Antichrist's Antipapal Agents of Anti-Catholic Teaching

No intellectually honest Catholic can claim with a straight face that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has not been intent on waging a carefully planned and calibrated assault upon the last vestiges of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals to be found within the confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the very first moment he stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.

The Argentine Apostate made it clear in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, that there was a dichotomy between doctrine, which he believes comes from men and not from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and mercy:

161. It would not be right to see this call to growth exclusively or primarily in terms of doctrinal formation. It has to do with “observing” all that the Lord has shown us as the way of responding to his love. Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you”(Jn 15:12). Clearly, whenever the New Testament authors want to present the heart of the Christian moral message, they present the essential requirement of love for one’s neighbour: “The one who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the whole law… therefore love of neighbour is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:8, 10). These are the words of Saint Paul, for whom the commandment of love not only sums up the law but constitutes its very heart and purpose: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14). To his communities Paul presents the Christian life as a journey of growth in love: “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all” (1 Th 3:12). Saint James likewise exhorts Christians to fulfil “the royal law according to the Scripture: You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (2:8), in order not to fall short of any commandment. . . .

194. This message is so clear and direct, so simple and eloquent, that no ecclesial interpretation has the right to relativize it. The Church’s reflection on these texts ought not to obscure or weaken their force, but urge us to accept their exhortations with courage and zeal. Why complicate something so simple? Conceptual tools exist to heighten contact with the realities they seek to explain, not to distance us from them. This is especially the case with those biblical exhortations which summon us so forcefully to brotherly love, to humble and generous service, to justice and mercy towards the poor. Jesus taught us this way of looking at others by his words and his actions. So why cloud something so clear? We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom. For “defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is forever attempting to posit a false dichotomy between doctrinal fidelity and charity. This effort is unspeakably insidious as true charity starts with love of God, and one cannot truly love God unless one adheres to everything that He has taught to us. To disparage the importance of doctrinal formation in order to seek to replace it with a nebulous kind of social work that is performed to "prove" how "good" and "kind" Christians can be is nothing other than to place a complete seal of approval upon the false principles of The Sillon that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. It is also to make a mockery of the very words of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church:

[11] The Jews therefore sought him on the festival day, and said: Where is he? [12] And there was much murmuring among the multitude concerning him. For some said: He is a good man. And others said: No, but he seduceth the people. [13] Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of the Jews. [14] Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. [15] And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?

[16] Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him. [19] Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? [20] Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee? (John 7: 11-20.)

Saint John the Evangelist, the only Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross along with Our Lady and Saint Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleophas and Salome, explained that we cannot truly love God unless we keep His Commandments:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)

There is no dichotomy between love of doctrinal truth and the provision of the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy as to contend this is to blaspheme the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's true general councils to care for nothing so much as to So the truths of the Holy Faith, condemning doctrinal errors as circumstances required them to do so.

It is very interesting that Bergoglio's quote at the end of Paragraph 194 of Evangelii Gaudium cited above ("“defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”) came from a conciliar document, Libertatis Nuntius, that was issued on August 6, 1984, by the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and was signed by none other than, yes, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger. Here is the full text of the paragraph from which Bergoglio quoted:

18. The defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them. Spiritual conversion, the intensity of the love of God and neighbor, zeal for justice and peace, the Gospel meaning of the poor and of poverty, are required of everyone, and especially of pastors and those in positions of responsibility. The concern for the purity of the faith demands giving the answer of effective witness in the service of one's neighbor, the poor and the oppressed in particular, in an integral theological fashion. By the witness of their dynamic and constructive power to love, Christians will thus lay the foundations of this "civilization of love" of which the Conference of Puebla spoke, following Paul VI. [34] Moreover there are already many priests, religious, and lay people who are consecrated in a truly evangelical way for the creation of a just society. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Libertatis Nuntius, August 6, 1984.)

Pope Pius VI explained the methods of innovators such as the conciliar "pontiffs" to promote error in the name of the Catholic Church:

[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged." (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

To denounce error is not to "pile on" those who propagate it.

No, to denounce error is acquit our duties before God without being respecters of persons, and those who are concerned about "piling on" Jorge Mario Bergoglio ought to be reminded that Successors of Saint Peter can never teach error, which is why it is important to reprise this brief section from Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846:

10. This consideration too clarifies the great error of those others as well who boldly venture to explain and interpret the words of God by their own judgment, misusing their reason and holding the opinion that these words are like a human work. God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is,[5] and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff,[6] living at all times in his successors and making judgment,[7] providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it.[8] The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.

11. For this mother and teacher[9] of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church,[10] the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also.[11] The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active,[12] and therefore because of its preeminent authority, the whole Church must agree with it. The faithful who live in every place constitute the whole Church.[13] Whoever does not gather with this Church scatters.[14] (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

Each of our true popes and Holy Mother Church's true general councils had to be wrong to denounce error and to insist on doctrinal formation in catechesis and missionary work for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be correct. This simply cannot be so.

Moreover, Pope Pius IX’s Qui Pluribus reminds us yet again that Holy Mother Church “has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to by to by Christ the Lord,” meaning that it is impossible for heresies to be taught by a true pope in the name of the Catholic Church.

Is God any less offended by the Argentine Apostate’s false dichotomy between doctrine and mercy in Evangelii Gaudium (and in his daily screeds at the Casa Santa Marta as he conducts his Ding Dong School of Apostasy) than by the application of that dichotomy in Amoris Laetitia, March 16, 2016, and the entirety of his antipapal ministry?

Of course not.

Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used his Jesuitically trained pea brain to lay the founding for the “easing” of consciences on issues of Catholic morality that he believes are impossible for the faithful to observe.

Admitting that he has sought to “welcome” practicing sodomites throughout the course of his antipapal presidency, Bergoglio’s first formal project was to “ease” the consciences of Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of nullity as well as those engaged in other “imperfect” unions from receiving what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination.

The Argentine Apostate made it clear in Paragraphs 186 and 199 of Amoris Laetitia that no “scandalous distinctions and divisions” could be made among those who approach to receive what they think is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. This means that no one is to be excluded. Not those who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of marital nullity. Not those who are cohabiting while unmarried. Not those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature. Not those who are using contraception. Not those who are either killing babies or are public officials who support the execution of the innocent preborn. Not those who have killed their own babies and are unrepentant about doing so. Not those who have engaged a “surrogate mother” to bring a child conceived artificially to birth. Those who “create” “scandalous divisions and distinctions” need to undergo what the false “pontiff” calls “missionary conversion”:

186. The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ”(v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”.207 When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.

201. “This effort calls for missionary conversion by everyone in the Church, that is, one that is not content to proclaim a merely theoretical message without connection to people’s real problems”.229 Pastoral care for families “needs to make it clear that the Gospel of the family responds to the deepest expectations of the human person: a response to each one’s dignity and fulfilment in reciprocity, communion and fruitfulness. This consists not merely in presenting a set of rules, but in proposing values that are clearly needed today, even in the most secularized of countries”.230 The Synod Fathers also “highlighted the fact that evangelization needs unambiguously to denounce cultural, social, political and economic factors – such as the excessive importance given to market logic – that prevent authentic family life and lead to discrimination, poverty, exclusion, and violence. Consequently, dialogue and cooperation need to be fostered with societal structures and encouragement given to lay people who are involved, as Christians, in the cultural and socio-political fields”.231 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

These passages serve to prepare readers for the coup de grace that Bergoglio delivered to discredit and to undermine the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church in Paragraphs 291 to 310 of what some have aptly called his ode to the adversary, Amoris Laetitia.

“Pope Francis” believes that the denial of what purports to be Holy Communion to those who are living in sin, a phrase that he rejects as being “unmerciful” and without any sense of “nuance” (a word that was one of the late Bernard “Cardinal” Law’s many ways to cloud the clarity of Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals), constitutes the “creation” of “distinctions” and “divisions” that are “sins” against “equality.” Bergoglio believes that those who “create” such distinctions are the ones who partake of the Eucharist unworthily, thereby turning the following words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians on their head:

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:17-34.)

The meaning of this is quite clear.

Bishop Richard Challoner commented as follows in his English translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible:

[27] Guilty of the body: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body. (Bishop Richard Challoner Commentary, Douay-Rheims Bible.)

Father George Haydock commented similarly:

The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom, hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and 30. ((Haydock Commentary.)

It is interesting that Jorge Mario Bergoglio cites verses 26-29 of Saint Paul the Apostle’s First Epistle to the Corinthians but omits a reference to verse 30, which Father Haydock explained as follows:

Ver. 30-32. Therefore in punishment of the sin of receiving unworthily, many are infirm, visited with infirmities, even that bring death, which is meant by those words, many sleep. But it is a mercy of God, when he only punishes by sickness, or a corporal death, and does not permit us to perish for ever, or be condemned with this wicked world. To avoid this, let a man prove himself, examine the state of his conscience, especially before he receives the holy sacrament, confess his sins, and be absolved by those to whom Christ left the power of forgiving sins in his name, and by his authority. If we judge ourselves in this manner, we shall not be judged, that is, condemned. (Haydock Commentary.)

Leave it to a figure of Antichrist to twist the clear meaning of the words of Saint Paul the Apostle to condemn those who are in a state of Sanctifying Grace while looking with an indulgent “kindness” upon those who are not.

Believing Catholics know that Saint Paul the Apostle condemned those who dare to receive Holy Communion unworthily, that is, those who are in a state of Mortal Sin. Saint Paul’s admonition applies directly to the very people whose sins against Holy Purity are justified by “Pope Francis” by various means, including what he calls “gradualness,” in Amoris Laetitia. It is nothing other than the work of a figure of Antichrist to twist the words of Saint Paul in verse twenty-seven of Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians to make them apply to those would deny Holy Communion to the very sort of unrepentant sinners condemned by the Apostle to the Gentiles.

