Brick by Brick with a Wrecking Ball

One of the enduring delusions made by some prominent “conservative” voices within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism during the false pontificate of the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was that he was tearing down the fabrications of the “Second” Vatican Council “brick by brick.” This was an astoundingly fantastic claim at the time as the then Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger was one of the chief architects of both schema and the direction of the “Second” Vatican Council and it was through his mediation as a peritus at that robber council that he recommended made by a Lutheran “observer” that the “subsistit” be used to describe the nature of the Catholic Church in such a way that implied, contrary to the irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church that had been reiterated by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, the “Church of Christ” was not coextensive with Holy Mother Church.

Indeed, the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger made it clear in his misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology that the council’s work had been “misunderstood,” not that it should be revoked:

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391)

Pope Pius VIII wrote the following about the razing of those bastions in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829:

We open Our heart with joy to you, venerable brothers, whom God has given to Us as helpers in the conduct of so great an administration. We are pleased to let you know the intimate sentiments of Our will. We also think it helpful to communicate those things from which the Christian cause may benefit. For the duty of Our office is not only to feed, rule, and direct the lambs, namely the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is the clergy.

2. We rejoice and praise Christ, who raised up shepherds for the safekeeping of His flock. These shepherds vigilantly lead their flocks so as not to lose even one of those they have received from the Father. For We know well, venerable brothers, your unshakeable faith, your zeal for religion, your sanctity of life, and your singular prudence. Co-workers such as you make Us happy and confident. This pleasant situation encourages Us when We fear because of the great responsibility of Our office, and it refreshes and strengthens Us when We feel overwhelmed by so many serious concerns. We shall not detain you with a long sermon to remind you what things are required to perform sacred duties well, what the canons prescribe lest anyone depart from vigilance over his flock, and what attention ought to be given in preparing and accepting ministers. Rather We call upon God the Savior that He may protect you with His omnipresent divinity and bless your activities and endeavors with happy success.

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent. Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up.

7. We want you to know of another secret society organized not so long ago for the corruption of young people who are taught in the gymnasia and the lycea. Its cunning purpose is to engage evil teachers to lead the students along the paths of Baal by teaching them un-Christian doctrines. The perpetrators know well that the students' minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers. Its influence is already so persuasive that all fear of religion has been lost, all discipline of morals has been abandoned, the sanctity of pure doctrine has been contested, and the rights of the sacred and of the civil powers have been trampled upon. Nor are they ashamed of any disgraceful crime OT error. We can truly say with Leo the Great that for them "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.'[12] Drive these evils from your dioceses. Strive to assign not only learned, but also good men to train our youth. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliatae Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

This was a prophetic description of conciliarism and also a condemnation of the “theologies” of both Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Do not be deceived by those claiming that the “urbane” heretic from Bavaria was a defender of the Catholic Faith and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is its destroyer. Each man devoted his life to the work of doing from within what they thought was the Catholic Church that the likes of Martin and Luther and John Calvin, et al., had begun in the Sixteenth Century.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger was taking apart conciliarism “brick by brick.” He was only trying to get an “authentic” interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council while his mind filled with ambiguities and uncertainties could never fathom that the false religion he helped to spawn could never have an “authentic” interpretation that would be binding on all any more than Protestantism never has nor will ever have any one “authentic” interpretation. Error must metastasize, and error cannot fight the errors it spawns and institutionalizes.

Those who believed that one of the chief architects of the “Second” Vatican Council had any intention as “Pope Benedict XVI” to tear down the Modernist construct that he defended on the basis of dogmatic evolutionism were not thinking very clearly at the time, and they continue to delude themselves about a man who took a wrecking ball to the unicity of the Catholic Church, the nature of the papal primacy with respect the Orthodox and the “ecclesial communities” (Protestant sects), Scriptural exegesis, the prohibition against entering temples of false worship and esteeming the symbols of false religions, the authentic social teaching of the Catholic Church concerning her condemnation of religious liberty and separation of Church and State and, among so many other matters, the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, the truth that the Old Testament was superseded by the New and Eternal Testament that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and that He ratified by shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on Good Friday as the earth shook and the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lived and died as an apologist for the "new theology” whose was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Please see  It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part one, It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part two, and It  Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part three for a review of the facts about Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger/Benedict’s successor as the universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, had a program of his own to undo what he believes were the “conservative” teachings of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II in order to “restore,” as he sees it, the “true path” of the “Second” Vatican Council begun by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and implemented at first by the sodomite named Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI, and he has appointed apparatchiks to dismantle Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “obsession” with “moral issues” (contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage without the fig leaf of a conciliar decree of nullity, sodomy) and to replace it with a “merciful” approach of “accompaniment” that denigrates the gravity of sins against Holy Purity and normalizes all that was part of the daily “entertainment” in the court of Herod the Tetrarch at the time Our Lord was sent to Him on Good Friday by the equivocating careerist Roman bureaucrat named Pontius Pilate.

The Argentine Apostate is taking the “bricks” away by replacing the “rigid” teachings found in Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1980, Vertitatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, and Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, with Amoris Laetitia, March 19. 2016, and his “papal” sanctioned Fiducia Supplicans, December 21, 2023, and Dignitatis Infinita, April 2, 2024, to say nothing of his endless “sermons” at Casa Santa Marta and the plethora of “private meeting” whose details just happen to leak out very shortly after they take place. Never mind the fact that Familiaris Consortio was based in conciliarspeak about human dignity and the inversion of the ends proper to marriage that were propagated first by Montini/Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, and enshrined fifteen years later in the conciliar code of canon law, and that Veritatis Splendor’s supposed reaffirmation of “traditional” Catholic moral teaching came with phenomenological twists nor that Evangelium Vitae came close to stating that the death penalty was contrary to the “dignity” of the human being.

