Victor Manuel Fernandez's Anthropocentric Decree on Human Dignity, part five

Dignitatis Infinita’s litany of offenses against “human dignity is, as have been noted in previous parts of this series, rather curious, to say the very least. Then again, the entire focus on “human dignity” rather than the immutable laws of God provides a spurious basis upon which to examine any contemporary problem as we must always put First Things first and view everything through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith.

It is very telling that the principal author of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia, Victor Manuel Fernandez, cannot bring himself to calls sins against Holy Purity by their proper name, thus making Dignitatis Infinita’s treatment of “sexual abuse” and “violence against women” to be yet more examples of sophomoric shallowness:

Sexual Abuse

43. The profound dignity inherent in human beings in their entirety of mind and body also allows us to understand why all sexual abuse leaves deep scars in the hearts of those who suffer it. Indeed, those who suffer sexual abuse experience real wounds in their human dignity. These are “sufferings that can last a lifetime and that no repentance can remedy. This phenomenon is widespread in society and it also affects the Church and represents a serious obstacle to her mission.”[82] From this stems the Church’s ceaseless efforts to put an end to all kinds of abuse, starting from within.

Comment Number One:

The conciliar revolutionaries are constitutionally incapable of speaking in unambiguous terms as Catholics. This is, of course, they lack the Catholic Faith.

Human nature is wounded by Original Sin. Human beings suffer from concupiscence, and the only remedy for this is to be found in the supernatural helps, Sanctifying and Actual Graces, that are given to them exclusively in the Catholic Church.

The Sangerite agenda of birth control to separate that which is meant to be used by married couples for the procreation of children and from marriage itself provided incentives and opportunities for marital infidelity and divorce before devolving, with the help of Hollywood, pornographic purveyors, Madison Avenue, and fashion designers into the widespread acceptance of fornication and sodomy as institutionalized features of life in the so-called “civilized” West.

It must not be forgotten in this regard that the “Margaret Sanger” of breaking down the innocence and purity of children, Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex and Information Committee of the United States of America, worked very closely with the-then “Monsignor” James T. McHugh of the National Conference of Catholic “Bishops”/United States Catholic Conference to introduce, propagate and institutionalize “sex education” in conciliar schools (see Mrs. Randy McHugh's The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague). This has been done despite the explicit prohibition against such instruction found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri that was reaffirmed by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:  

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"

Response: In the negative, and that the method must be persevere entirely as set forth up to the present entirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, associated with the wicked, and all occasions of sin.

By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 597-598.)

It does not get any plainer than that.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have miseducated several generations of young Catholics to place themselves openly in occasions of sin. This is a denial of the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

How do children learn to grow in purity?

By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength.

By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Too Catholic?

Too unrealistic?

Just take a look at the statement issued by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931.

Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our children from stealing?

Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such "theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The fact that the conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River have seen fit to defy the prohibitions against explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments because they are penultimate naturalists. That these hideous revolutionaries have had to ask the questions that they did is the direct result of their own defiance of Catholic teaching. This is not surprising as they are living and breathing apostates whose almost every word and action is in defiance of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

While human beings will always fall into various sins of impurity, the fact that there has been an explosion of natural and unnatural sins against the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments has to with the fact that most men, including most Catholics, are influenced by the prevailing rot of a pluralistic culture wherein one of the easiest ways to make a quick profit is to appeal to man’s basest instincts.

For instance, it has been not only recently, for instance, that the motion picture industry, which has been controlled by secular Jews from its very beginning, was committed to the exploitation of man’s lower appetites and passions, and the only reason that Hollywood had to watch itself between 1934 and the 1950s was because of the Hays Code, which was honored more in the breach than in actual point of fact, came into existence because of the unrelenting efforts of Catholic bishops, priests, and laymen, especially Archbishop Joseph McNicholas of Cincinnati, Ohio, Father Daniel Lord, S.J., and laymen Joseph Breen and Martin Quigley. What resulted was termed by a Jewish commentator was a world where Jewish producers sold Catholic theology to Protestant America.

Even during the era of the Hays Code, various producers, most notably Otto Preminger, a Jew who hated efforts on the part of Catholics to convert his father, Markus Preminger, and Alfred Hitchcock, who was a Catholic, found ways to flaunt the code, and the successor of their efforts and others commercially led to the erosion and the elimination of the code by 1968, by which time the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “opening to the world” had commenced, resulting in an relaxation of vigilance by ordinary Catholics, who were already succumbing to the temptations not to maintain custody of their eyes and ears.

