the people,’ sometimes indeed ‘the people of God.’ ‘The people’ were the source of spiritual revelation and religious authority. What mattered in theology was how ‘the people’ fared here and now, in the social, political, and economic realities of the evolving material world. The ‘experience of the people was the womb of theology,’ was the consecrated phrase.

At one stroke, therefore, Liberation Theology unburdened prepared and restless minds from an entire panoply of ancient concepts, dogmas, and mental processes governed by the fixed rules of Thomistic reasoning, and from the directives of the authoritative voice of Rome…Liberation Theology was no theology in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. It was not primarily about God, about God’s law, about God’s redemption, about God’s promises. Liberation Theology was interested in God as revealed today through the oppressed people. In God for himself, practically speaking, no genuine Liberation Theology was interested.

The second promise of Liberation Theology was even more exciting than freedom from Rome’s theology..” (The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, pp. 308-309).

Under the banner of “liberation,” many in the Church’s hierarchy began to enlist the Church’s resources to advance the Marxist plan of revolution. Having abandoned the Church’s supernatural mission – building the Kingdom of God, these confused clerics began to turn exclusively toward a new goal: that of building a new world centered on man, a City of Man.

Fr. Martin explains how the Jesuits succumbed to this apostasy: “Classical Jesuitism, based on the spiritual teaching of Ignatius, saw the Jesuit mission in very clear outline. There was a perpetual state of war on earth between Christ and Lucifer. Those who fought on Christ’s side, the truly choice fighters, served the Roman Pontiff diligently, were at his complete disposal, were ‘Pope’s Men.’ The ‘Kingdom’ being fought over was the Heaven of God’s glory. The enemy, the archenemy, the only enemy, was Lucifer. The weapons Jesuits used were supernatural: the Sacraments, preaching, writing, suffering. The objective was spiritual, supernatural, and otherworldly. It was simply this: that as many individuals as possible would die in a state of supernatural grace and friendship with their Savior so that they would spend eternity with God, their Creator…

The renewed Jesuit mission debased this Ignatian ideal of the Jesuits. The ‘Kingdom’ being fought over was the ‘Kingdom’ everyone fights over and always has: material well-being. The enemy was now economic, political, and social: the secular system called democratic and economic capitalism. The objective was material: to uproot poverty and injustice, which were caused by capitalism, and the betterment of the millions who suffered want and injustice from that capitalism. The weapons to be used now were those of social agitation, labor relations, sociopolitical movements, government offices…” (The Jesuits, p. 478).

In this light, we can better understand Pope Francis' speech before Congress. The Pope called on Americans to open themselves to the world and not to see things in terms of good and evil, the righteous and unrighteous.  This, of course, is unscriptural. (See 2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15 and Ephesians 5: 11 for example).

As Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained in his essay on Call to Action entitled “Detroit: A Call to Revolution in the Church”: “The following are some of the demands the Church simply cannot fulfill for such is not her mission: 1. Wipe out poverty, ignorance, prejudice and war. 2. Democratize the whole world. 3. Stop the sale of arms everywhere. 4. Back the E.R.A. as a constitutional amendment. Like her Saviour, the Church will not turn stones into bread, thereby becoming the Mother of Socialism or a millennium of this world..’


"..the 'theologies of liberation', which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the 'poor' of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the 'Church of the poor' signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation,'" No. 10).

The supernatural faith of Catholicism is being watered down for the sake of a new humanitarian religion.  Dialogue is key for this new religion which has abandoned the notion that we must, "Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good." (Romans 12: 29).

California usurps parental rights with regard to education of their children: Will the Vatican address this act of violence and homosexualist terrorism?

California Catholic reports:

"California has become the first state in the union to mandate the use of LGBT-inclusive textbooks in elementary schools and have given parents no way to opt out. The choice has been made for them. It’s the law.

That law requires a “fair, accurate, inclusive, and respectful” treatment of homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian Americans despite the historical insignificance...."


The Pontifical Council for the Family, in its document entitled The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, had this to say:

"Today parents should be attentive to ways in which an immoral education can be passed on to their children through various methods promoted by groups with positions and interests contrary to Christian morality. It would be impossible to indicate all unacceptable methods. Here are presented only some of the more widely diffused methods that threaten the rights of parents and the moral life of their children.

In the first place, parents must reject secularized and anti-natalist sex education, which puts God at the margin of life and regards the birth of a child as a threat. This sex education is spread by large organizations and international associations that promote abortion, sterilization and contraception. These organizations want to impose a false lifestyle against the truth of human sexuality. Working at national or state levels, these organizations try to arouse the fear of the "threat of over-population" among children and young people to promote the contraceptive mentality, that is, the "anti- life" mentality. They spread false ideas about the "reproductive health" and "sexual and reproductive rights" of young people. Furthermore, some antinatalist organizations maintain those clinics which, violating the rights of parents, provide abortion and contraception for young people, thus promoting promiscuity and consequently an increase in teenage pregnancies...