No, never mind all that as Senor Jorge believes that the aforementioned documents were “conservative” because (a) Familiaris Consortio reaffirmed Catholic teaching that married couples who had been civilly divorced without a conciliar degree of nullity could not receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service unless they exercised complete conjugal abstinence; (b) Vertitatis Splendor rejected the subjectivist heresy concerning moral theology, especially as it relates to sins, both natural and unnatural against holy purity; and (c) Evangelium Vitae condemned contraception, surgical abortion, direct sterilization, and euthanasia without an qualifications. The Argentine Apostate rejects doctrinal and moral certitude, and he has specifically said that there is no such as “black and white” moral theology:

ROME - Pope Francis has fired back at his critics over the document Amoris Laetita, suggesting they suffer from “a certain legalism, which can be ideological.”  The critics now include a group of four cardinals who’ve accused the pontiff of causing grave confusion and disorientation and even floated the prospect of a public correction. 

“Some- think about the responses to Amoris Laetitia- continue to not understand,” Francis said. They think it’s “black and white, even if in the flux of life you must discern.”

The pope’s comments came in a wide-ranging interview with the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire published on Friday, in response to a question about his Jubilee Year of Mercy and its relation with the 1960s-era Second Vatican Council.

 “The Church exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God’s merciful design,” he said, adding that during the council, the Church felt the “need to be in the world as a living sign of the Father’s love.”

The Council, particularly the document Lumen Gentium, according to Francis, moved the axis of the Christian conception “from a certain legalism, which can be ideological,” to God himself, who through the Son became human.

It’s in this context in which he talked about the responses to Amoris Laetitia by those who continue “not to understand” this point.

Although he gives no names, it’s not a stretch to imagine the pope was thinking about the dubia or “doubts” about the apostolic exhortation presented to him by four cardinals, including American Raymond Burke. (Argentine Apostate Fires Back At Critics.)

The Catholic Church was founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to sanctify and to save souls. The first law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and no one can save his soul if he dies in a state of final impenitence.

Actually, the Argentine Apostate has done Catholics who care about doctrinal truth, few in number though they may be after over five decades of a constant flow of Modernism passing as Catholic teaching from "popes" and "priests" and priests/presbyters, a great service by showing very plainly that his belief about an "obscured" Gospel is precisely the same as that professed by the heretic he praised in Lund, Sweden, on October 31, 2016 (see Conciliarism: The Most Dangerous, Destructive and Corrupt Force On Earth).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio thus believes that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, had failed to guide the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless and immaculate Mystica Spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, throughout the course of the centuries. Much like Luther himself, you see, he believes that the truth was lost sometime after the Apostolic Era, whereupon "legalisms" began to obscure the "merciful side" of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which he, Bergoglio, thinks cannot coexist with "black and white" concepts of doctrinal and moral truths. 

This is really nothing new. Endless are the numbers of times that Bergoglio has denounced "fundamentalists" who seek to "reduce" everything to "good or evil," and "right and wrong." Indeed, he did this when speaking before a special joint session of the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2016, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today.  Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion.  We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.  This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.  A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.  But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.  The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps.  We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within.  To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.  That is something which you, as a people, reject. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

This is I wrote at the time eight years, eleven months ago:

This man is a devil.

Bergoglio once again refuses to accept the fact that there is one true religion, Catholicism, and that false religions of their nature are first and foremost acts of violence against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through Holy Mother Church or that many of these false religions, including Talmudism and Mohammedanism, contain exhortation to violence against “infidels” and their shrines.

“Pope Francis’s” swipe against “fundamentalism” was directed also at those Catholics who, despite their own sins and failings, adhere to the Sacred Deposit of Faith without any equivocation, qualification or reservation, those who do indeed see only good and evil as that is what God Himself wants us to see. He wants us to choose the good and reject the evil. How is it possible to do this if one is supposed to see “nuances” in clear-cut matters of moral truth?

Well, that is the point, you see, as Jorge is even yet in a secular setting attempting to propagandize in behalf of the moral opaqueness of his upcoming “synod of bishops” as he warns legislators that there is “good” in almost anything, including those things that “fundamentalist” who engages in moral “reductionism” know are evil in and of their nature. To use the term “violence” in connection with those who call evil by its proper name emboldens those within the echelons of civil power to step up their legal assaults upon those who oppose all of the prevailing evils of the day.

Bergoglio can speak all he wants about “religious freedom.” The plain truth, however, is that to tar and feather those who see “only” good and evil in the world and to make them the objects of persecution for being “bigoted,” “hateful” and “intolerant.” 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's constant attacks on those who believe in "black and white" have been parroted by many of the “cardinals” and “bishops” he has created. Consider how the former conciliar "bishop" of Dallas, Texas, Kevin Farrell, echoed his fellow heretic's rejection of "black and white":

Farrell, asked about the tensions over the divorce issue, appeared to be open toward the pope's prescription for more compassion.

"There is no situation in life that's black and white. Anybody that's lived in this world will have encountered those situations in their personal lives," Farrell said. (Jorge osted.ap.Jorge Stuffs the Ballot Box with More Jacobins/Bolesheviks.)

The then Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen explained that we must have an intolerance about sin and evil. True compassion for the erring is to exhort him to reform his life by making a good Confession of his sins if he is a Catholic, or converting to the Catholic Faifh if he is not Catholic:

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broadminded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broadmindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and, lastly, the love of novelty….