The Argentine Apostate believes that unrepentant sinners are worthy to partake of what purports to be the Holy Eucharist while those who call sin by its proper name and seek to protect the Sacred Species from sacrilegious reception are said to be creating “distinctions” and “divisions,” thus rendering themselves unworthy. This kind of theological filth can only have one author, the devil himself. His concept of "missionary conversion" refers to a Stalnist or Maoist style "re-education" of "reprogramming" of Catholics who still cling to what he believes are Pharisaical standards that simply cannot be realized by people in contemporary circumstances.

Bergoglio disparages the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as nothing other than a "set of rules" that can break the backs and dispirit the souls of those who are living in ways that do not conform to the "fullness" of what he believes is but a mere "ideal," a falsehood that he repeated throughout the text of Amoris Laetitia and that denies the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood to effect the conversion of those steeped in sin. This hideous little man does not view moral sins as grave matter. He views them as "expressions of love" that are show tenderness and compassion. No one, though, loves another by enabling him in his sins. No one loves himself by excusing away his own sins and justifying them before men. No one can love God and persist in a life of sin as Our Lord Himself taught us to quit our sins, each of which caused Him to suffer unspeakable horrors during His Passion Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that caused those Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.

Although it has been well-established on this website that conciliarism itself and its explication by the postconciliar antipopes have sought to contradict, obfuscate, or disparage or simply disparage the defined teaching of the Catholic Church on everything, especially about the nature of dogmatic truth and hence upon the nature of God and His Divine Revelation and in matters concerning the unicity of the Church, interreligious “prayer” services, religious liberty and the proper relationship between Holy Mother Church and the civil state, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has moved the conciliar revolution to the point where he has been undermining and contradicting the “magisterial” teaching, such as it was, of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and the very much alive Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

That is, even though Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict used their false pontificates to advance the conciliar revolutionary agenda, especially as it pertains to false ecumenism and interreligious “prayer” services, they did so at a slower pace than was to the liking of Jacobin/Bolshevik “progressives” such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes that his two immediate predecessors in the conciliar seat of apostasy were too “conservative” on matters of theology and morality and that they “stifled” so-called “theologians” such as Leonardo Boff and Hans Kung.

Most especially, though Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that his two immediate antipapal predecessors were wrong on matters of marriage and the family even though both supported and evangelized on behalf of a revolutionary overthrow of the ends of marriage that Wojtyla/John Paul II advanced, in complete “fidelity” to the “Second” Vatican Council and to Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI’s revolutionary Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, in the 1983 conciliar code of canon law, which is, as you will see below, a complete inversion of the ends proper to marriage as taught by Holy Mother Church from time immemorial and codified in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.

To wit, consider the inversion of the ends of marriage wrought by the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar popes even though the ends of marriage are part of the Divine and Natural Laws and are more malleable than the doctrine of the unicity of the Catholic Church:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English: 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1 1983 Conciliar Code of Canon Law. By the way, Father Vigano, your beloved Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II propagated the so-called 1983 Code of Canon Law. Not even a true pope can change something that exists in the very nature of things. Why no criticism of "Saint John Paul II"?)

TheThe entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, including its endorsement of the falsehood that is "natural family planning," is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his aforementioned Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s belief that his two immediate predecessors have been “conservatives” is not only laughable, but also a contemptible display of intellectual arrogance or intellectual dishonesty or both.

After all, the Argentine Apostate’s Amoris Laetitia was meant to be an overruling of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s reiteration, couched in conciliarspeak’s inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, of the traditional ban on divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics from the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service as well as a reminder that those living in sin outside of marriage were similarly banned. Bergoglio meant Amoris Laetitia to serve as the counterweight to Familiaris Consortio just as much as Traditiones Custodes, July 16, 202, was a direct abrogation of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. The entirety of conciliarism’s “living tradition”/“hermeneutic of continuity”/dogmatic evolutionism that has been used to contradict and/or deconstruct almost the entirety of the patrimony of the Catholic Faith is being used with ready abandon by Bergoglio to contradict, deconstruct or just plain jettison decisions made by the previous conciliar “popes” in the name of “theological dialogue,” theological pluralism,” and “listening to the voices of the faithful.”

Whatever conciliarism is, it is not Catholicism as it is based on a rejection of Holy Mother Church’s authentic magisterial teaching in favor of an “experiential-based” subjectivism that insists upon listening to the “community” rather than insisting upon obedience to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who has spoken to us through the infallible voice of His Holy Church, she who can more contradict herself than He can, God is immutable. So is His teaching as enunciated by His Holy Church, she who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Why is this all relevant?

Well, look for yourselves:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The Pontifical Academy for Life has defended its recent book promoting contraception, writing on Twitter that theology requires “progress” as part of a natural process.

The Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) recently published a book, Theological Ethics of Life. Scripture, Tradition, Practical Challenges, which is a collection of essays taken from a three-day interdisciplinary seminar sponsored by the PAV. LifeSiteNews reported on the text, noting how the book advocates for contraception and artificial insemination as if the topics are open topics for discussion, instead of having already been condemned by the Church.

After LifeSite’s article was shared on Twitter, the PAV responded to the criticism which users of the social media site were making of the book, writing that there was “No deviation [from Church’s teaching] but debate and dialogue, as the Church always suggests – ‘quaestiones disputatae’ method!”

The PAV faced further criticism, however, with user Gary Paul Hermit writing that “to suggest that settled matters are up for ‘debate and dialogue’ IS deviation.” He urged the PAV to “condemn dissent,” saying that “the only dialogue” which the Church should have with a racist individual “would be to correct his error and invite conversation.”

In response the PAV wrote: “Be careful: what is dissent today, can change.”

“It is not relativism, it is the dynamics of the understanding of phenomena and science: the Sun does not rotate around the Earth,” continued the Academy. “Otherwise there would be no progress and everything would stand still. Even in theology. Think about it.”

The PAV’s message was swiftly ridiculed as a “word salad” online, with a senior editor for the National Catholic Register Jonathan Liedl writing: “A Vatican organ lazily comparing Humane Vitae to geocentricism in order to undermine decades of post-conciliar teaching on sexual ethics.”

Leila Marie Lawler, author of The Summa Domestica: Order and Wonder in Family Life, described the PAV’s response as a “mishmash.”

The PAV is no stranger to controversy regarding the Catholic Church’s moral teaching. Its president, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, issued a call in 2019 for the PAV to “widen its scope of reflection” and said that Pope Francis warned the PAV “that it is risky to look at human life in a way that detaches it from experience and reduces it to biology or to an abstract universal, separated from relationships and history.” (Pontifical Academy for Life defends new book supporting contraception: ‘What is dissent today, can change’.)

Despite all their gratuitous assertions to the contrary, men such as Vincenzo Paglia and his fellow Bergoglian hand-picked appointees to the so-called Pontifical Academy for Life are moral relativists and pantheists who believe in basing moral precepts not on what is objectively true in the nature of things and/or has been taught infallibly and immutably by Holy Mother Church, Who teaches only what she has received from her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but on the basis of the life “experiences” of people who have no intention of showing forth their love of God by obeying His Commandments. Paglia and his band of pantheists believe that moral precepts are established by community behavior and not “imposed” by ultimate authority other than what they believe is the “informed” consciences of individuals, who are said to be “mature” enough to decide for themselves what they can do after considering all other factors. This is a sure path to hell as it makes the individual conscience, which is easily misinformed by one’s own desires and habits of sins, paramount over God Himself, Who must be, perforce reduced into nothing other than a projection of one’s warped imagination to reaffirm oneself in one’s sins.

The Bergoglio-Paglia approach to what should be called a theology of immorality is not even the old proportionalism of the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J. (not to be confused with the late heretic Father Richard McBrien, a priest of the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut) as McCormick presume that there were objective norms of morality but that they did not apply if a preponderance of “good motives” and supposedly mitigating circumstances could make an otherwise illicit act into a morally licit one to pursue. However much he negated the application of objective moral truth in the practical realm, Father Richard McCormick admitted, at least admitted in a broad theoretical sense, perhaps to avoid further censure for being a moral relativist, that that there were such truths.

Furthermore, the belief that “today’s dissent” is tomorrow’s orthodoxy is without any foundation in the history of the Catholic Church, something that even the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself noted in a 1976 document concerning the immutable nature of sexual ethics that had come under attack by various theologians who were, as we know now, being used by the forces of hell to prepare the way for the coming of the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and those who are likely to follow him in the conciliar seat apostasy barring a direct intervention from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself

Hence, those many people are in error who today assert that one can find neither in human nature nor in the revealed law any absolute and immutable norm to serve for particular actions other than the one which expresses itself in the general law of charity and respect for human dignity. As a proof of their assertion they put forward the view that so-called norms of the natural law or precepts of Sacred Scripture are to be regarded only as given expressions of a form of particular culture at a certain moment of history.

But in fact, Divine Revelation and, in its own proper order, philosophical wisdom, emphasize the authentic exigencies of human nature. They thereby necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed to be identical in all beings endowed with reason.

Furthermore, Christ instituted His Church as "the pillar and bulwark of truth."[6] With the Holy Spirit's assistance, she ceaselessly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but "also . . . those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself"[7] and which concern man's full development and sanctification. Now in fact the Church throughout her history has always considered a certain number of precepts of the natural law as having an absolute and immutable value, and in their transgression she has seen a contradiction of the teaching and spirit of the Gospel.

ince sexual ethics concern fundamental values of human and Christian life, this general teaching equally applies to sexual ethics. In this domain there exist principles and norms which the Church has always unhesitatingly transmitted as part of her teaching, however much the opinions and morals of the world may have been opposed to them. These principles and norms in no way owe their origin to a certain type of culture, but rather to knowledge of the Divine Law and of human nature. They therefore cannot be considered as having become out of date or doubtful under the pretext that a new cultural situation has arisen. (Persona Humana, December 29, 1975.)