As we look towards the year 2000, how can we fail to think of the young? What is being held up to them? A society of ?things' and not of ?persons'. The right to do as they will from their earliest years, without any constraint, provided it is ?safe'. The unreserved gift of self, mastery of one's instincts, the sense of responsibility — these are notions considered as belonging to another age." (Nos. 135, 136).

California's decision represents an act of violence against the child's right to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles: "Since each child or young person must be able to live his or her own sexuality in conformity with Christian principles, and hence be able to exercise the virtue of chastity, no educator — not even parents — can interfere with this right to chastity (cf. Matthew 18: 4-7)." (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, No. 118).

The decision of California also represents an attack on parental rights. Vatican II teaches us that, in raising children, the responsibility of parents is primary: "Since parents have given life to their children, they have a very grave duty to educate them, and so are to be recognized as their primary and principal educators" (GE, No. 3). 

And Pope John Paul II, explaining the conciliar teaching more fully in Familiaris consortio No. 36, says that: "The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others."

Canon Law is also very clear on this matter. Canon 793, 1., states that: "Parents as well as those who take their place are obliged and enjoy the right to educate their offspring; Catholic parents also have the duty and the right to select those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of the children according to local circumstances" and Canon 1136 says that: "Parents have the most serious duty and the primary right to do all in their power to see to the physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing of their children."

This inalienable right of parents has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In 1922, the State of Oregon attempted to enact legislation that would have forced all children to attend the public schools within that state. But the Supreme Court overturned that decision and established that "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

Increasingly, the rights of Christian children and their parents are coming under attack. Why? No one has ever put it more eloquently than Randy Engel:

"Is it any wonder that the state must wage war against the family? For the state requires not individuals who dream, and think, and pray, but rather what has come to be called 'the mass man' - rootless, unaffirmed, a reactor - a mere reed blowing in the wind - a thing to be manipulated, to be used, to be disposed of, but never, never, to be loved, for the giant has no heart. And since the modern state has no heart, that which men previously have done out of love, must now be done out of fear, and hatred, and brute force." (The Family Under Siege, The Wanderer, March 6, 1980).

This is a satanic war against the family. The state wants to impose immoral sex education and to usurp parental rights. The state wants to educate children for the Reign of Antichrist, the Moloch State where vices will be turned into gods and perversion will be celebrated as a sort of ersatz sacrament in the unholy church of the Man of Sin.

Will the Vatican, under Francis, speak out?

Francis?

Pope Saint John Paul II's prophecy regarding Europe and Islam...

The Gateway Pundit reports on a prophecy issued by Pope Saint John Paul II:

"A never-before published prophecy attributed to Pope John Paul II has been revealed by a close confidant of the former pontiff during a memorial lecture on his life, the contents of which could cause scandal within the increasingly politically-correct Vatican.

Speaking in Italy on October 22nd, Monsignor Mauro Longhi from Trieste, an Opus Dei prelate and for ten years a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, was still a student when he accompanied the Polish pope on summer retreats into the Italian Alps in the 1980s and 90s.

Born Karol Wojtyła in Poland, John Paul II was known for his love of hiking and skiing, and it was during one such mountain retreat in the early 1990s at Bienno, Northern Italy, that the Italian priest claims to have been told of a troubling vision by the pontiff.

“I had looked at him thinking that he might need something,” the longtime friend of John Paul II explained as part of a series of recollections and anecdotes on their friendship, “but he realizes that I am looking at him; he has the shiver in his hand. It was the beginning of Parkinson’s.’’

“Dear Mauro, it is old age”, John Paul joked, before becoming more serious in tone and voice, according to the then student priest, going on to explain his vision.

‘’Remind this to those whom you will meet in the Church of the third millennium. I see the Church of the third millennium afflicted by a mortal plague, which compared to those of this millennium will be deeper, more painful’’, the Polish pope confided, having meant Communism and Nazism as the plagues of his time.


‘’It is called Islam. They will invade Europe. I have seen the hordes surging from the West to the East, from Morocco to Libya, from the Oriental countries towards Egypt.’’



“They will invade Europe. Europe will be a cellar; old relics, twilight, cobwebs. Old family souvenirs. You, the Church of the third millennium, must contain the invasion. But not with weapons. Weapons will not be enough, but with your faith, lived with integrity.”

_____________________________


Pope Pius XI, in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, prayed:


Most sweet Jesus,
Redeemer of the human race,
look down upon us,
humbly prostrate before Thine altar.

We are Thine and Thine we wish to be;
but to be more surely united with Thee,
behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today
to Thy Most Sacred Heart.

Many, indeed, have never known Thee;
many, too, despising Thy precepts,
have rejected Thee.