Religion is not an open question, like the League of Nations, while science is a closed question, like the addition table. Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics. But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God. In the ordinary affairs of life, these same people would never summon a Christian Science practitioner to fix a broken windowpane; they would never call in an optician because they had broken the eye of a needle; they would never call in a florist because they hurt the palm of their hand, nor go to a carpenter to take care of their nails. They would never call in a Collector of Internal Revenue to extract the nickel swallowed by the baby. They would refuse to listen to a Kiwanis booster discussing the authenticity of a painting, or to a tree‐surgeon settling a moot question of law. And yet for the all‐important subject of religion, on which our eternal destinies hinge, on the all‐important question of the relations of man to his environment and to his God, they are willing to listen to anyone who calls himself a prophet. And so our journals are filled with articles for these “broadminded” people, in which everyone from Jack Dempsey to the chief cook of the Ritz Carlton tells about his idea of God and his view of religion. These same individuals, who would become exasperated if their child played with a wrongly colored lollipop, would not become the least bit worried if the child grew up without ever having heard the name of God….

The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth maybe contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults. But for any one to say, ʺSome say this, some say that, therefore there is no truth,ʺ is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus, who heard some say, ʺThe earth is round,ʺ and other say, ʺThe earth is flat,ʺ to conclude: ʺTherefore there is no earth at allʺ…. 

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a ʺmental projectionʺ; who equate Christ and Buddha, St. Paul and John Dewey, and then enlarge their broad‐mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world‐religion is just as good as another. The great god ʺProgressʺ is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshipers are asked, ʺProgress towards what?ʺ The tolerant answer comes back, ʺMore progress.ʺ All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a ʺfixed point,ʺ they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.

In the face of this false broad‐mindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The mass of people have kept up hard and fast distinctions between dollars and cents, battleships and cruisers, ʺYou owe meʺ and ʺI owe you,ʺ but they seem to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. The best indication of this is the frequent misuse of the terms ʺtoleranceʺ and ʺintolerance.ʺ There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ʺintoleranceʺ mean hate, narrow‐ mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad‐mindedness, American good nature.

What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error. 

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability. The government must be intolerant about malicious propaganda, and during the World War it made an index of forbidden books to defend national stability, as the Church, who is in constant warfare with error, made her index of forbidden books to defend the permanency of Christʹs life in the souls of men. The government during the war was intolerant about the national heretics who refused to accept her principles concerning the necessity of democratic institutions, and took physical means to enforce such principles. The soldiers who went to war were intolerant about the principles they were fighting for, in the same way that a gardener must be intolerant about the weeds that grow in his garden. The Supreme Court of the United States is intolerant about any private interpretation of the first principle of the Constitution that every man is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the particular citizen who would interpret ʺlibertyʺ in even such a small way as meaning the privilege to ʺgoʺ on a red traffic‐light, would find himself very soon in a cell where there were no lights, not even the yellow — the color of the timid souls who know not whether to stop or go. Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in their laboratories, and as all of us are intolerant of a particularly broad‐minded, ʺtolerant,ʺ and good‐natured grocer who, in making our bills, adds seven and ten to make twenty.

Now, if it is right — and it is right — for governments to be intolerant about the principles of government, and the bridge builder to be intolerant about the laws of stress and strain, and the physicist to be intolerant about the principles of gravitation, why should it not be the right of Christ, the right of His Church, and the right of thinking men to be intolerant about the truths of Christ, the doctrines of the Church, and the principles of reason? Can the truths of God be less exacting than the truths of mathematics? Can the laws of the mind be less binding than the laws of science, which are known only through the laws of the mind? Shall man, gifted with natural truth, who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on the mathematician who says two and two make five and the one who says two and two make four, be called a wise man, and shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of ʺWisdom,ʺ and be called an ʺintolerantʺ God?…

Why, then, sneer at dogmas as intolerant? On all sides we hear it said today, ʺThe modern world wants a religion without dogmas,ʺ which betrays how little thinking goes with that label, for he who says he wants a religion without dogmas is stating a dogma, and a dogma that is harder to justify than many dogmas of faith. A dogma is a true thought, and a religion without dogmas is a religion without thought, or a back without a backbone. All sciences have dogmas. ʺWashington is the capital of the United Statesʺ is a dogma of geography. ʺWater is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygenʺ is a dogma of chemistry. Should we be broad‐minded and say that Washington is a sea in Switzerland? Should we be broad‐minded and say that H2O is a symbol for sulfuric acid? …

But it is anything but progress to act like mice and eat the foundations of the very roof over our heads. Intolerance about principles is the foundation of growth, and the mathematician who would deride a square for always having four sides, and in the name of progress would encourage it to throw away even only one of its sides, would soon discover that he had lost all his squares. So too with the dogmas of the Church, of science, and of reason; they are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is ʺreligious experience,ʺ fit only for burning.

A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. [G. K.] Chesterton tells us, ʺnot a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong.ʺ

The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon [see 3 Kings 3:16-28]. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth — it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad‐mindedness.

(Monsignor Fulton Sheen, Old Errors and New Labels. New York, New York, The Century Company, 1931. Although I have the book itself, this excerpt was taken from Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio heads a false church that wants to be wrong in order to assuage the consciences of sinful, worldly men that there is no such thing as objective right as to contend such a thing is to lack “mercy” and thus make people feel bad.

The cardinal “sin” of conciliarism is thus the same as that found in the world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism: to make people feel “uncomfortable” or “guilty” about their sins. The corollary perverse commandment of conciliarism: Thou shalt make everyone feel happy and welcomed—other than those who believe in Catholic truth, including that of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism’s warfare against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals in now in a stage where the fiends whom “Pope” Francis has appointed to his dicasteries and antipapal academies have begun their efforts to “redefine” what constitutes” life as the means to pave the way for a Vatican endorsement of direct euthanasia and suicide.

The wrecking ball named Vincenzo Paglia, the head of the revamped and revolutionized “Pontifical” Academy for Life, has made this “redefinition” a goal of reshaping what purports to be “Catholic” teaching on “end of life” issues, including direct euthanasia (hospice/palliative care are disguised forms of indirect and direct euthanasia—see Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry, which is also contained in Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law):

The Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), presided over by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, has recently published a booklet entitled Piccolo lessico del fine vita (Compact Lexicon of the End of Life , edited by Libreria Editrice Vaticana. It is a selected glossary of terms pertaining to the subject end-of-life. Some elements of light exist in the booklet, but the areas of darkness dominate.