To be sure, Persona Humana was a document of the conciliar church, which means that there were drops of error here and there, especially as concerns homosexuality, which it condemned while attempting to extend a palm branch to those engaged in “transitory” acts. Nonetheless, however, its text reaffirmed in the immutable nature of moral truths, something that has long been attacked by Modernists and has received “papal” currency during in the past nine years, four months, five days, since Jorge Mario Bergoglio appeared on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter. Indeed, the new document produced by the so-called Pontifical Academy for Life states that a “plurality” of “diversity” of theological views can vitiate an adherence to norms which its authors do not believe are immutable of their very nature, which, of course, is to deny the immutability of God, Who is Himself immutable.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Vincenzo Paglia really do believe that “past teaching” on morality becomes “outdated” and thus must be conformed to the way in which the people live their lives even though the truth of the matter is that we must conform ourselves to the law of God and to the teaching of Holy Mother Church, who teaches us authoritatively and infallibly in His Holy Name.

No one, however, should be in the least bit surprised about the bold manner in which the Catholic moral teaching is under attack by Bergoglio’s handpicked members of the Pontifical Academy on Life as it is very easy to attack the immutability moral teaching once one admits that matter of Catholic doctrine, including the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, are subject to reevaluation according to the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned principles that have gone by the titles of “living tradition” and/or the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Dogmatic evolutionism leads to moral evolutionism just as surely as it leads also to liturgical evolutionism and, ultimately, to the triumph of the pantheistic spirit of subjectivism.

Thus, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Vincenzo Paglia do not believe that there any other moral truths that exist independently of human acceptance of them, contending that “abstract” truths that do not relate to the lived experience of human beings are irrelevant to the decisions undertaken by an “informed” conscience. This experiential, subjectivist mode of rationalizing grave sins, usually against the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments, is pure Modernism and was condemned by Pope Pius XII on September 14, 1957, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D., The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies.

The conciliar revolutionaries have placed human existence in the context of a subjectivism that is indeed nothing other than moral relativism to give full license to the satisfaction of carnal lusts up to and including the most hideous forms of perversity, thereby also subordinating the binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Laws to the to the supposed “good” of the “community,” which is nothing other than Communism.

The conciliar revolutionaries place the supposed “good” of the “community” over the sanctification and salvation of souls while deifying the natural environment and allying very formally with one anti-population, pro-abortion, pro-contraception nogoodnik and their organizations dedicated to the propagation of Communist, globalist, statist propaganda that empower the civil state, deprive men of their legitimate liberties, gut industries, heavily tax citizens and make national sovereignty a relic that belongs in the same category as the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the immutable Sacred Deposit of Faith. Naturalism and Pantheism, not Catholicism, guide the conciliar ideologues who are rigidly committed to the propagation of junk science while offending God by means of their hideous liturgies, false doctrines, false teaching on moral theology and false pastoral theology that leads men on the path to eternal ruin. (See Jorge's Band of Theological Racketeers Legitimize Paul Ehrlich)

Rationalizing Sin as the Foundation of “Catholic” Moral Teaching

A recent article in America magazine provided a favorable review of the “process” by which “theologians” associated with the so-called Pontifical Academy for Life are “reevaluating” Catholic teaching on contraception, abortion, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged human beings, “brain death”/human organ vivisection and transplantation, and “palliative care”/hospice. It is worth the exercise to analyze this effort to rationalize sin as the foundation of what purports itself to be “Catholic” moral teaching. Various interjections will be offered where appropriate.

Here is the first segment of the article in America:

Pope Francis has encouraged a process of theological renewal on many fronts but perhaps nowhere more significant than in the realm of theological ethics and moral theology. In four of his landmark papal documents—“Evangelii Gaudium” (2013), “Laudato Si’” (2015), “Amoris Laetitia” (2016) and “Veritatis Gaudium” (2018)—and in countless speeches, catechetical talks and homilies throughout his papacy, he has revived the church’s longstanding tradition of the primacy of an individual’s informed conscience and, among others, the role of discernment in moral decision-making.(Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

Interjection:

Evangelii Gaudium was, as noted earlier in this commentary, an insidious effort to make it appear that there is a dichotomy between Catholic doctrine and mercy. (Please see Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven.)

Laudato Si’ was a screed on behalf of a pantheistic, globalist view of the created world to which men must subordinate themselves. (Please see: Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge part one, Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part two.)

Veritatis Gaudium, December 27, 2017, was an “apostolic” constitution that reformed Catholic universities, which have been in conciliar custody for over sixty years now, according to the “mind” of the Bergoglian antipapacy.

Each of these documents have been issued by an agent of Antichrist who is actively seeking, yes, even as approaches his eighty-sixth birthday in five months, to eradicate anything even remotely recognizably Catholic within the theology, liturgy, or pastoral practice of a false religious sect, starting with the celebration of the “primacy of individual conscience” even though individual consciences must be informed by and docilely submissive to the teaching of Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to Faith and Morals.

Well, we return now to the America justification of theological subjectivism:

The pope’s teachings in these authoritative documents have influenced how theology is taught in Catholic universities and seminaries throughout the world and have also given church scholars much sought-after permission and freedom to explore new horizons in Catholic theology. Under the present papacy, theologians are empowered to ask complex questions that touch on the messy, real-life issues that affect the faithful without fear of being silenced. But the pope’s efforts to revitalize the Catholic Church’s understanding and approach to the moral life could take yet another major leap forward. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

“New horizons in Catholic theology.”

This calls to mind the eagerness with which theologians during the last few years of Pope Pius XII’s life looked forward to a “liberal” pope who would give them the “freedom” to examine new approaches to supposedly “complex” issues that are not complex at all as it is never “complex” to obey God and the teaching He has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.

Father John C. Ford, S.J., who was instrumental in convincing Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI not to endorse contraception in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, even though it contained an inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony and endorsed what became known as “natural family planning” (Catholic contraception) was one of those who sought more “freedom” to explore supposedly “complex” moral issues but had to wait until the death of Pope Pius XII.

Father Ford's own protege, the late Dr. Germain Grisez, noted this as so in a glowing tribute to him that is filled with very interesting factual details of the work of the "papal" "birth control" commission:

Though Ford never publicly criticized Pius XII or the Roman Curia, he shared the dissatisfaction then common among theologians with the overly cautious attitude of the Holy See toward innovations of any sort. He also thought Pius XII had attempted to settle some difficult moral questions without adequate study and reflection. Thus, Ford was pleased by the more open approach of the new pontificate [Angelo Roncalli] and looked forward to the coming Council in the hope that it would pave the way for needed renewal in the Church, not least in moral theology. (John C. Ford, S.J.)

We can see with greatly clarity what this so-called “renewal” hath wrought.

Back to the America article:

A new essay titled “Rileggere l’etica teologica della vita,” which translates to English as “Re-reading the theological ethics of life” and was published June 30 in La Civilta’ Cattolica—the Jesuit-led periodical whose content is approved by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State before publication—could place renewed emphasis on this often fraught area of reflection in the life of the church. Interesting times lie ahead if the reflections reported in the essay speak to what may be afoot at the Vatican.

“It is legitimate to ask if Pope Francis will give us a new encyclical or apostolic exhortation on bioethics that might be called ‘Gaudium Vitae.’ [‘The Joy of Life’],” said Jorge José Ferrer, S.J., the author of the essay, a priest and professor of moral theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Were such a papal document forthcoming it would spark a wide-ranging reflection on the ethics of human life that could lead to a new and definitive papal teaching document on issues as polarizing as contraception, assisted procreation and palliative care. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

Interjection:

Although the issue of contraception will be examined later in this commentary, suffice it say for the moment that the conciliar revolutionaries desire to pronounce that which is evil good, and to this they must make it appear as though what has been taught as objective moral truths can no longer be seen as such in light of the “changed” circumstances in which people live at the present time.

In order to accomplish this mission from the depths of hell, the authors of the Pontifical Academy for Life’s book made sure to use the language of the adversary in many instances, including by referring to the morally illicit practice of in vitro fertilization as “assisted procreation” while at the same time endorsing the frustration of procreation as the natural end of the generative powers given unto man by God by means of contraceptive pills and devices, each of which serve as abortifacients and asserts the “sovereignty” of man over the sanctity and fecundity of the marital gift, which can be used, the revolutionaries have long asserted, in supposedly “loving” and “stable” relationships that, though “imperfect,” are said to be based in a true commitment one sinner to the other.

Even the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then under the stewardship of Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, condemned, albeit the very-sickening advertences to “human dignity” and not the law of God, in vitro fertilization in Donum Vitae, February 22, 1987, which is the authors of the Pontifical Academy for Life’s book listed Donum Vitae’s condemnation of in vitro fertilization as one of the subjects that must be “reevaluated” in a “bold and courageous “freedom of speech”:

The essay offers an overview of the contents of a 528-page book that contains the proceedings of a three-day interdisciplinary seminar convened by the Pontifical Academy for Life at the Vatican from Oct. 30 to Nov. 1 in 2021 and was published last month by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the Vatican publishing house, under the title Etica teologica della vita: Scrittura, tradizione, sfide, pratiche (Theological Ethics of Life: Writing, Tradition, Practical Challenges).

The departure point for this seminar was to listen attentively to the magisterium of Pope Francis and, after careful study, to reflect on theological ethics, and bioethics in particular, in a truly dialogical way, while still recognizing the decisive role of the pope’s teaching authority.

“We followed a path of study and reflection that led us to see the issues of bioethics in a new light, starting with the role of discernment and the formed conscience of the moral agent,” Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said in an interview about the book with Vatican Media. “We did this not only in an atmosphere of parrhesia [a bold and courageous freedom of speech] that stimulates and empowers theologians, academics and scholars. But also with a procedure similar to the quaestiones disputatae: to pose a thesis and open it up to debate.” The quaestiones disputatae is a medieval method of philosophical and theological discussion to dispute issues pertinent to society, where one scholar presents a thesis and another responds in dispute.