Have mercy on them all,
most merciful Jesus,
and draw them to Thy Sacred Heart.

Be Thou King, O Lord,
not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee,
but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee,
grant that they may quickly return to their Father's house,
lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions,
or whom discord keeps aloof
and call them back to the harbour of truth and unity of faith,
so that soon there may be but one flock and one shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who even now sit in the shadow of idolatry or Islam,
and refuse not Thou to bring them into the light of Thy kingdom.
Look, finally, with eyes of pity upon the children of that race,
which was for so long a time Thy chosen people;
and let Thy Blood, which was once invoked upon them in vengeance,
now descend upon them also in a cleansing flood of redemption and eternal life.

Grant, O Lord,
to Thy Church,
assurance of freedom and immunity from harm;
give peace and order to all nations,
and make the earth resound
from pole to pole with one cry:
Praise to the Divine Heart
that wrought our salvation:
to it be glory
and honour forever.

Amen


Whoever denies that Jesus is God is of Antichrist (1 John 2:22).  Bearing that in mind, let's look at what Dr. Mark Durie has to say about the Muslim "Jesus":


The Muslim ‘Isa (Jesus)

There are two main sources for ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Qur’an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections — recollections of Muhammad’s words and deeds — establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.



The Qur’an

‘Isa, was a prophet of Islam

Jesus’ true name, according to the Qur’an, was ‘Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, ‘Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Ma’idah 5:48) ‘Isa’s original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said ‘We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims.’ (Al-Ma’idah 5:111)



‘The Books’

Like other messengers of Islam before him, ‘Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-An’am 6:90) ‘Isa’s book is called the Injil or ‘gospel’. (Al-Ma’idah 5:46) The Torah was Moses’ book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were David’s book. So Jews and Christians are ‘people of the Book’. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)



As with previous prophets, ‘Isa’s revelation verified previous prophets’ revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Ma’idah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to ‘Isa (An-Nisa’ 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which ‘Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after ‘Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Qur’an is the only sure guide to ‘Isa’s teaching.



The biography of ‘Isa

According to the Qur’an, ‘Isa was the Messiah. He was supported by the ‘Holy Spirit’. (Al-Baqarah 2:87; Al-Ma’idah 5:110) He is also referred to as the ‘Word of Allah’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171)



‘Isa’s mother Mariam was the daughter of ‘Imran, (Âl 'Imran 3:34,35) — cf the Amram of Exodus 6:20 — and the sister of Aaron (and Moses). (Maryam 19:28) She was fostered by Zachariah (father of John the Baptist). (Âl 'Imran 3:36) While still a virgin (Al-An’am 6:12; Maryam 19:19-21) Mariam gave birth to ‘Isa alone in a desolate place under a date palm tree. (Maryam 19:22ff) (Not in Bethlehem).



‘Isa spoke whilst still a baby in his cradle. (Âl 'Imran 3:46; Al-Ma’idah 5:110; Maryam 19:30) He performed various other miracles, including breathing life into clay birds, healing the blind and lepers, and raising the dead. (Âl 'Imran 3:49; Al-Ma’idah 5:111) He also foretold the coming of Muhammad. (As-Saff 61:6)



‘Isa did not die on a cross

Christians and Jews have corrupted their scriptures. (Âl 'Imran 3:74-77, 113) Although Christians believe ‘Isa died on a cross, and Jews claim they killed him, in reality he was not killed or crucified, and those who said he was crucified lied (An-Nisa’ 4:157). ‘Isa did not die, but ascended to Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:158) On the day of Resurrection ‘Isa himself will be a witness against Jews and Christians for believing in his death. (An-Nisa’ 4:159)



Christians should accept Islam, and all true Christians will



Christians (and Jews) could not be freed from their ignorance until Muhammad came bringing the Qur’an as clear evidence (Al-Bayyinah 98:1). Muhammad was Allah’s gift to Christians to correct misunderstandings. They should accept Muhammad as Allah’s Messenger, and the Qur’an as his final revelation. (Al-Ma’idah 5:15; Al-Hadid 57:28; An-Nisa’ 4:47)



Some Christians and Jews are faithful and believe truly. (Âl 'Imran 3:113,114) Any such true believers will submit to Allah by accepting Muhammad as the prophet of Islam, i.e. they will become Muslims. (Âl 'Imran 3:198)



Although Jews and pagans will have the greatest enmity against Muslims, it is the Christians who will be ‘nearest in love to the believers’, i.e. to Muslims. (Al-Ma’idah 5:82) True Christians will not love Muhammad’s enemies. (Al-Mujadilah 58:22) In other words, anyone who opposes Muhammad is not a true Christian.