As it’s not possible to analyse all the critical junctures present in PAV’s publication, this article will dwell only on one point, the most critical point, which is as follows: PAV is in favour of euthanasia masqueraded as a rejection of therapeutic obstinacy (or a rejection of unreasonable obstinacy in treatment) and is in favour of assisted suicide.

Let us begin with the first problem. First of all we note that in the booklet the denunciation of euthanasia is limited, despite the fact that it is now a social phenomenon, while the insistence on the theme of therapeutic obstinacy is absolutely preponderant. But let us go into the merits.

It is considered licit to refuse life-saving treatment by appealing to an objective and a subjective principle. The objective criterion refers to the possibility that life-sustaining treatments may constitute futile treatment. PAV makes this possibility explicit when dealing with Advance Treatment Provisions (DAT). The booklet does indicate some (but not all) structural weaknesses of the DAT – out-of-date, incompetence of the declarant, generality, difficulty of objective interpretation – but in the end it approves of this instrument, so much so that at the end of the booklet it even proposes an example of a DAT form for Italians to refer to.

So, not only does it approve of the practice – which is generally used for euthanasia purposes and therefore should not in principle be sponsored – and its corollaries such as the figure of the trustee (equally problematic due to the risks of voluntary or involuntary manipulation of the content of the declarations), but it even considers its content as binding: “Their value cannot be understood in a merely preferential sense” (p. 36). Moreover, it recalls Italian law 219/17 without levelling any criticism at it, even though it is clearly a pro-euthanasia law. As the PAV is an organ of the universal Church, it is not clear why almost exclusively Italian regulations are referred to throughout the booklet.

But let us come to the lawfulness of refusing life-saving treatment. In the DAT form proposed by PAV, the registrant may have the freedom to refuse “blood transfusions, antibiotics, life-sustaining treatments such as invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, haemodialysis and [even] cardio-pulmonary resuscitation” (p. 79). It also opens up the possibility of refusing assisted nutrition and hydration (pp. 54 and 79).

PAV considers it permissible to discontinue these therapies because they could constitute futile treatment. It is true that in rare cases each of these treatments could be useless, if not harmful, but these are just exceptional cases: the state of deep cachexia that prevents nutrition and hydration; in the face of a very compromised pulmonary structure it is counterproductive to insufflate air by mechanical ventilation; the massive crushing of the skull following a car accident makes cardiopulmonary resuscitation useless, etc.

But PAV is careful not to specify that these are rare cases and to adequately exemplify them, and instead makes it clear that life-support treatments can also be refused because they can commonly constitute therapeutic obstinacy. Hence their inclusion in the DAT. But life-sustaining treatments are almost always effective precisely because they keep the patient alive. The perspective from which the PAV moves is therefore not that centred on the dignity of the person, but on the quality of life, so much so that among the criteria indicated to understand whether a treatment is proportionate or not are also included the quality of relations with third parties and economic burdens, which in the abstract may also be valid indices, but only in such residual cases that, even in this case, it is unreasonable to make them explicit in the DAT.

PAV is aware that according to medical casuistry and, above all, scientific literature, life-saving treatments most often do not constitute futile treatment. Here, then, is recourse to the second criterion mentioned earlier, the subjective criterion, which is the decisive criterion for opening the door to euthanasia: if the patient believes that a certain treatment is disproportionate, then it certainly constitutes futile treatment, beyond the scientific evidence.

It therefore insists on the fact that “the decision is the patient’s” (p. 25); that treatments must be “calibrated […] according to criteria of […] effective correspondence with the patient’s requests” (p. 48) and with “his spiritual values and needs” (p. 58). And more explicitly: “Even if the treatments were clinically appropriate, they might nevertheless be disproportionate if the sick person considered them too burdensome in his circumstances. Not to undertake or to suspend those treatments is, at this point, not only possible, but, as Pope Francis says, ‘dutiful'” (p. 64). So the subjective must prevail over the objective.

Then, with regard to assisted nutrition and hydration, reference is made to a particular passage of a 2007 note of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which considered these means of life-support disproportionate when there is an “excessive burden [and a] significant discomfort linked, for example, to complications in the use of instrumental aids.” Thus, rare cases.

PAV is careful not to quote the rest of the document, which refers to various magisterial pronouncements insisting that nutrition and hydration are almost always proportionate means. None of this. For PAV, nutrition and hydration become therapeutic obstinacy simply when there is mere “physical discomfort on the part of the patient” (p. 56), precisely because they have the final say.

And so, after indicating the criterion that refers to the scientific literature and the experience of medical personnel:

… a second order of factors is also indicated, which concerns the onerousness and sustainability for the patient of the indicated interventions. Now, only the sick person can estimate the physical and psychic strengths he believes he has, also on the basis of his own reference values. […] He has the decisive say in what concerns his own health and the medical interventions on his body (pp. 63-64).

The text at this point refers to the Catechism, which states:

Decisions must be made by the patient, if he has the competence and capacity to do so, or, otherwise, by those legally entitled to do so, always respecting the patient’s reasonable wishes and legitimate interests (No. 2278).

The reference to the Catechism is an own-goal because only the patient’s reasonable wishes and legitimate interests, i.e., in accordance with justice, can be complied with, not unreasonable wishes such as the wish to die by refusing certain treatments. Of course it is a duty to listen to the patient to see whether certain treatments are bearable and how effective they are, but the final word rests with the criterion of objective beneficence of the treatments, not with the subjective criterion of the patient’s absolute opinion.