More than 20 theologians, among them clerics, consecrated religious, lay women and men, gathered for the seminar. Most of the participants were from Europe, but two were from Latin America, one from Africa and one the United States. Two consultors from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—which under the new reform of the Roman Curia is now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith—were present at the seminar as well as three cardinals: Luis Antonio Tagle (Philippines), Mario Grech (Malta) and Marcello Semeraro (Italy).

The seminar was itself convened as a response to the work of eight theologians (men and women) who had been commissioned by the same pontifical academy a year before the seminar to reflect on fundamental aspects of the moral theology of life and bioethical concerns that touch on such contentious issues as contraception, in vitro fertilization and the suspension of nutrition and hydration for terminally ill persons. It also took account of what the different disciplines of modern science and technology had to contribute to the discussion at hand. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

The paragraph just above is fraught with gratuitous assertions as the mere fact that moral truths are “contentious” in the minds of those who do not want to observe them and/or find some theological rationalization for violating with a clear “conscience” does not lessen the obligation of anyone to observe them faithfully.

To wit, although I have written extensively about the illicit nature of the suspension of nutrition and hydration from brain-damaged or those said to be “terminally-ill,” it is important to remind readers here that a brain-damaged person is not suffering from a terminal illness, The provision of nutrition and hydration, no matter how administered, is a mandatory requirement for those who cannot feed themselves, something that is true with infants who must be fed and those who have been injured in an accident and/or have suffered a stroke later in life who need assistance to eat and drink. The provision of food and water is nothing burdensome to the patient nor costly to himself and/or his relatives. There is only thing that can occur when food and water are withdrawn from a living human being: death.

No action that has as its only end the death of an innocent human being is morally licit, and those who continue to insist that it is licit must reckon with the fact that the medical industry today, far from wanting to keep people alive until they become “one hundred twenty-five year-old headless corpses,” has been basing medical care on the basis of subjective” “quality of life” determinations made by teams of “professionals” trained in programs funded by the anti-life Robert Wood Johnson and George Soros foundations. The starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings” is being employed by medical “professionals” to play God, which is exactly what they did in the case of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo seventeen years (see Ten Years Later) and what they are doing every day of the year without making headlines as most people accept this cruel killing of their relatives as “normal” because the “professionals” have said that is the “merciful” thing to do. There is nothing “merciful” about starving and dehydrating an innocent human being to death.

Moreover, one has to recognize that the myth of “brain death” was invented by a team of “ethicists” at the Harvard Medical College in 1968 to provide an ex post facto justification for the killings of Denise Darvall in the first heart transplant cases:

Enter South African surgeon Christian Barnard who had received part of his post graduate medical studies in the United States at the University of Minnesota. It was here that he first met Dr. Norman Shumway, who did much of the pioneering research leading up to the first human heart transplant. Barnard performed the first kidney transplant in South Africa in October 1967, but his primary interest was cardiac surgery. He wanted to do a human heart transplant.

In November 1967, Barnard found a 54-year-old patient by the name of Louis Washkansky who agreed to participate in the medical experiment as a heart recipient.

One month later, on December 3, 1967, the father of Denise Darvall, a young woman who was seriously injured in a car accident that killed her mother, gave his permission to have his daughter's heart excised and transplanted to Mr. Washkansky. That same day, the world's first human heart transplant operation took place. Bernard was assisted by his brother, Marius. The operation lasted 9 hours and employed a team of 30 medical personnel.

The immediate problem facing Barnard was that, although Denise's brain was damaged, her heart was healthy and beating, indicating she was still alive by traditional whole body standards. So what would make her heart stop so that it could be legally excised? Barnard later told reporters that he had waited for her heart to stop naturally before cutting it out, but this was a lie. It was not until 40 years later that the public learned the truth.

At Marius's urging, after his brother had cleaved open the chest cavity, Christian had injected a concentrated dose of potassium to paralyze Denise's heart, thus rendering her "technically" dead. (2) Everything had already been prepared so Bernard proceeded to quickly cut the major vessels, cool the heart and sew it into the recipient. Denise was alive before her heart was excised. She was truly dead after it was cut out of her body.

Three days after the Barnard murder, not to be outdone by a doctor in South Africa, Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz, a surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn cut a beating heart out of a live 3-day-old baby and transplanted into an 18-day-old baby with heart disease. At the end of the day both babies were dead. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Mrs. Engel's article, which was published in 2010 on the Tradition in Action website, detailed the gruesome aftermath of the killing of Denise Darvall in Cape Town, South Africa:

The controversy following the Kantrowitz killings was instrumental in the formation of the Harvard Medical School ad hoc Committee to study "brain death" as the new criteria for death.

The obvious conundrum facing transplantation surgeons was that organs taken from cadavers do not recover from the period of ischemia (loss of blood supply to organs) following true death. After circulation and respiration has stopped, within 4 to 5 minutes the heart and liver are not suitable for transplantation. For kidneys the time is about 30 minutes.

Equally clear was the realization that in order to continue unpaired vital organ transplantation it would be necessary to redefine death, that is, to establish a new criterion for death that would legally permit the extraction of vital organs from living human beings. Such a redefinition would permit transplantation surgeons to kill with legal immunity.

In August 1968, the Journal of the American Medical Association published "A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death." (3) No authors were listed. (4)

The Harvard Committee cited two reasons for establishing "brain death" as the new criteria for death. The first was the problems surrounding the use of resuscitation and other supportive measures to extend the life of severely injured persons. The second reason was "obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation."

It should also be noted that the criteria of "brain death" did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method of observation and hypothesis followed by verification. The Committee presented no substantiating data either from scientific research or case studies of individual patients. The Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions. (Don't Give Your Vital Organs - Part I.)

Dr. Paul Byrne explained in his interview fifteen years ago now with Mrs. Randy Engel in The Michael Fund Newsletter that the medical industry invented the myth of "brain death" to justify this killing less than a year after Christian Barnard "opened shop" for the body snatching industry that has killed untold thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings:

Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?

Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.

Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?

Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.

Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?

Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.

Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes.

Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?

Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?

Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.

Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?

Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.

Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”

Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain. (The Michael Fund Newsletter.)

“Brain death” is a lie and “palliative care” is euthanasia disguised under various euphemisms to disguise the reality of what it does: to kill a person by the use of various pharmaceutical cocktails designed to cause a person to become disoriented and seemingly aggressive before the protocols for the final doses of what can be called the hemlock treatment to be administered, sometimes at home by a patient’s own relatives in the belief that they are “relieving” of a loved one from pain when they are actually serving as unwitting accomplices in deaths that are the result of decisions made by men, not by God. We are to accept the suffering that comes out way at every moment of our lives, which is why we pray for the grace to bear the sufferings of whatever kind of death God has willed for us to undergo so that we can pay back perhaps a small amount of the punishment that we owe because of our sins.

One must recognize the simple fact that those who have given the world what has become common life-taking practices are not motivated by a love of God and His Holy Commandments. Instead, of course, the monsters of Modernity desire to play God, and we have seen this with especial clarity in the ongoing fear mongering and actual medical malfeasance with respect to what is called “Covid-19” as well as the development of gene therapy treatments (“vaccines”) that are injuring and killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The monsters of Modernity are indistinguishable from the monsters of the German Third Reich, the monsters of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the monsters of Red China at this time.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII explained that it was vital to know who developed and/or propagated various medical experiments or treatments in order to understand whether Catholics could cooperate with them legitimately, focusing principally on the necessity of respecting innocent human life and avoiding subordinating to alleged “needs” of the “community”:

Nevertheless, for the third time we come back to the question: Is there any moral limit to the “medical interests of the community” in content or extension? Are there “full powers” over the living man in every serious medical case? Does it raise barriers that are still valid in the interests of science or the individual? Or, stated differently: Can public authority, on which rests responsibility for the common good, give the doctor the power to experiment on the individual in the interests of science and the community in order to discover and try out new methods and procedures when these experiments transgress the right of the individual to dispose of himself? In the interests of the community, can public authority really limit or even suppress the right of the individual over his body and life, his bodily and psychic integrity?

23. To forestall an objection, We assume that it is a question of serious research, of honest efforts to promote the theory and practice of medicine, not of a maneuver serving as a scientific pretext to mask other ends and achieve them with impunity.

24. In regard to these questions many people have been of the opinion and are still of the opinion today, that the answer must be in the affirmative. To give weight to their contention they cite the fact that the individual is subordinated to the community, that the good of the individual must give way to the common good and be sacrificed to it. They add that the sacrifice of an individual for purposes of research and scientific investigation profits the individual in the long run.

25. The great postwar trials brought to light a terrifying number of documents testifying to the sacrifice of the individual in the “medical interests of the community.” In the minutes of these trials one finds testimony and reports showing how, with the consent and, at times, even under the formal order of public authority, certain research centers systematically demanded to be furnished with persons from concentration camps for their medical experiments. One finds how they were delivered to such centers, so many men, so many women, so many for one experiment, so many for another. There are reports on the conduct and the results of such experiments, of the subjective and objective symptoms observed during the different phases of the experiments. One cannot read these reports without feeling a profound compassion for the victims, many of whom went to their deaths, and without being frightened by such an aberration of the human mind and heart. But We can also add that those responsible for these atrocious deeds did no more than to reply in the affirmative to the question We have asked and to accept the practical consequences of their affirmation.

26. At this point is the interest of the individual subordinated to the community’s medical interests, or is there here a transgression, perhaps in good faith, against the most elementary demands of the natural law, a transgression that permits no medical research?