Christians who accept Islam or refuse it



Some Jews and Christians are true believers, accepting Islam: most are transgressors. (Âl 'Imran 3:109)

Many monks and rabbis are greedy for wealth and prevent people from coming to Allah. (At-Taubah 9:34,35)

Christians and Jews who disbelieve in Muhammad will go to hell. (Al-Bayyinah 98:6)



Muslims should not take Christians or Jews for friends. (Al-Ma’idah 5:51) They must fight against Christians and Jews who refuse Islam until they surrender, pay the poll-tax and are humiliated. (At-Taubah 9:29) To this may be added hundreds of Qur’anic verses on the subject of jihad in the path of Allah, as well as the ‘Book of Jihad’ found in all Hadith collections.



Christian beliefs



Christians are commanded not to believe that ‘Isa is the son of God: ‘It is far removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son’. (An-Nisa’ 4:171; Al-Furqan 25:2) ‘Isa was simply a created human being, and a slave of Allah. (An-Nisa’ 4:172; Âl 'Imran 3:59)

Christians are claimed by the Qur’an to believe in a family of gods — Father God, mother Mary and ‘Isa the son — but ‘Isa rejected this teaching. (Al-Ma’idah 5:116) The doctrine of the Trinity is disbelief and a painful doom awaits those who believe it. (Al-Ma’idah 5:73)



‘Isa (Jesus) in the Hadith

‘Isa the destroyer of Christianity



The prophet ‘Isa will have an important role in the end times, establishing Islam and making war until he destroys all religions save Islam. He shall kill the Evil One (Dajjal), an apocalyptic anti-Christ figure.



In one tradition of Muhammad we read that no further prophets will come to earth until ‘Isa returns as ‘a man of medium height, or reddish complexion, wearing two light garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head although it will not be wet. He will fight for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill pigs, and abolish the poll-tax. Allah will destroy all religions except Islam. He (‘Isa) will destroy the Evil One and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die’. (Sunan Abu Dawud, 37:4310) The Sahih Muslim has a variant of this tradition: ‘The son of Mary ... will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will ... abolish the poll-tax, and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept charitable gifts.’ (Sahih Muslim 287)



What do these sayings mean? The cross is a symbol of Christianity. Breaking crosses means abolishing Christianity. Pigs are associated with Christians. Killing them is another way of speaking of the destruction of Christianity. Under Islamic law the poll-tax buys the protection of the lives and property of conquered ‘people of the Book’. (At-Taubah 9:29) The abolition of the poll-tax means jihad is restarted against Christians (and Jews) living under Islam, who should convert to Islam, or else be killed or enslaved. The abundance of wealth refers to booty flowing to the Muslims from this conquest. This is what the Muslim ‘Isa will do when he returns in the last days.

Muslim jurists confirm these interpretations: consider, for example, the ruling of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368).



"... the time and the place for [the poll tax] is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace) ..." (The Reliance of the Traveller. Trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, p. 603).

Ibn Naqib goes on to state that when Jesus returns, he will rule ‘as a follower’ of Muhammad.

In my last post, I noted how Archbishop Jozef De Kesel is calling on Catholics to be in solidarity with Islam.

 Be nice. Be nonjudgmental. We must be more tolerant. This is the mindless mantra of those who have succumbed to relativism.

'America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance,' wrote Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen in his prophetic 1931 essay 'A Plea for Intolerance....It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded.'

But shouldn’t we be tolerant? Isn’t that charitable?

'Real love involves real hatred,' countered Archbishop Sheen. 'Whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of truth. Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of live and let live.'

Adds Father Andrew Apostoli of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, EWTN host and vice postulator of Archbishop Sheen’s cause, 'You can’t tolerate evil teachings and distortions of values against God’s laws and natural law to be accepted by society.'

It’s a daily challenge for many when confronted with today’s morally bankrupt political correctness masquerading as real tolerance.


True Tolerance
So how is a Catholic to walk the narrow road of true Christian tolerance with genuine love of neighbor and not stumble along the wide road of politically correct tolerance?
First, 'Love is not tolerance,' Archbishop Sheen wrote. 'Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It is not broad-minded about sin.'

Then the archbishop made an important distinction. 'Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error,' he noted. 'Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant.'


We condemn the sin, but not the sinner, as Father Apostoli puts it: “That’s the kind of distinction Bishop Sheen is making. We have to be tolerant toward the person who many be weak, confused, mistaken in good faith or may even be deliberately promoting distortions.”

Francis isn't interested in dialogue, he has succumbed to totalitarianism

Father Felix Sarda Y Salvany, in Chapter twenty of his critically important classic entitled, "Liberalism is a Sin," has this to say:

Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination and, under the sting of a just flagellation, whiningly accuses Catholics of lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking."