Finally, PAV is in favour of the legitimization of assisted suicide. In fact, we read with regard to suicide assistance:

It is by examining these relationships [between the ethical dimension and legislative solutions] that reasons may emerge for questioning whether, in certain circumstances, mediations at the legal level in a pluralist and democratic society may be admitted. […] Helping to identify an acceptable point of mediation between different positions is a way of encouraging the consolidation of social cohesion and a broader assumption of responsibility towards those common points that have been reached together (p. 70).

The idea of legitimizing assisted suicide had already been expressed by Paglia in April 2023. Now qualifying conduct as legally legitimate means on a moral level considering it as just. Therefore, PAV considers suicide morally lawful. But suicide is instead an intrinsically evil action and as such cannot receive any legal legitimization. (Pontifical Academy for Life appears to endorse euthanasia, assisted suicide in some cases.)

The analysis offered by the Italian professor who authored the commentary above is good as far as it goes. However, it lacks any discussion of the simple fact that the conciliar revolutionaries do not believe in the value—or perhaps even the existence of—redemptive suffering, which is why they are so eager to reject objective truths in favor of subjective and thus relativistic considerations. 

Here is a reminder about what Vincenzo Paglia said five years ago "redifining" what constitutes human life: 

LOS ANGELES, California, September 5, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life has declared that the academy must broaden its scope and welcome non-Christian “experts.” 

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, 74, presented the speech at Loyola Marymount, a private Jesuit university in Los Angeles, yesterday. After introducing the pontiff’s January 6 letter Humana Communitas, the prelate explained that Francis wishes both the Academy for Life and the John Paul II Institute, of which Paglia is grand chancellor, to work “more broadly.”

“The Academy in particular is to become more and more a place of competent and respectful meeting and dialogue among experts, including those from other religious traditions as well as proponents of world views the Academy needs to know better in order to widen its horizons,” he said.

Paglia promised that both foundations would “protect and promote” human life and assured “friends” and “enemies” that “our dialogue with others who do not share our understanding of God’s fruitful love and of the nature of the human family and its challenges, does not mean that we are abandoning Catholic orthodoxy.”

But Paglia also made it clear that the pope wants them to widen their horizons.

“We must also make it clear that the Pope wants the Academy, and the Institute, to (1) widen its scope of reflection, not limiting itself to addressing ‘specific situations of ethical, social or legal conflict,’ (2) articulate an anthropology that sets the practical and theoretical premises for ‘conduct consistent with the dignity of the human person,’ and (3) make sure it has the tools to critically examine ‘the theory and practice of science and technology as they interact with life, its meaning and its value,’” he said.

One widening Pope Francis and Paglia envision is a rejection of absolute norms regarding human life and a redefinition of what it means.

“[Francis] warns us 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,” Paglia said.

“Rather, the term ‘life’ must be redefined, moving from an abstract conception to a ‘personal’ dimension: life is people, men and women, both in the individuality of each person and in the unity of the human family.”

Notably, Paglia referred only to the “family” of the Blessed Trinity and to the “human family” — i.e the human race — but not once to the kinship groups most commonly known as “families.” He also decried a “schism” between the individual and the human community and warned that technology is “becoming” a threat to human life.

The archbishop briefly mentioned the controversies around the changes that have swept the pro-life institutions originally founded by John Paul II. In October 2016, Pope Francis promulgated new statutes for the academy, which included the dismissal of its life members and the inclusion of new members of dubious orthodoxy. Then, in September 2017, Pope Francis refounded and renamed the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family. 

Most recently, the students and faculty of the “John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences” were dismayed to discover that the entire teaching staff had been temporarily suspended, two of its tenured professors dismissed, and advertised courses eliminated.

Paglia’s response was that the “theological basis” of Humana Communitas will inevitably “overcome” concerns. 

“In his letter, the Holy Father attempted to give us such a solid and loving theological basis for the work of the Academy that we will be able to address and overcome the concerns and the hesitancies that have greeted the renewed structure of the Academy (and I might add of its sister entity, the John Paul II Institute as well),” the archbishop said.

Paglia’s address closely resembles a speech he gave earlier this year at Sacred Heart Catholic University in Milan.  (Vinny Paglia Says the the Term Life must be Redefined.)

As noted just above in this commentary men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Vincenzo Paglia believe, there is no “black and white,” there are no moral absolutes, there is nothing except their own projection onto Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ about what He would teach given the conditions in which we find ourselves at this time. It is with this feat of paganism that the conciliar revolutionaries can equate submerging the social and eternal good of individual human beings into a more “inclusive” system of “thought” that places animals, plants and even inanimate matter on a plane of equal plane with them. A community “consciousness” premised upon socialistic and pantheistic prescriptions of one kind or another thus replaces the need for the individual pursuit of sanctity and any thought of a Particular Judgment that will be rendered upon individual persons upon the moment of their deaths. The execution of the preborn by chemical and surgical means thus fades into insignificance when compared to the supposedly “larger” “ecological” questions that demanding a “social” response, and this is why, at least in part, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has such an affinity for Communists, including the Chicom monsters of Beijing and their Chinese Patriotic “Catholic” Association. No thought is given to the effects of the sins of individual human beings upon the common good and even upon the physical state of the world for reasons that will be explored in the next section of this commentary.