27. One would have to shut one’s eyes to reality to believe that at the present time one could find no one in the medical world to hold and defend the ideas that gave rise to the facts We have cited. It is enough to follow for a short time the reports on medical efforts and experiments to convince oneself of the contrary. Involuntarily one asks oneself what has authorized, and what could ever authorize, any doctor’s daring to try such an experiment. The experiment is described in all its stages and effects with calm objectivity. What is verified and what is not is noted. But there is not a word on its moral legality. Nevertheless, this question exists, and one cannot suppress it by passing it over in silence. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

Parenthetically but not unimportantly, though, it should be noted that there are even some fully traditional Catholic prelates and priests who continue to accept uncritically the claims by “medical science” about “brain death/vital organ vivisection,” the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged people, “palliative care” and even the well-documented effort on the part of those are acting under the demands of the “Global Reset” to keep pushing poisoned potions as a means to avoid or at least mitigate the effects of man-made bioweapons designed to depopulate the earth. It is morally and theologically irresponsible to pass over these things in silence and to surrender one’s intellectual judgment to physicians who are part and parcel of what Dr. Paul Byrne rightly calls our “system of death.”

Pope Pius XII further explicated on this point in his allocution:

28. In the above mentioned cases, insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.

29. The community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities. Considered as a whole, the community is not a physical unity subsisting in itself and its individual members are not integral parts of it. Considered as a whole, the physical organism of living beings, of plants, animals or man, has a unity subsisting in itself. Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached.

30. In the moral community and in every organism of a purely moral character, it is an entirely different story. Here the whole has no unity subsisting in itself, but a simple unity of finality and action. In the community individuals are merely collaborators and instruments for the realization of the common end.

31. What results as far as the physical organism is concerned? The master and user of this organism, which possesses a subsisting unity, can dispose directly and immediately of integral parts, members and organs within the scope of their natural finality. He can also intervene, as often as and to the extent that the good of the whole demands, to paralyze, destroy, mutilate and separate the members. But, on the contrary, when the whole has only a unity of finality and action, its head-in the present case, the public authority-doubtlessly holds direct authority and the right to make demands upon the activities of the parts, but in no case can it dispose of its physical being. Indeed, every direct attempt upon its essence constitutes an abuse of the power of authority.

32. Now medical experiments-the subject We are discussing here immediately and directly affect the physical being, either of the whole or of the several organs, of the human organism. But, by virtue of the principle We have cited, public authority has no power in this sphere. It cannot, therefore, pass it on to research workers and doctors. It is from the State, however, that the doctor must receive authorization when he acts upon the organism of the individual in the “interests of the community.” For then he does not act as a private individual, but as a mandatory of the public power. The latter cannot, however, pass on a right that it does not possess, save in the case already mentioned when it acts as a deputy, as the legal representative of a minor for as long as he cannot make his own decisions, of a person of feeble mind or of a lunatic.

33. Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

34. We cannot refrain from explaining once more the point treated in this third part in the light of the principle to which one customarily appeals in like cases. We mean the principle of totality. This principle asserts that the part exists for the whole and that, consequently, the good of the part remains subordinated to the good of the whole, that the whole is a determining factor for the part and can dispose of it in its own interest. This principle flows from the essence of ideas and things and must, therefore, have an absolute value. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

This, of course, means nothing to the conciliar revolutionaries, who are always at the beck and call of the globalists and their schemes to subordinate us all to the so-called exigencies of the “global community.”

An interview given by “Father” Carlo Casalone, S.J., to America magazine emphasized the perverse teaching of “Pope” Francis to reevaluate even the definition of life itself and what he called as the “need” for a “moral theology” that responds to the changed circumstances in which people live today:

Our aim is to listen to what Pope Francis is saying to theologians in a more comprehensive way, and since we are moral theologians dealing mainly with global bioethical issues, we try to make explicit what “Evangelii Gaudium,” “Amoris Laetitia,” “Laudato Si’” and “Veritatis Gaudium”—the document for the renewal of the universities and theological studies—mean for our theological reflection.

Father Casalone noted that people, not infrequently, take a sentence or statement from what Francis says but fail to grasp his organic vision.

The problem is that we only listen to some things Francis says but not to others. And sometimes we take his remarks out of context. The question is: Are we able to give a holistic listening to what Francis says?

When I noted that Francis appears to have revolutionized the approach to many questions in moral theology and the ethics of life, the Jesuit theologian, seeking to be more precise, said:

I would rather say that Francis has highlighted aspects of the patrimony of the tradition of moral theology which were overlooked in the interventions of the recent magisterium. This becomes clear if you go beyond merely thinking that Francis has made what appear to be only small changes and consider instead the broader implications of those changes with a systemic approach; then you will understand that they are indeed very major changes. If you put together all that Francis has said, then you will see that there are very new accentuations, for example, in relation to conscience versus the norm [and] ethical discernment (in its connection with spiritual discernment), and this is both new and in continuity with tradition. This is what we are trying to say.

He recalled that the preliminary text for discussion sought to present the magisterium of Pope Francis in an integrated and comprehensive way. To this end, he said, the participants addressed such fundamental issues as “the relation between nature and culture,” “the understanding of conscience in relation to law and discernment,” “the use of an approach to the characteristics of phenomena through the various disciplines,” “the inseparable link of theology and pastoral experience,” “the understanding of history in the elaboration of moral theology” and “the relativityof all language—since it cannot pretend to fix forever the understanding of the faith.”

The group also reviewed controversial bioethical issues that have arisen since the promulgation of three previous papal teaching documents: “Humanae Vitae” (1968), on responsible parenthood and contraception, “Donum Vitae” (1987), which deals with the relationship between natural moral law and reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, and “Samaritanus Bonus” (2020), on the care of persons in the terminally and critically ill stages of life.

“As moral theologians,” Father Casalone said:

We must ask ourselves the reasons why these vexed issues continue to be a motive for unease and even desolation among believers. We realized that to reach a better understanding of these questions we had to open a dialogue; and in this dialogical approach we must take into consideration what the people of God understand and feel about them....

Moreover, we saw it necessary for us to listen to each other as theologians, and then let the magisterium do its work. It is not for the academy to make a magisterial statement....

[At the pontifical academy,] we felt the right thing to do at this moment in history is to open a dialogue, including on these controversial issues because the space for this type of open discussion was not there in past decades. Indeed, it was not easy to debate these questions openly.

Father Casalone appeared to be alluding to the fact that since “Humanae Vitae” and, especially, during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it was not easy to find a space to discuss such themes as contraception, I.V.F. and end-of-life treatment in a calm and reasoned way, as one risked being judged unorthodox by the mere raising of questions regarding such subjects.

By inviting to the seminar theologians “with different, even contrasting approaches to those issues,” Father Casalone said, the pontifical academy opened a space for such free discussions following the logic of synodality as encouraged by Pope Francis. Therefore, the resultant publication of the seminar’s proceedings, he said, “is not the presentation of a one-sided approach to moral theology of these controversial issues.”

“We intended to create a dialogue,” Archbishop Paglia said in the interview, “between different opinions on even controversial topics, proposing many insights for discussion.” The academy’s role “is not limited to explaining texts of the magisterium,” he said. “Our perspective was to render a service to the magisterium by opening up a space for dialogue that makes research possible and encourages it.”

Pope Francis, according to Archbishop Paglia, had been fully informed of the process and knew about the preliminary text and the discussion at the seminar, and agreed that its proceedings be published in book form. The reflection was also prompted in part by the 25th anniversary of “Evangelium Vitae.” The archbishop said the academy wanted to commemorate this milestone by “rereading the main topics covered in St. John Paul II's encyclical after so many years,” and “by inviting theologians and experts in different fields to a study seminar.”

The book is divided into 12 chapters, Father Casalone explained, and each chapter is structured according to the themes presented in the preliminary text.

The subject that is likely to draw most attention is the revisiting of the question regarding the use of artificial contraceptives, discussed in the seventh chapter. The use of contraceptives was rejected by “Humanae Vitae,” but that teaching was to a large extent not accepted in much of the Catholic world. Both in the seminar and in the book it is affirmed that a couple can make a “wise choice” by having recourse to contraceptive techniques, “obviously excluding those that are abortive,” in situations where the “conditions and practical circumstances would make it irresponsible to choose to procreate.” Whether Pope Francis will endorse this position remains to be seen.

Father Casalone noted the first chapter, on the joy of human life, collects the most significant statements of Pope Francis on this subject and seeks to bring them together in an organic synthesis that inspires and directs the rest of the reflection. The second chapter reviews what the Old and New Testament teach about life, culminating in the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

Interjection:

As has been noted previously in this commentary, Humanae Vitae was a revolutionary document in and of itself, which is why an analysis of its text served as the first selection contained in Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law (which had been previously published in 2011 and 2018 on this site).

Contraception was promoted by Margaret Sanger and her fellow eugenicists in the early Twentieth Century to destabilize marriage, especially among black families so as to make them wards of the civil state who would be dependent upon the government’s programs of social engineering for their very survival, by creating such widespread immorality as to make marriage an “outdated” institution to be replaced by new species of unions that were not dependent upon the commitments required of matrimony and the begetting and rearing of children. Contraception is a denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and it is no accident that Protestantism, which gave birth to the theological revolutionism of which Modernism is but a species,

Pope Pius XI explained the matter in very simple to understand terms in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, which is never a subject of reference by the conciliar revolutionaries:

7. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]

18. Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

There is no need to “reevaluate” that which is proscribed by God and by the nature of things He created. That which is proper to marriage can only be used therein, and any efforts to justify the use of generative gifts outside of marriage to engage in natural or natural vice and/or to frustrate that which God has ordained is guilty in the objective order of things of grave sins. The so-called “theologians” desiring to “reevaluate” contraception stand condemned by the plain words of Pope Pius XI above that will be repeated here for the sake of emphasis:

Truth does not change.

There is no such thing as a “new” morality.”