This is the preferred tactic of Francis the false prophet. As New Oxford Review put it: "For the past four-plus years, faithful Catholics have bent over backwards to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, telling themselves that the Argentine Jesuit means well, that he is a faithful son of the Church, that he — like his immediate predecessors — has an enduring love of Catholicism and Western civilization, even if at times he comes across as ambiguous, contradictory, and intellectually deficient. The NOR, more than most Catholic-oriented journals, has published critical assessments of Francis’s confusing statements, pontifical missteps, muddled theological writings, and misguided initiatives (we have an entire online dossier devoted to this pontificate: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/dossier.jsp?did=dossier-francis).

Nevertheless, we have always approached the subject with an eye toward giving Francis the benefit of the doubt. We respect the Petrine ministry and we respect the office, but that presupposes the man elected to that office respects the ministry too. The time has come to offer an unvarnished look at the fruits of this papacy and to suggest that we move beyond giving Francis the so-called benefit of the doubt. Frankly, doubt is no longer an issue. Four-and-a-half years of evidence shows that Francis has fomented division, preached politics over the Gospel, and conducted himself more like a South American strongman than a vicar of Christ."

Of course.  Francis, as with the majority of liberal ideologues, isn't interested in meeting the demands of truth.  He's not interested in an authentic dialogue. He has succumbed to a totalitarian ethic.

In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that, "....totalitarianism arises out of a denial of truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others. People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate — no individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate it.." (No. 44).

Breaking: Francis supports same-sex civil unions and departs from the constant teaching of the Church.  See here.

The Man of Sin prepares to enter the world stage.

Rome is becoming pagan once again as prophesied...

Christopher Ferrara reports:

Amoris Laetitia’s condonation of situation ethics via “discernment” of “concrete situations” among those living in adulterous “second marriages” threatens “to destroy the entire moral teaching of the Church” as a matter of “pure logic,” to quote the renowned philosopher Josef Siefert. Now there are rumors — well-founded Roman rumors, which tend to be true — of a coming application of the same “discernment” model to the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception.

Siefert’s concern centers on paragraph 303 of Amoris Laetitia (AL), wherein the following astonishing proposition is put forth:

“Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God (Relatio Finalis 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.”

As Siefert rightly queries: “If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered ‘intrinsically wrong’? If it is true that God can want an adulterous couple to live in adultery, should then not also the commandment ‘Do not commit adultery!’ be reformulated: ‘If in your situation adultery is not the lesser evil, do not commit it! If it is, continue living it!’?”

From this proposition, Siefert continues, would it not follow that “also the other 9 commandments, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and all past and present or future Church documents, dogmas, or councils that teach the existence of intrinsically wrong acts, fall? Is it then not any more intrinsically wrong to use contraceptives and is not Humanae Vitae in error that states unambiguously that it can never happen that contraception in any situation is morally justified, let alone commanded by God?”

These concerns take on even greater urgency in view of Pope Francis’ conspicuous invocation of the papal primacy during Mass on August 27. Quoth Francis:

“Jesus wanted for his church a visible center of communion in Peter and in those who would succeed him in the same primatial responsibility, which from the origins [of the Church] have been identified in the bishops of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul gave the witness of blood….

“Jesus understood that thanks to the faith given by the Father, there is a solid foundation on which he can build his church. And so he says to Simon: ‘You are Peter — that is, a stone, a rock — and on this rock I will build my church.’”

Perfectly true, of course. But what does it mean in the context of this tumultuous pontificate? The message was not lost on the Jesuit magazine America, the ultra-progressive journal which has consistently featured and promoted what the world hails as “the Francis revolution.” America notes approvingly that “Though he [Francis] makes no direct reference to them, his words would appear to be a gentle but firm reminder especially to that tiny minority of cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful, who are challenging his authority, especially over his post-synod exhortation on the family, ‘The Joy of Love.’”

Quite simply, prepare for the worst: an attempt to abuse papal authority to compel acceptance of that which is clearly contrary to the Faith — a demand that whatever Pope Francis says about contraception or any other matter of faith and morals must be accepted simply and only because he has said it and he is the Pope, even if he has contradicted all of his predecessors on the same matter. That is, an attempt to impose sheer papal positivism upon the Church without regard to objective truth.

That would be the last act in the drama now playing itself out in the Church, whose climax can only be that heavenly intervention promised by the Mother of God at Fatima. And so it is that our fear of the worst is mingled with confidence in Heaven’s ultimate resolution of this ongoing disaster, a kind of Hurricane Harvey in the Church.

_________________________

In Memory and Identity, Pope John Paul II explains how utilitarianism ignores (and therefore betrays) the bonum honestum - the just good. His Holiness writes, "...European traditions, especially those of the Enlightenment period, have recognized the need for a criterion to regulate the use of freedom. Yet the criterion adopted has not been so much that of the just good (bonum honestum) as that of utility or pleasure. Here we are faced with a most important element in the tradition of European thought, one to which we must now devote a little more attention. In human action, the different spiritual faculties tend toward a synthesis in which the leading role is played by the will. The subject thus imprints his own rationality upon his actions. Human acts are free and, as such, they engage the responsibility of the subject. Man wants a particular good and he chooses it: he is consequently responsible for his choice.