In other words, the conciliar revolutionaries, adhering to textbook Modernism and its affinity with all forms of evolutionism, including Marxism-Leninism, believe in the annihilation of the individual in favor of a “community” that makes no place for immutable truths to which human beings must adhere to save their souls as members of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. Anyone within the structures of the false conciliar sect that is hideous in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity who believes that they are getting this toothpaste back in the tomb is, to put it mildly, delusional, and those who ignore these developments in the very false belief that they do not concern them are both irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

It is really as simple as this: attacks the immutable nature of God and His Divine Revelation lead inevitably to attacks upon each of the Ten Commandments, including the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandment, which is why Signore Paglia felt free last year to express his support for a Italian law permitting “assisted suicide” even though he is “personally opposed” to the morally repugnant practice. This was all a prelude to the booklet" that has given its direct and indirect endorsement of both direct euthanasia and assisted suicide: 

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The president of the regularly scandalous Pontifical Academy for Life has spoken in favor of assisted suicide as possibly being the “greatest common good concretely possible,” contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching strenuously condemning the practice.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia’s remarks were made during a recent television panel as part of the Perugia journalism festival, for a debate on the end of life entitled “The last trip (towards the end of life).”

While he expressed his personal opposition to practicing assisted suicide, Paglia defended it in principle, citing Pope Francis’ assault on Catholic Tradition in doing so. “Personally, I would not practice suicide assistance,” he said “but I understand that legal mediation may be the greatest common good concretely possible under the conditions we find ourselves in.” (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

Interjection Number One:

No civil law that permits a direct attack on innocent human life has any credibility in the eyes  of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, as to annihilate oneself, whether by oneself or with the “assistance” of others, is a Mortal Sin in the objective order of things against the Fifth Commandment and an open invitation to do away with human beings who are either ignorant about the theology of redemptive suffering and/or unwilling to embrace whatever crosses Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ sends to them until they die. For a supposed “archbishop” to suggest that laws permitting “assisted suicide” are advancing the common good is to make a mockery of the following words written by Pope Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, that were quoted on this site just three days ago in "To Resist is a Duty, To Obey a Crime":

But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

There is no need for a “debate” about “end of life” moral issues and/or legislation as the Fifth Commandment is very clear: “Thou shalt not kill.” Period.

Nothing that we suffer in this passing, mortal vale of tears is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that caused Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart to be thrust through with the Fourth through Seventh Swords of Sorrow. We must bear the cross until we die, recognizing that death is a punishment for Original Sin and that whatever pain Our Lord sends us to in our last agony is meant to purify us for the soul’s separation from the body and to minimize, if not entirely, eliminate any need for the departing soul to suffering in Purgatory after death.

Back to the 2023 article dealing with Vincenzo Paglia’s apostasy:

From the very outset of his presentation, Paglia undermined the authority of the Catholic Church to pronounce of matters of truth and morals, stating: “First of all, I would like to clarify that the Catholic Church is not that it has a ready-made, prepackaged package of truths, as if it were a dispenser of truth pills.” (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

Interjection Number Two:

Yes, the Catholic Church is the sole repository and infallible explicator of Divine Revelation and she infallible and authoritative interpreter and teaching of the Natural Law. No one may dissent from what Holy Mother Church commands, and it is impossible her to command her children to adhere to error:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Supernatural truth belongs entirely to the Catholic Church. The Natural Law belongs wholly to her as its authoritative interpreter and infallible explicator.

Vincenzo Paglia is a heretic, but to his embrace one of condemned error after another we must return:

Theological thought evolves in history,” he said, “in dialogue with the Magisterium and the experience of the people of God (sensus fidei fidelium), in a dynamic of mutual enrichment.”

The Christian “contribution” to public debates, said Paglia, is “made within the different cultures, neither above – as if they possessed an a priori given truth – nor below, as if believers were the bearers of a respectable opinion, but disengaged from history, ‘dogmatic’ indeed, therefore unacceptable.” 

“Between believers and non-believers there is a relationship of mutual learning,” he added. (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

Interjection Number Three:

Abject apostasy.

The concept of theological/dogmatic evolutionism is both philosophically absurd and stands as dogmatically condemned. The contention that theological “thought evolves in history” “in dialogue with the Magisterium and the experience of the people of God” is heretical, and was condemned as such by Pope Pius IX and the Council Fathers at the [First] Vatican Council, by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, as well as by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Although I know that longtime readers of this site might not need another reiteration of these documents, I am always cognizant of the fact that there might be some person who is either new to the site or who needs a “refresher” on these quotations below that prove Vincenzo Paglia a consummately bold heretic and a direct tool of the adversary:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870.)

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they 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.

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart.

Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Domici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred authority.

All these things we will and order to be sanctioned and established by our apostolic authority, aught to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)

I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God, we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and Lord.” (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

“Some hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […] It is evident from what We have already said, that such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Vincenzo Paglia, it is clear that you have no shame, that you consider yourself above that “no church” that held truth infallibly and declared it with absolute certainty.

It gets worse as Vincenzo Paglia used the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s false teaching on the death penalty as an example of theological evolutionism:

Paglia cited Pope Francis’ well documented attack on the Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty as an example of apparent change in the Church’s practice:

Think, for example, of what happened on the issue of the death penalty: because of the change in cultural and social conditions, because of the maturation of reflection on rights, the Pope modified the catechism. Whereas before we did not exclude that there were circumstances for which it could be legitimized, today we no longer consider it permissible, under any circumstances. (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

Interjection Number Four:

The right of the civil state to impose the death penalty upon those adjudged guilty of the commission of heinous crimes following the discharge of the due process of law (arrest, indictment, arraignment, trial by a jury of one’s peers, conviction, sentencing, appeals) is simply part of the Natural Law and can no sooner be changed than can the law of gravity. Although the imposition of the death penalty in a particular case can be debate, the fact of its inherent moral liceity is beyond debate. Yet it is that Vincenzo Paglia said that the conciliar sect’s opposition to death penalty can be used as a basis for reexamining legal approaches to euthanasia:

This rationale, said Paglia, should be used when looking at the issue of euthanasia: 

As believers, therefore, we ask the same questions that affect everyone, knowing that we are in a pluralistic democratic society. In this case, about the end of (earthly) life, we find ourselves as everyone before a common question: how is it possible to reach (together) the best way to articulate the good (ethical plane) and the just (legal plane), for each person and for society? (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

Interjection Number Five:

The existence of a pluralistic democracy society does not negate the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law. Quite indeed, Holy Mother Church has a positive obligation to speak out in opposition to all that is repugnant to Faith and Morals and to be absolutely unyielding in her refusal to act in any way other than the line traced out by Silvio Cardinal Antoniano in the latter part of the Sixteenth Century in a perfect expression of Holy Mother Church’s consistent teaching on the illicit nature of that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.) 