There is only the old immorality and the equally old effort to rationalize it that stands condemned by the plain words of Holy Writ itself:

I have cried to thee, O Lord, hear me: hearken to my voice, when I cry to thee. [2] Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice. [3] Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips. [4] Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins. With men that work iniquity: and I will not communicate with the choicest of them. [5] The just shall correct me in mercy, and shall reprove me: but let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head. For my prayer also shall still be against the things with which they are well pleased: (Psalm 140: 1-5.)

Bishop Richard Challoner’s explanation of verse five, above, leaves no room for today’s crops of moral relativists to anything but quit their deceptive practices that will lead them into hell if they do not repent:

[5] "Let not the oil of the sinner": That is, the flattery, or deceitful praise.-- Ibid.

[5] "For my prayer": So far from coveting their praises, who are never well pleased but with things that are evil; I shall continually pray to be preserved from such things as they are delighted with.

The authors of the Pontifical Academy for Life” publication calling for a “reevaluation of that which has been ordained by God and in the nature of things He created are always well pleased with things that are evil, and they never cease to delight in tickling the itching ears of weak vessels of clay as they do not believe that chastity is a virtue or that, if it is, it is possible for men to live in accordance therewith. In other words, they believe that God has commanded the impossible of men, something that is both impossible and blasphemous.

We return once again to the America magazine article:

Chapter three examines our current cultural situation and seeks to identify what the Second Vatican Council called “the signs of the times” because all theological reflection takes place at a particular place and time and is rooted in a specific culture and in an ongoing conversation with the currents of philosophical and scientific thought of its own era. Father Casalone recalled that Benedict XVI had described tradition as “the living river that links us to the origins; the living river in which the origins are ever present.” And, Father Casalone added: “Since it is living, such tradition is also constantly in motion; it always remains unfinished and open to further development.” (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

Interjection:

What was I saying about “living tradition” and the “hermeneutic of continuity”?

Truth of any kind, whether supernatural or natural, does not depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity, and it is not rooted “in a specific culture” nor in any kind of “an ongoing conversation with the currents of philosophical thought of its own era.” This is dogmatic evolutionism, pure and simple, and in this instance “Father” Casolone correctly cited the nonagenarian Hegelian, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in defense of that which is both philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned.

This reminds me of what a Scripture professor at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Huntington, Long Island, New York, said in a “homily” while serving as a weekend assistant at the Church of Saint Dominic, Oyster Bay, New York, during the staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination in May of 1988: “Where do moral norms come from? They come from the community.” In other words, the “people” are as much “sovereign” in the realms of theology and moral as they are in the realm of the civil government.

All right. It is with a great sense of regret that I must return to the America magazine article:

Chapters four and five are of great importance for moral theology today, the Jesuit professor explained. The fourth chapter examines in a critical manner how the Catholic moral tradition, the magisterium and theology have treated the fifth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” over the centuries.

Commenting on this, Father Casalone said:

History shows that the Catholic moral theology tradition regarding this norm is not monolithic. This norm has been interpreted through different philosophical and theological concepts and within a historical interpretation. Different sensibilities have led to different interpretations. Killings were admitted in certain circumstances.

“We have a historical plurality of interpretations of the commandment ‘Do not kill,’” he added, pointing to the reasoning given on such issues as the death penalty by St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent, the Second Vatican Council and more recently in the magisterium of Pope Francis. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

The mere fact that there has been a “plurality of interpretations” of the Fifth Commandment can in no way change the fact that the Catholic Church has always defended the inviolability of innocent human life while at the same recognizing the Natural Law principle of self-defense and the Natural Law right of the civil state to impose the death penalty upon those adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the administration of the due process of law. The existence of erroneous interpretations proves nothing other than that fallen men have a pronounced capacity to deceive themselves into making excuses for their sins.

Then again, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan contended long and long in their joint dissent in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022, that the surgical execution of innocent preborn children, having been established illegitimately in the case of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, illegitimately in violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, has become an “irreversible” fact because it has been accepted by so many for over half a century.

For their own part, the conciliar revolutionaries insist that what they call “negative norms” must give way to the “primacy of conscience” even though God Himself gave us His binding Commandments in “negative” and positive absolutes as follows:

1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

3. Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

4. Honor thy father and thy mother.

5. Thou shalt not kill.

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

7. Thou shalt not steal.

8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

In other words, we are to do good and avoid evil. It is that simple, so simple that the sophists within the counterfeit church of conciliarism must prove their “sophistication” and “maturity” by attempting to make complex that which is simple so that will be able to deceive even, if possible, the elect and by disparaging “negative” precepts and those who defend them, including Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993. The America magazine article summarized the Pontifical Academy for Life’s rejection of “negative” norms in favor of individual conscience:

“Traditionally, both the magisterium and theological reflection have held that the negative norms bind with greater force,” Father Ferrer wrote in his essay for La Civilta’ Cattolica, “without any exception, independent of the circumstances and consequences.” He said, “This doctrine was vigorously reaffirmed” by John Paul II in his encyclicals ‘Veritatis Splendor’ (1993) and ‘Evangelium Vitae’ (1995).” But, the Puerto Rican Jesuit noted, the text drafted by the theologians of pontifical academy for discussion concludes that this rigorist position has been criticized in recent decades by moral theologians who say it is excessively “rationalist” and leads to “a limited understanding of the moral norm and of the role of conscience.”

Father Casalone agreed with his Jesuit confrere, Father Ferrer, and added that Pope Francis in his teachings in “Amoris Laetitia” and other writings has emphasized the importance of the relationship between “conscience, norm and discernment.” He insisted, however, that “Francis is not just changing the role of a norm,” he said. “No. He is rehabilitating something that is typical of the Catholic tradition but has since been overshadowed.”

This focus on conscience, norm and discernment is of the utmost importance and is dealt with in chapter five of the book, he said:

Moral tradition shows us that norms formulated in general terms cannot cover the concrete situation; and so there is a need for the interpretation of conscience, a discernment is needed in the situation.…”

This is the path Pope Francis followed in “Amoris Laetitia,” where he emphasized the relation between conscience and the norm, and the need to give attention to the circumstances and to practice discernment. The norms remain an indispensable point of reference to help persons do what is the best good for them in their concrete circumstances, within the community they belong to. It is the relation between culture, conscience and the law. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

The other chapters of the book deal with specific questions related to the experiences of generating life, sexuality, suffering, dying and their related ethical implications. Specific issues are also addressed, including the environment and the use of modern scientific technologies in this whole field of life ethics.

Whether Pope Francis will publish an exhortation or encyclical on theological ethics that addresses these and other urgent topics in our human history remains to be seen. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

To the contrary, “Saint” John Paul II wrote the following in Veritatis Splendor, albeit doing so in the context of conciliarspeak’s concern for “human dignity” and the “true” teaching of the “Second” Vatican Council:

55. According to the opinion of some theologians, the function of conscience had been reduced, at least at a certain period in the past, to a simple application of general moral norms to individual cases in the life of the person. But those norms, they continue, cannot be expected to foresee and to respect all the individual concrete acts of the person in all their uniqueness and particularity. While such norms might somehow be useful for a correct assessment of the situation, they cannot replace the individual personal decision on how to act in particular cases. The critique already mentioned of the traditional understanding of human nature and of its importance for the moral life has even led certain authors to state that these norms are not so much a binding objective criterion for judgments of conscience, but a general perspective which helps man tentatively to put order into his personal and social life. These authors also stress the complexity typical of the phenomenon of conscience, a complexity profoundly related to the whole sphere of psychology and the emotions, and to the numerous influences exerted by the individual's social and cultural environment. On the other hand, they give maximum attention to the value of conscience, which the Council itself defined as "the sanctuary of man, where he is alone with God whose voice echoes within him".¹⁰² This voice, it is said, leads man not so much to a meticulous observance of universal norms as to a creative and responsible acceptance of the personal tasks entrusted to him by God.

In their desire to emphasize the "creative" character of conscience, certain authors no longer call its actions "judgments" but "decisions" : only by making these decisions "autonomously" would man be able to attain moral maturity. Some even hold that this process of maturing is inhibited by the excessively categorical position adopted by the Church's Magisterium in many moral questions; for them, the Church's interventions are the cause of unnecessary conflicts of conscience.

56. In order to justify these positions, some authors have proposed a kind of double status of moral truth. Beyond the doctrinal and abstract level, one would have to acknowledge the priority of a certain more concrete existential consideration. The latter, by taking account of circumstances and the situation, could legitimately be the basis of certain exceptions to the general rule and thus permit one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called "pastoral" solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a "creative" hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept.

No one can fail to realize that these approaches pose a challenge to the very identity of the moral conscience in relation to human freedom and God's law. Only the clarification made earlier with regard to the relationship, based on truth, between freedom and law makes possible a discernment concerning this "creative" understanding of conscience. (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1973.)

“Saint” John Paul II, therefore, condemned the very basis of Amoris Laetitia’s “pastoral solutions,” which is why the authors of the Pontifical Academy for Life’s “reflections” invoked the Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” to claim that Veritatis Splendor itself was being “fulfilled” in an “evolutionary” manner by “Pope” Francis. Live by one’s false notion of “living tradition” and one will see one’s own work in defense of an objective moral order undone very easily by the application of that “living tradition” by others who want to let people live the way they desire in the name of “conscience” and “personal freedom” even if they do so by living in states of sin to the very point of their deaths.