Against the background of this vision of good, which is both metaphysical and anthropological, there arises a distinction of properly ethical character. It is the distinction between the just good (bonum honestum), the useful good (bonum utile), and the pleasurable good (bonum delectabile). These three types of good are intimately bound up with human action. When he acts, man chooses a certain good, which becomes the goal of his action. If the subject chooses a bonum honestum, his goal is conformed to the very essence of the object of his action and is therefore a just goal. When on the other hand the object of his choice is a bonum utile, the goal is the advantage to be gained from it for the subject. The question of the morality of the action remains open: only when the action bringing the advantage is just and the means used are just, can the subject's goal also be said to be just. It is precisely on this issue that a rift begins to emerge between the Aristotelian-Thomistic ethical tradition and modern utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism ignores the first and fundamental dimension of good, that of the bonum honestum. Utilitarian anthropology and the ethic derived from it set out from the conviction that man tends essentially toward his own interest or that of the group to which he belongs. Ultimately, the aim of human action is personal or corporate advantage. As for the bonum delectabile, it is of course taken into account in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. The great exponents of this current of thought, in their ethical reflection, are fully aware that the accomplishment of a just good is always accompanied by an interior joy - the joy of the good. In utilitarian thought, however, the dimension of good and the dimension of joy have been displaced by the search for advantage or pleasure. In this scheme, the bonum delectabile of Thomistic thought has been somehow emancipated, becoming both a good and an end in itself. In the utilitarian vision, man in acting seeks pleasure above all else, not the honestum.

Among the Church's constant and most firm moral teaching is the idea that there are explicit kinds of human acts, specified by the object of moral choice, that are always and everywhere morally wrong, for the very reason that a willingness to choose an object of this kind displays a disordered will (i.e., moral evil). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1755, states that: "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting 'in order to be seen by men'_. The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil."

And No. 1756 says, "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

The Catechism identifies various other kinds of intrinsically evil acts, proscribed by absolute norms. Among these are: the intentional killing of the innocent (2373), as in infanticide (2268) and abortion (2273), mercy killing or euthanasia (2277); masturbation (2352); fornication (2353); rape (2356); homosexual acts (2357); adultery (nn. 2380-2381) and contraception (2370).

Francis doesn't have the authority to change this teaching or in any way to water it down.  It is the immutable teaching of the Church.

And anyone who says differently is a liar!

Father Linus Clovis makes the point that,“Obedience is owed to the pope, but the pope owes obedience to the word and the apostolic tradition. We have to obey the pope, but the pope himself must obey the written word. He must obey the tradition. He must respond to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is owed to the pope, but it is the duty of the pope to give the character of possibility to this obedience. The pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God. Pope Felix III told us, ‘an error that is not resisted is approved. A truth that is not defended is suppressed.’ So we have an obligation to resist error, and we must do everything that we can to promote the truth.”  Father Clovis made this remark in response to the crisis in the Church and the role of Pope Francis in this crisis.  See here.

"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)

Cardinal Manning delivered a series of lectures in 1861 under the title “The Present Crises of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy” in which Manning he foresaw a future crises in the Roman Catholic Church initiated by a false ecumenism and progressivist theology that many orthodox Catholics have loathed following the Second Vatican Council. Manning believed that this progressivist current would undermine the authority of the Church and ultimately result in a departure from the true faith by the nations together with the displacement of the true pope by a false prophet, thus ushering in the Antichrist and global apostasy. Manning also believed secret societies like the Freemasons were part of this conspiracy. “The secret societies have long ago undermined and honeycombed the Christian society of Europe, and are at this moment struggling onward towards Rome, the center of all Christian order in the world,”he wrote. But when he looked at the prophecy in Revelation 18 concerning the end-time destruction of Mystery Babylon, Manning saw it was the hand of God in judgment of worldwide apostasy emanating from Rome:
"We read in the Book Apocalypse, of the city of Rome, that she said in the pride of her heart, “I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and sorrow I shall not see. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day: death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be burned with fire, because God is strong who shall judge her.” Some of the greatest writers of the Church tell us that…the great City of Seven Hills…the city of Rome will probably become apostate…and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall…"

Manning explained how many of Catholicism’s greatest theologians agreed with this point of view:

"The apostasy of the city of Rome…and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians, of greatest repute. First, Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Viegas, Suarez, Bellarmine, and Bosius, that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ, and return to its ancient paganism. Malvenda’s words are:
'But Rome itself in the last times of the world will return to its ancient idolatry, power, and imperial greatness. It will cast out its Pontiff, altogether apostatize from the Christian faith, terribly persecute the Church, shed the blood of martyrs more cruelly than ever, and will recover its former state of abundant wealth, or even greater than it had under its first rulers.'
Lessius says: 'In the time of Antichrist, Rome shall be destroyed, as we see openly from the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse;' and again: 'The woman whom thou sawest is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth, in which is signified Rome in its impiety, such as it was in the time of St. John, and shall be again at the end of the world.'
 And Bellarmine: 'In the time of Antichrist, Rome shall be desolated and burnt, as we learn from the sixteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Apocalypse.' On which words the Jesuit Erbermann comments as follows: 'We all confess with Bellarmine that the Roman people, a little before the end of the world, will return to paganism, and drive out the Roman Pontiff.'

 Viegas, on the eighteenth chapter of the Apocalypse says: 'Rome, in the last age of the world, after it has apostatized from the faith, will attain great power and splendor of wealth, and its sway will be widely spread throughout the world, and flourish greatly. Living in luxury and the abundance of all things, it will worship idols, and be steeped in all kinds of superstition, and will pay honor to false gods. And because of the vast effusion of the blood of martyrs which was shed under the emperors, God will most severely and justly avenge them, and it shall be utterly destroyed, and burned by a most terrible and afflicting conflagration.'"


 It was Saint John Bosco who prophesied, "And to you, Rome, what will happen! Ungrateful Rome, effeminate Rome, proud Rome! You have reached such a height that you search no further. You admire nothing else in your Sovereign except luxury, forgetting that you and your glory stands upon Golgotha. Now he is old, defenseless, and despoiled; and yet at his word, the word of one who was in bondage, the whole world trembles.

Rome! To you I will come four times.

The first time, I shall strike your lands and the inhabitants thereof.

The second time, I shall bring the massacre and the slaughter even to your very walls. And will you not yet open your eyes?

I shall come a third time and I shall beat down to the ground your defenses and the defenders, and at the command of the Father, the reign of terror, of dreadful fear, and of desolation shall enter into your city.

But My wise men have now fled and My law is even now trampled underfoot. Therefore I will make a fourth visit. Woe to you if My law shall still be considered as empty words. There will be deceit and falsehood among both the learned and the ignorant. Your blood and that of your children will wash away your stains upon God's law. War, pestilence and famine are the rods to scourge men's pride and wickedness. O wealthy men, where is your glory now, your estates, your palaces? They are the rubble on the highways and byways.

And your priests, why have you not run to 'cry between the vestibule and the Altar,' begging God to end these scourges? Why have you not, with the shield of faith, gone upon the housetops, into the homes, along the highways and byways, into every accessible corner to carry the seed of My word? Know you that this is the terrible two-edged sword that cuts down My enemies and breaks the Anger of God and of men?"
In our own time, the germ ideas of a one-world religion are already being sowed. And this false humanitarian religion will burst into poisonous flower when enough hearts have grown cold and have abandoned the true religion. As Jane Le Royer explained in prophecy: "When the time of the Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known."

Can you not see the emerging signs? How do we find the Church today? The Mystical Body of the Crucified One - the Holy Catholic Church - is climbing Calvary, carrying a heavy cross. She is experiencing the hour of abandonment and betrayal. Her body is being tormented by the scourges of sin which strike at it and by numerous sacrileges which open up deep wounds in it.

New Vatican Healthcare Manual opening door to euthanasia

Is the Vatican opening the door to euthanasia?  See here

For the Nazis, "euthanasia" (which is translated as "good death") represented a euphemistic term for a clandestine murder program created for the systematic killing of mentally and physically disabled patients living in institutional settings throughout Germany. The National Socialist's "Euthanasia" program would set the stage for the Holocaust: the mass murder of Jews and others who were deemed either racially inferior or ideologically unsuitable. In the words of Dr. Leo Alexander, Chief U.S. Medical Consultant at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials: 'Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings."

Dr. Alexander referred to "a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of physicians." These physicians came to accept the notion that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.

We are witnessing what appears to be a similar "subtle shift in emphasis" with regard to human life in our own time. The new Vatican Healthcare Manual is a reason for concern.


In his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reminded us that:

"Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

We ignore this warning at our own peril

Kolvenbach was of the opinion that Jorge Bergoglio, Francis, is a sociopath...

Gloria TV reports:


"Last Saturday, Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach died in Beirut, Lebanon. He was the Superior General of the Jesuits from 1983 to 2008. Kolvenbach allegedly wrote to the Vatican recommending that Jorge Mario Bergoglio not be made archbishop of Buenos Aires because he was emotionally unstable and temperamentally unreliable. John Paul II promoted him anyway, believing that liberal Jesuits were unduly prejudiced against Bergoglio because he had been unsympathetic to Liberation Theology.