You see, the problem with Paglia is this: he does not believe that assisted suicide is opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. He believes that civil legislation permitting it is an actual “good” as it can be used to “regulate” the practice of self-annihilation, overlooking the fact that that human beings, whether acting individually or together with others in the institutions of civil governance to contravene the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Paglia even went so far as to say that “human freedom” is always relative to others” even though we are only morally free to act in accordance with God’s eternal laws, which are never relative to anything whatsoever;

‘Accompaniment’ could require assisted suicide

Highlighting “human freedom” in decision making as being “always relative (to others),” Paglia stated that “regarding decisions about dying, this does not mean returning to the old medical paternalism, but rather emphasizing an interpretation of relational and responsible autonomy.”

He warned that countries which have allowed assisted suicide demonstrate how the “pool of people” legally allowed to kill themselves “tends to expand.” “Cases of involuntary euthanasia and deep palliative sedation without consent have thus grown,” said Paglia.

However, despite acknowledging the documented results of euthanasia laws, Paglia defended the permissibility of such laws, by appealing to Pope Francis’ theme of “accompaniment.”

In the time when death is approaching, I believe that the main response is that of accompaniment. And the first step to accompaniment is to listen to the questions, often very uncomfortable, that arise at this most delicate stage. 

The question of assisted suicide “is a question with many implications, in which several factors play regarding guilt, shame, pain, control, helplessness,” said the Vatican archbishop. “The interplay of projections between the sick person and the caregiver is very intricate: distinguishing between ‘he suffers too much’ and ‘I suffer too much to see him like this’ is not at all easy, just as it is very demanding to take seriously the demand for a relationship that helps to live with the radical loneliness of dying.” 

As a result of this “accompaniment,” Paglia stated that legal euthanasia could be an option, in order to support people in the “limitation, separation and passage of death.” (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

Interjection Number Six:

A Catholic priest is supposed to help souls bear their suffering with courage, gratitude, and love for the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity and to make reparation for their own sins. Although it is certainly true that a patient may ask for and receive analgesics to alleviate excruciating pain, it is morally impermissible for a Catholic priest to give any kind of consent to that which robs a person of his consciousness and then his death by the of a series of drugs designed to expedite or, in the case of “assisted suicide,” kills the patient as its directly intended end. The morality of act is determined by its nature and its end and is never morally permissible to undertake any action that directly intends to end an innocent human life. No amount of sentimental pleas from a patient, his family nor any amount of pressure from physicians, nurses or anyone else can make that which is in se impermissible permissible, and, perhaps most importantly, no amount of public support can make that which is evil a matter of the “public good” to be enshrined as part of the civil law.

Our Lady stands with us in every moment of our lives, and she will stand with us at the end of our lives if we beg for her intercession now as well as to ask her to send us the graces to accept death as a punishment for Original Sin and our particular deaths as the means to expiate the debt that we owe for our forgiven Mortal Sins, our unforgiven Venial Sins, and our attachment to sin and to the things of this world. We need to have Our Lady accompany us now, and at the hour of our death, not subject ourselves to the conciliarists’ falsehood of “accompaniment which is nothing other than being accomplices in moral crimes against the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and it also vital to remember that Saint Joseph is the Patron of the Dying. His own peaceful surrender to death in the company of His Most Chase Spouse, Our Lady, and His Foster Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, should give comfort to us all and inspire us always to invoke the intercession and patronage of Saint Joseph for a good, happy, and sacramentally provided for death.

Vincenzo Paglia intends to “accompany” human beings in the act of their self-annihilation and thus self as an accessory to the moral crimes of others. Or perhaps it is the case that Vincenzo Paglia believes that the nine ways by which one can an accessory to the sins of others have “evolved” themselves out of existence?

For the rest of us, though, we understand that Catholics can be accessories in the sins of others as follows:

• 1. By counsel.
• 2. By command.
• 3. By consent.
• 7. By connivance.
• 8. By partaking.
• 4. By provocation.
• 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
• 6. By silence.
• 9. By defense of the ill done. 

There is nothing within the Sacred Deposit of Faith that is beyond the capacity of the conciliar revolutionaries to undermine, negate, or overthrow in the name of “accompaniment,” “mercy,” and a “return to the Gospel.” All truth, whether on the natural or supernatural levels, can be “finessed” or “nuanced” by having recourse to a subjectivism that is nothing other than moral relativism writ large, something that is very clear in the final part of the report I have been analyzing:

In this context, it is not to be ruled out that in our society a legal mediation is feasible that would allow assistance to suicide under the conditions specified by Constitutional Court Sentence 242/2019: the person must be ‘kept alive by life-support treatments and affected by an irreversible pathology, source of physical or psychological suffering that she considers intolerable, but fully capable of making free and conscious decisions.’ The bill passed by the House of Representatives (but not the Senate) basically went along these lines. 

Personally, I would not practice suicide assistance, but I understand that legal mediation may be the greatest common good concretely possible under the conditions we find ourselves in. (Abp. Paglia defends assisted suicide as 'greatest common good possible' for dying people.)