Writing in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII condemned the “new theology’s” recycling of the Modernist concept of “dogmatic evolution” that was professed by Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II as “living tradition” and by his successor in the current line of antipopes, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, under the aforementioned slogan of the “hermeneutic of continuity” that makes short work of all Catholic doctrine as “time conditioned” and not guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and thus, as we see so very clearly now, making their own teaching as unstable and ever-changeable to their successors after they had endorsed the very principles that wind up undoing their own decisions:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Po34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

That is, if Catholic teaching the dawning of the new age of Aquarius, that is, of the “Second” Vatican Council, was “time-conditioned,” it should come as no surprise that the “teaching” of one conciliar antipope can be undone rather easily by another in the future. All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done is to expedite the seeds of conciliarism’s evolutionary processes—and hence of its ultimate destruction in the long run at a time known to Our Lord alone—by making it appear that any religion or no religion at all is as good as Catholicism (see Jorge Signs Off on the One World Religion) and that it is the duty of what he contends is the Catholic Church to be at the service of the New World Order, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and the Global Reset’s call for “sustainable development goals.”

Consider how Jorge Mario Bergoglio has authorized Pietro Parolin and his fellow reds in the conciliar Holy See’s Secretariat of State to sign onto the anti-population, pro-abortion, pro-sodomite piece of statist and pantheist propaganda called the “Paris Climate Accords” in spite of the evils advanced within those accords:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) – The Vatican announced today that it has formally joined the Paris Climate Agreement, known for its underlying abortion and population control agenda.

A statement issued by the Holy See Press Office said that Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia, Permanent Observer to the U.N., on June 6 deposited before the Secretary-General of the United Nations the Holy See’s Instrument of Accession, the formal document by which the Vatican joined the Paris Climate Agreement.

“The Holy See,” the statement reads, “in the name and on behalf of Vatican City State, intends to contribute and to give its moral support to the efforts of all states to cooperate … in an effective and appropriate response to the challenges posed by climate change to humanity and to our common home.”

The Vatican claims that in joining the Paris Agreement it is expressing its solidarity with the poor and future generations as those most affected by “climate change.”

As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, however, it has long been noted by pro-life advocates, that the 2015 Agreement includes an underlying agenda to push abortion, contraception, and sterilization as necessary means of controlling the population and minimizing human consumption and use of the earth’s resources. The way such things are imposed on poorer countries is by linking them to desired funds and resources.

In text of the Agreement, such issues are cloaked in phrases such as “gender equality” and “empowerment of women,” and are joined to the presumed need to address climate change in a “toss in everything” approach. The Agreement states:

Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.

Pro-life advocacy group Voice of the Family pointed out in 2015 when the Climate Agreement was first drafted that the U.N.’s “Sustainable Developments Goals use ‘gender equality’ and ’empowerment of women’ to advance abortion and contraception.”

Goal Five of the Sustainable Development Goals, which is to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls,” includes the following target, to be achieved by 2030: “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”

As Voice of the Family warns, “The United Nations Population Fund states that ‘sexual and reproductive health’ includes access for all to ‘the safe, effective, affordable and acceptable contraception method of their choice,’ which includes methods of contraception that are, or can be, abortifacient. The Population Fund also supports other methods of abortion, stating: ‘where abortion is legal, national health systems should make it safe and accessible.’”

Other U.N. documents such as the July 23, 2015, report of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) titled “General recommendation on women’s access to justice,” also use the phrases “gender equality” and “empowerment of women” to push for greater expansion of abortion and contraception, calling on nations to “decriminalize behaviours that can only be performed by women such as abortion.”

In spite of the abortion agenda pushed by the U.N. and included in the Paris Climate Agreement, Pope Francis praised the agreement from its first adoption. In 2015, the pontiff said, “The climate conference has just ended in Paris with an agreement that many describe as historic.”

The Pope then called on all nations to join in fulfilling its goals. “Implementing it,” he said, “will require unanimous commitment and generous involvement by everyone.”

“With the hope that special attention for the most vulnerable populations is guaranteed, I exhort the whole international community to proceed on the path undertaken in the name of an ever more effective solidarity.”

Again in 2020 the Pope said of the agreement, “We need to do everything in our capacity to limit global average temperature rise under the threshold of 1.5°C enshrined in the Paris Climate Agreement, for going beyond htat will prove catastrophic, especially for poor communities around the world.”

Today’s announcement comes only one day after the European Union adopted a resolution titled “US Supreme Court decision to overturn abortion rights in the United States and the need to safeguard abortion rights and Women’s health in the EU,” in which the E.U. defends abortion as a “fundamental human right” and “calls on the governments of those states which have passed laws and other measures concerning bans and restrictions on abortion to repeal them and to ensure that their legislation is in line with internationally protected women’s human rights.”

Many see the Vatican’s accession to the Paris Climate Agreement today as yet one more step along what Voice of the Family called “the steady reversal of the Holy See’s former vigilance on this issue [of abortion] and the increasing incidence of the Vatican and international anti-life and anti-family forces working together, despite the Holy Father’s public condemnations of abortion.” (Vatican joins Paris Climate Agreement despite inclusion of abortion, population control agendas.)

What the well-meaning people at LifeSite News do not as of yet seem to comprehend is that to believe any of this can come from the Catholic Church is deny her perpetual immunity from error.

The Pontifical Academy for Life’s new book is just the first step in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own dialectical process. The next step will be the convening of a “extraordinary synod of ‘bishops’” followed a year later by an “ordinary synod of ‘bishops,’” which will be followed by an “apostolic exhortation” that “papally” “canonizes” everything in the recently release book of moral relativism and will be inserted dutifully into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis. This was the process that gave birth to Amoris Laetitia and it is same one that will be used to “legitimize” the illegitimate and to reaffirm hardened sinners in their lives of perdition once again.

Although alleged theologians such as Vincenzo Paglia and his advisers believe in “liberating” Catholics from mere “rules” such as the Catholic Church’s strict prohibitions against the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life and the deliberate frustration of the generative power that God has given unto man to continue the species so as to provide Him with citizens of the Church Militant here below and citizens of the Church Triumphant in Heaven before they die, perhaps the overriding reason they are eager to reverse the irreversible is make their false religious sect that they (and most the people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike), in the world think is the Catholic Church a visible society that exists exclusively to advance the pantheistic goals of social control in behalf of “saving the planet” as souls go down to hell like so many sparks of coal.

Too harsh?

Well, consider the words of Sister Lucia dos Santos about the vision of hell that Our Lady permitted her and her cousins, Jacinta, and Francisco Marto, had during Our Lady’s third apparition to them on July 13, 1917, one hundred five years ago:

Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repulsive likeness to frightful and unknown animals, all black and transparent. This vision lasted but an instant. How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. Otherwise, I think we would have died of fear and terror.

"I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, [August] to continue to pray the Rosary every day in honour of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she can help you." (First and Second Part of the Secret of Fatima.)

Here are the exact words as spoken by Our Lady on July 13, 1917:

"Continue to come here every month. In October, I will tell you who I am and what I want, and I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe."

Lucia made some requests for sick people, to which Mary replied that she would cure some but not others, and that all must say the rosary to obtain such graces, before continuing: "Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.

"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world."

Mary specifically told Lucia not to tell anyone about the secret at this stage, apart from Francisco, before continuing: "When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: 'O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.' "

Lucia asked if there was anything more, and after assuring her that there was nothing more, Mary disappeared off into the distance. (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

The conciliar revolutionaries have placed the alleged safety of the created world over the sanctification and salvation of souls while deifying the natural environment and allying very formally with one anti-population, pro-abortion, pro-contraception nogoodnik and their organizations dedicated to the propagation of Communist, globalist, statist propaganda that empower the civil state, deprive men of their legitimate liberties, gut industries, heavily tax citizens and make national sovereignty a relic that belongs in the same category as the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the immutable Sacred Deposit of Faith. Naturalism and Pantheism, not Catholicism, guide the conciliar ideologues who are rigidly committed to the propagation of junk science while offending God by means of their hideous liturgies, false doctrines, false teaching on moral theology and false pastoral theology that lead men on the path to eternal ruin. (See Jorge's Band of Theological Racketeers Legitimize Paul Ehrlich)

We must persevere in our steadfast rejection of everything to do with the false church of conciliarism, whose lords seek to lull traditionally-minded Catholics to sleep in any number of ways, contenting them with a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered mostly by non-priests in Novus Ordo temples in order that these Catholics will refuse to rise to the defense of the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and the Holy Faith as they are attacked unremittingly by the merchants of the new world order in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with a man who himself rarely mentions Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Our Lady offered the following words to the Venerable Mary of Agreda that should inspire us to do acts of penance for our sins, each of which have worsened the state of the Church Militant and the world-at-large in this time of apostasy and betrayal:

94. In this most perverse and unhappy state mortals cannot complain of the most high and just providence of the Lord, who offers to all and everyone his fatherly mercy and points out to them both the way of life and the way of death; hence if any man hardens his heart God can permit it in strictest justice. The reprobate will have none but themselves to blame if afterwards, when there is no more time, they shall be uselessly dismayed by what in opportune time they could and should have known. If in the short and transient life which is given to them in order to merit eternal life they close their eyes and ears to the truth and to the light, if they listen to the demon, giving themselves up to all the promptings of his malice, and if they thus abuse the goodness and clemency of the Lord, what can they then allege as their excuse? If they do not know how to pardon an injury, and for the slightest offense meditate the direst vengeance; if for the sake of increasing their property they pervert the entire order of reason and of natural brotherhood; if for a passing delight they forget the eternal pains; and if, in addition to all this, they despise the warnings, helps and admonitions sent to them by God to inspire them with the fear of perdition and induce them to avoid it, how shall they afterwards find fault with the divine clemency? Let then mortals who have sinned against God undeceive themselves, for without penance there shall be no grace, without amendment no remission of sins, and without pardon no glory. Yet just as these are not conceded to those who are unworthy, so they are also never denied to those who are worthy, nor is the mercy of God ever withheld from anyone who seeks to obtain it. (From The New English Edition of The Mystical City of God, The Coronation, Book Seven, Chapter VI.)