Bad Relationship: As the Argentinean provincial of the Jesuits, Bergoglio did not form as warm a relationship with the superior general, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, as he had with his predecessor, Pedro Arrupe. Kolvenbach even intervened to unseat Bergoglio and spurned him on his trip to Argentina in 1988. Bergoglio was exiled to Cordoba and his followers sent abroad."

I addressed the Kolvenbach report here. Kolvenbach was of the opinion that Bergoglio is a sociopath.  See here.

One of the most revealing traits of the sociopath is that he or she doesn't care at all what others think.  Ever.  See here.

Profile of the sociopath here


Note this item:

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they re not genuine, neither are their promises.

Father Zuhlsdorf: Authentic shepherd

Father Zuhlsdorf, over at WDTPRS, Just posted this:

"From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Is there a reasonable hope that all souls will be saved since it is a part of our liturgy?

No.  That is not reasonable.  It is wishful thinking.

Many* will be lost.

The feel good of translations and other aspects in our sacred -or not so sacred – worship have given many more than a rosy prospect.

There is no part of our authentic liturgy as Catholics which suggests that “all” will be saved.

It is time to sober up.

We can lose the gift of membership in the Kingdom of God which Christ opened for us.

We can and we do… when we sin.

GO TO CONFESSION!"


Always nice to find a Catholic priest who isn't, well, insane.  Father Z is most sound of mine and an authentic shepherd.  He cares for souls.  Not all priests, however, are sane.  I do not say this to be uncharitable.  But remember, as Frank Sheed reminded us, good theology and sanity go hand in hand - see here.

Some years ago, in an article entitled "Can Jews, Muslims be saved," Fr. John Dietzen wrote, "Pope John Paul II reflects this Catholic attitude [that non-Catholics may be saved] in his moving and hopeful book, 'Crossing the Threshold of Hope.' God wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ, he writes. We don't know how God does all this, but we know Christ came into the world for all people and 'has his own ways of reaching them' (pp. 80-83) In other words, God has committed himself to work through baptism and the other sacraments, but he is not bound or limited by them."

It is certainly true that non-Catholics who "..through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience..may achieve eternal salvation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 847) and that although, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1257). I have often quoted these passages to refute the errors of the Feeneyites who insist that only baptized Roman Catholics may be saved.

But it does not follow that because "God came into the world for all people" and "wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ" that all will be saved. Will some souls end up in hell? Fr. Dietzen concludes from his examination of Pope John Paul II's book that, "We just don't know enough about the mystery of God's saving plan to make such a judgment." He then writes, "Perhaps you know of Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the major Catholic theologians of the 20th century, a friend and close consultant to Pope John Paul II. He wrote much about the possibility of universal redemption, including the book, 'Dare We Hope: That All Men Be Saved,' in which he maintains it is our Christian call to pray and hope that all are reconciled with God. He was named a Cardinal but died before he could receive the red hat."

What of this? Was Pope John Paul II in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar? The average Catholic, after reading Fr. Dietzen's article, would certainly get that impression. But they would be wrong. For Fr. Dietzen is not intellectually honest and only cites those passages of Pope John Paul II's book which seem to support this notion. A more careful examination of the Holy Father's book will serve to highlight Fr. Dietzen's dishonesty. For example, in a passage responding to the concern of "great thinkers in the Church," [including von Balthasar] who have been "disturbed" by the problem of hell, Pope John Paul II refers to Jesus' "unequivocal" words: "He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25: 46)."

Pope John Paul II concludes his remarks (which may be found on pages 185 to 186 of "Crossing the Threshold of Hope") with a series of rhetorical questions which indicate that some sinners will end in hell: "Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice?," "Can He tolerate these terrible crimes," "Can they go unpunished?," "Isn't final punishment in some way necessary in order to reestablish moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity?," "Is not hell in a certain sense the ultimate safeguard of man's moral conscience?"

Fr. Dietzen conveniently leaves these passages out of his article in an attempt to convince the faithful that Pope John Paul II and the Church are in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar. I have quoted [in another post on Fr. Dietzen] from Lumen Gentium, No. 48 of the Second Vatican Council which teaches clearly that some souls will end up in hell. And faithful Catholics will reflect very carefully on the fact that the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form that is grammatically future: "...and those who have done evil will go to the resurrection of condemnation" (Mt 25: 46). Does Fr. Dietzen consider Christ to be a liar? Does he believe Christ to be mistaken?

It's true that Pope John Paul II appointed von Balthasar a Cardinal. But when the Pope appoints someone a Cardinal, he does not authoritatively commend his thought.

I called upon Fr. Dietzen to issue an apology to his readers for his misleading article.  But he never delivered.

The faithful have a right to Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity (Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). Father Dietzen and others who dare to suggest that all men will be saved fail to offer Catholic teaching in its purity and integrity.

*  How do we interpret "many"?  See here.