In other words, Vincenzo Paglia believes that Italy’s “assisted suicide” can help to “regulate” an entirely illicit practice so as to prevent “abuses” even though the practice itself is offensive to God, injurious to a just social order, and deadly to the persons involved. This is sort of like saying that there needs to be a law permitted “assisted theft” so that people cannot steal as much as they would want to do if theft was not properly regulated. The whole “reasoning” is absurd as it is based on a concession that that which is illicit can be licit to pursue given the subjective circumstances in which people find themselves, and the attempt by the “Pontifical” Academy for Life to ”clarify” Paglia’s remarks did nothing but to leave the impression that the Italian law permitting assisted suicide is a legal “mediation” when it is nothing other than another assault on the inviolability of all innocent human life from conception thereafter. (See Appendices B and C, below, for a reminder of how Vincenzo Paglia found "nuance" in the tragic case of Charlie Gard six years ago and a reminder of how, in 2019, he justified the administration of vaccines derived from the stem cells of butchered babies. Paglia is an enemy of moral truth and thus of the souls redeemed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood.)

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.

Many physicians today kill innocent beings in the womb, and they kill them by means of direct euthanasia, by starving and dehydrating them to death, under the aegis of the medical industry’s manufactured money-making myth of “brain death” in engage in human organ vivisection, by “palliative care,” and by “assisted suicide,” and they are doing so with the full support of men such as Vincenzo Paglia, who cares not for the true good of human bodies or, much more importantly, the souls that have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Vincenzo Paglia is a one man wrecking ball of Catholic Faith and Morals and he said in 2022 tha what is “dissent” one year can become “doctrine” the next:

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.

Since 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, which will lead Vincenzo Paglia and/or those who succeed him to suggest “accompanying” women right through the doors of abortuaries to “comfort them as they murder their innocent preborn children. That is where this all leads. Mark my words here and now.

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.

The conciliar revolutionaries support the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” for purposes of vital organ vivisection and they support “palliative care,” which is “euthanasia in fact if not in name. This ought to give those fully Catholic clergy who have long supported these evils and have encouraged their parishioners to act accordingly a bit of pause as it is generally not a good thing to be on the same side as those who are eager to use a variety of purely utilitarian reasons to negate the plain words of the Fifth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”

These antipapal agents of anti-Catholic teaching are in league with the adversary, who is using the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church, the conciliar sect, to mock Holy Mother Church, to discourage the faithful, and to drive as many as possible in the waiting arms of Protestant sects and of the ranks of complete disbelief. While we must pray to Our Lady for their conversion, we must always recognize that none of this can come from the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Our Lady will come to vanquish the conciliar revolutionaries, and to this end we must use the weapon of her Most Holy Rosary which Saint Louis Grignion de Montfort used so successfully to soften the hardened hearts of Jansenists and to spread True Devotion to Mary by means of total consecration to her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

May we beg Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary to vanquish the enemies of our own salvation within our lives so that we may be better able to witness to Divine truth in this life and then to enjoy the rewards for remaining faithful until the end by means of the graces she sends to us to follow her Divine Son at all times and in all things as He has entrusted Himself exclusively to His Catholic Church.

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.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Agapitus, pray for us.

Saint Helena, pray for us.

Appendix

Father Francis X. Weninger on Saints Helena and Saint Agapitus

The Roman Martyrology mentions these Saints today in terms of great praise. We will therefore say a few words about each of them. St. Helena the spouse of Constantine Chlorus, and mother of Constantine the Great, is one of the most celebrated Catholic empresses. It was greatly due to her influence that her son Constantine became converted to the Christian faith, built so many churches to the honor of the Almighty, and not only fearlessly protected the Christian faith, but spread it through many countries. By divine inspiration, she went to Jerusalem, to visit the Holy places, and seek the cross on which our Saviour had died. She happily succeeded in finding the cross, though not without great hardship. She erected many magnificent temples in the Holy Land and endowed them richly.

She visited the virgins who had consecrated themselves to God; lived for some time among them, and poorly clad, she served them at table, and performed, with most edifying humility, the most menial labor. She was excited to this by the great reverence she entertained for those virgins, in each of whom she recognized a handmaid of the Most High, and a spouse of Christ. The amount of alms which the pious empress gave to the poor, not only in the Holy Land, but wherever she went, is incalculable. When she returned to Rome, she continued her saintly life, and was a model to all of Christian perfection. In the eightieth year of her life, it pleased the King of kings to call the holy empress to receive the crown of a kingdom of which there is no end, She carefully prepared, for death, and having given her last instructions to her son and to all about her, she committed her soul, with the most devout prayers, into the hands of the Almighty.

St. Agapitus was but 15 years old, when he was apprehended by the tyrant Aurelian, on account of being a Christian. As he unflinchingly proclaimed his belief in Christ, he was whipped with scourges and then cast into a dungeon, without any food, that he might thus be forced to forsake Christianity. When Antiochus, the prefect, found him, at the end of five days, more determined than before, he ordered a live coal to be put upon his head. The brave youth stood immovably under this torture, and praising God, said: "A head, which would wear an eternal crown in Heaven, must not hesitate to wear suffering and pain upon earth. Wounds and burns make my head the more worthy to be crowned with eternal glory."

Antiochus, greatly provoked, ordered them to whip the holy youth till his body became one great wound, after which they hung him by the feet over a fire, hoping to suffocate him. But they failed; for, after a long silence, he addressed the prefect saying: "Behold, Antiochus, the people will say that all thy ingenuity, all thy wit, ends in smoke." Enraged at this remark, the tyrant had him again cruelly whipped and ordered boiling water to be poured into the open wounds. After this, they knocked all his teeth out and broke his jaws with blows. God punished the tyrant for his cruelty; He caused him to fall from his seat and break his neck. Aurelian, hearing of this, ordered the martyr to be thrown to the wild beasts, but as they refused to touch him, he was finally beheaded. Thus ended the glorious martyrdom of the holy youth, Agapitus, in the year 275. (As found at St. Helena, Empress and the Holy Youth, Agapitus, Martyr.)