We must remain steadfast in our own efforts against sin in our lives, forgiving others as we are forgiven in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, being earnest about making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, considering it our privilege to be insulted and calumniated and subjected to detraction from others prior to the just Judgment of God that will be rendered on our souls at the moment of our deaths and that will be revealed for one and all to see on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead. Yes, we who caused Our Lord to suffer unspeakable horrors in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and who wound His Mystical Body today, we who have thrust those Seven Swords of Sorrow through His Most Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart, we--each of us--must be willing to suffer and to suffer well everything that happens to us as the means to glorify God and to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world as the slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are dealing with forces at present that are preternatural. We are not going to "will" ourselves out of the apostasies of the moment. While a given article here and there might help one or two souls now and again, we have to recognize that any and all efforts, whether spoken or written, to combat the apostasies of the day, will come to nothing if they are not undergirded by the rock solid foundation of assisting at the daily offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, offered by priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to its false shepherds, profound Eucharistic piety, and deep, tender devotion to the Mother of God by means of Total Consecration to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and by the reverent praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

On the Feast of Saint Camillus de Lellis

Saint Camillus de Lellis was a saint who was "made" by God directly after a life of sin. He was a headstrong, heartless young boy who was cruel to other children. He threw a rock at a girl who told him that she was going to report his bad behavior to her parents, telling her, "Good. You can tell them about this, too!" before launching his projectile. He caused great heartache to his saintly mother, who prayed the same kind of copious tears that Saint Monica had said for her wayward son, Augustine.

There was a difference, though: Saint Augustine lived a life of wanton pleasures before he was baptized while Saint Camillus de Lellis had had the benefit of infant Baptism. Camillus de Lellis simply rejected the graces that God sent to him through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, preferring his disordered will to the love of God. There was another difference: Saint Camillus's bad behavior brought his mother to an earthly death while he was yet a young boy. This made it possible for her, purged of whatever self-love and faults she possessed, to pray for her more perfectly from eternity than she ever could while on the face of this earth. It was those prayers from our saint's mother, no doubt, that caused God to intervene directly in his life.

Camillus de Lellis gambled so much that he quite literally lost the shirt off of his back once. He would engage in fisticuffs at the drop of a hat. God had to intervene directly in his life to change it as Camillus de Lellis, despite all of his terrible sins that were driven by his pride and his anger and his greed, had been a chosen soul all along although no one looking at him prior to God's direct intervention would have known that this was so. Perhaps it wise for me to "get out of the way" in order to let Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., paint the picture with his exquisite perfection as his introduction takes us to the account of the saint's life as found in The Roman Breviary:

The Holy Spirit, who desires to raise our souls above this earth, does not therefore despise our bodies. The whole man is His creature and His temple, and it is the whole man He must lead to eternal happiness. The Body of the Man-God was His masterpiece in material creation; the divine delight He takes in that perfect Body He extends in a measure to ours; for that same Body, framed by Him in the womb of the most pure Virgin, was from the very beginning the model on which ours was formed. In the re-creation which followed the Fall, the Body of the Man-God was the means of the world's redemption; and the economy of our salvation requires that the virtue of His saving Blood should not reach the soul except through the body, the divine sacraments being all applied to the soul through the medium of the senses. Admirable is the harmony of nature and grace; the latter so honours the material part of our being that she will not draw the soul without it to the light and to heaven. For in the unfathomable mystery of sanctification, the senses do not merely serve such as a passage; they themselves experience the power of the sacraments, like the higher faculties of which they are the channels; and the sanctified soul finds the humble companion of her pilgrimage already associated with her in the dignity of divine adoption, which will cause the glorification of our bodies after the resurrection. Hence the care given to the very body of our neighbour is raised to the nobleness of holy charity; for being inspired by this charity, such acts partake of the love wherewith our heavenly Father surrounds even the members of His beloved children. I was sick, and ye visited Me, our Lord will say on the last day, showing that even the infirmities of our fallen state in this land of exile, the bodies of those whom He deigns to call His brethren, share in the dignity belonging by right to the eternal, only-begotten Son of the Father. The Holy Spirit, too, whose office it is to recall to the Church all the words of our Saviour, has certainly not forgotten this one; the seed, falling into the good earth of chosen souls, has produced a hundredfold the fruits of grace and heroic self-devotion. Camillus of Lellis received it lovingly, and the mustard-seed became a great tree offering its shade to the birds of the air. The Order of Regular Clerks, Servants of the Sick, or of Happy Death, deserves the gratitude of mankind; as a sign of heaven's approbation, angels have more than once been seen assisting its members at the bedside of the dying.

The liturgical account of St. Camillus' life is so full that we need to add nothing to it:

Camillus was a born at Bachianico, a town of the diocese of Chieti. He was descended from the noble family of the Lelli, and his mother was sixty years old at the time of his birth. While she was with child with him, she dreamt that she gave birth to a little boy, who was signed on the breast with a cross, and was the leader of a band of children, wearing the same sign. As a young man he followed the career of arms, and gave himself up to a time of worldly vices, but in his twenty-sixth year he was so enlightened by heavenly grace, and seized with so great a sorrow for having offended God, that on the spot, shedding a flood of tears, he firmly resolved unceasingly to to wash away the stains of his past life, and to put on the new man. Therefore on the very day of his conversion, which happened to be the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, he hastened to the Friars Minor, who are called Capuchins, and begged most earnestly to be admitted to their number. His request was granted on this and on a subsequent occasion, but each time a horrible ulcer, from which he had suffered before, broke out again upon his leg; wherefore he humbly submitted himself to the designs of Divine Providence, which was preparing him for greater things, and conquering himself he twice laid aside the Franciscan habit, which he had twice asked for and obtained.

He set out for Rome and was received into the hospital called that of the Incurables. His virtues became so well known that the management of the institution was entrusted to him, and he discharged it with the greatest integrity and a truly paternal solicitude. He esteemed himself the servant of all the sick, and was accustomed to make their beds, to wash them, to heal their sores, and to aid them in their last agony with his prayers and pious exhortations. In discharging those offices he gave striking proofs of his wonderful patience, unconquered fortitude, and heroic charity. But when he perceived how great an advantage the knowledge of letters would be would be to him in assisting those in danger of death, to whose service he had devoted his life, he was not ashamed at the age of thirty-two to return again to school and to learn the first elements of grammar among children. Being afterwards promoted in due order to the priesthood, he was joined by several companions and in spite of the opposition attempted by the enemy of the human race, laid the foundation of the Congregation of Regular Clerks, Servants of the Sick. In this work Camillus was wonderfully strengthened by a heavenly voice coming from an image of Christ crucified, which, by an admirable miracle loosing the hands from the wood, stretched them out towards him. He obtained the approbation of his order from the Apostolic See. Its members bind themselves by a fourth and very arduous vow--namely, to minister to the sick, even those infected with the plague. St. Philip Neri, who was his confessor, attested how pleasing this institution was to God, and how greatly it contributed toward the salvation of souls; for he declared that he often saw angels suggesting words to disciples of Camillus, when they were assisting those in their agony.

When he had thus bound himself more strictly than before to the service of the sick, he devoted himself with marvellous ardour to watching over their interest, by night and by day, till his last breath. No labour could tire him, no peril of his life could affright him. He became all to all, and claimed for himself the lowest offices, which he discharged promptly and joyfully, in the humblest manner, often on bended knees, as though he saw Christ Himself present in the sick. In order to be more at the command of all in need, he of his own accord laid aside the general government of the order, and deprived himself of the heavenly delights with which he was inundated during contemplation. His fatherly love for the unfortunate shone out with greatest brilliancy when Rome was suffering first a contagious distemper, and then from a great scarcity of provisions; and also when a dreadful plague was ravaging Nola in Campania. In a word, he was consumed with so great a love of God and his neighbour that he was called an angel, and merited to be helped by the angels in different dangers which threatened him on his journeys. He was endowed with the gift of prophecy, and the grace of healing, and he cold read the secrets of hearts. By his prayers he at one time multiplied food, and at another changed water into wine. At length, worn out by watching, fasting, and ceaseless labour, he seemed to be nothing but skin and bone. he endured courageously five long and troublesome sicknesses, which he used to call the "Mercies of the Lord"; and, strengthened by the sacraments, with the sweet names of Jesus and Mary on his lips, he fell asleep in our Lord, while these words were being said: "May Christ Jesus appear to thee with a sweet and gracious countenance." He died at Rome, at the hour he had foretold, on the day before the Ides of July, in the year of salvation 1614, the sixty-fifth of his age. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume XIII, Time After Pentecost: Book IV, pp. 126-130.)

Saint Camillus de Lellis may have laid aside the Franciscan habit. He lived out the spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi, however, until he had breathed his last on July 14, 1614, as it was in the spirit of the Seraphic Saint, who had led a carefree, frivolous (but not sinful) life as a youth, that our saint of charity to all who needed it regardless of their circumstances or the state of their immortal souls at the time he found them in need exhibited throughout the course of his inspirational service to the sick and the dying.

Saint Camillus de Lellis never viewed someone who was sick as a “burden”, and he never viewed them in a utilitarian cost-benefit manner. He gave to the suffering as he knew he was serving Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ mystically through them. In other words, Saint Camillus de Lellis was the antithesis of the worldly wise Aztecs, who are enabled all too frequently by “well-trained” theological “experts” who have never met a “brain dead” person they did not want to see killed off, and he approached the sick, the suffering and dying in a manner that puts to shame the “palliative care” industry whose minions are trained to incant soothing euphemisms robotically to convince patients and/or their relatives in a program of “care” that winds up killing them in the name of “compassion.”

May every Communion we make and every Rosary we pray help to bring about a true increase of the charity of Christ the King into our immortal souls as we become more detached from the world and more attached to the joys of Heaven itself.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Camillus de Lellis, pray for us.

Saint Symphorosa on her sons, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

You are here

Antichrist's Antipapal Agents of Anti-Catholic Teaching

Support Christ or Chaos