Motion picture producers were not alone in their efforts to make profits from impurity. The fashion industry, working frequently hand-in-hand with Hollywood and the advertisers of Madison Avenue began to produce and market “gradual” changes in feminine attire to reveal rather than to conceal.

Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., Cap., S.T.D., explained how changes in women’s fashions were introduced after World War I that had caught of and been condemned by Pope Benedict XV in 1921:

The avowed enemies of God are rejoicing--temporarily--at having brought about an almost total collapse of the virtue of modesty among once virtuous Christian womanhood, while those commissioned by God to teach and uphold this angelic virtue insist on cowardly silence and indifference about it and on gutless permissiveness in manner of dress everywhere.

Meanwhile, vast numbers of supposedly "good" people remain as if without a conscience, being morally blind and insensitive as to what has really happened to a God-given virtue that was once a distinctive trademark of theirs. This type of blindness seems to go hand in hand with a brazen contempt and a sassy resentfulness towards any attempt to revive and restore the missing sense of modesty.

The fact stands out clearly that the immodest fashions of this unchaste generation still offend Our Lord "very much," as Our Lady foretold it through the angelic little Jacinta.

Anyone who still cares about God's virtue of modesty, which He has made shine with such heavenly beauty in the Immaculate Virgin Mary, cannot forget how Our Lord suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane when He foresaw so many sinners, including the immodest and the impure, remaining unrepentant. And the sight of so many immodest creatures displaying crude flesh, like animals, brings vividly before our mind's eye the frightful vision of Our Divine Savior being mercilessly scourged at the pillar. We need not strain ourselves in trying to picture this scene, for we can plainly see the immodest, with their unchaste displays of flesh and figure, continually scourging Our Lord. And we can see them crowning Him with thorns and nailing Him to the Cross all over again.

And look what sorrow the immodest and the impure are causing their Sorrowful and Immaculate Mother, whom God has presented to them as the Perfect Model of Modesty and Purity!

But it has not all happened by accident. Satan planned it this way. As he has done with such evil movements as Communism and Socialism and Freemasonry, so also has he planned out a program of gradual, not sudden, destruction of the sense of modesty and purity. A mere look at the past 50 years or more shows us very plainly how gradually it was all done, first by apparently innocent abbreviations of garments and by slight revelations of bare flesh and by subtle little displays of the figure, and then, as protests died down, by more and more abbreviations and displays--until the crude immodesty of our day became a shocking reality.

Many living today have seen it all happen before their very eyes. They have lived through it and, if they have managed to retain their God-given moral sense, they find the barbarian immodesty of the this day intolerable and they look upon it as a sin crying to Heaven for the vengeance that must inevitably come if sinners continue to refuse to amend their ways.

Perhaps some 50 years ago or more, a publication known as The Frenchwoman presented the following satanic program for the destruction of the virtue of modesty: "Our children must realize the ideal of nakedness... Thus, the mentality of the child is rapidly transformed. To escape opposition, progress must be methodically graduated: first, feet and legs naked, then upturned sleeves; afterwards, the upper part of the chest; then, the back... n summer, they will go around almost naked."

Even if such a daring statement of the powers of darkness had never come to light--though "enlightened" liberals have tried to keep it in the dark--we would still know that it had to be planned that way and could not have happened by accident. And we would also know that such a program for immodesty could not have originated anywhere but in the dungeons of hell and in the mind of Satan.

The program of gradualism intended to lead eventually to the crude immodesty that we know so painfully well today was evidently drawn up, or at least made known, some time during the Fatima years, possibly a little before or after the 1917 Apparitions of Our Lady. (Maybe some well-informed person can provide a precise date.) Bearing this in mind, we can easily conclude that it was no accident that Our Lady insisted so strongly on modesty in her Fatima Message. She knew well of the evil program that would endanger so many immortal souls, and she came to Fatima to warn souls and to save them from the evil awaiting them.

As Sister Lucy has said, one of the things that Our Lady especially asked for was modesty in dress. And still better known, though disregarded, is Jacinta's prophecy: "Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much"--that little liked prophecy that leaves immodestly dressed "pious" women and girls callous and insensitive and cold.

Just as Our Lady was commissioned by God to oppose the rise of Russian Communism and all the other evils named in the Fatima Message, with God's own program of sanctification and salvation, so was part of her mission to warn souls of the dangers of immodesty and impurity that were to increase the unbelievable proportions in the years to come, and to turn them to modesty and purity and amendment of life.

In connection with the timeliness of Our Lady's message of modesty in 1917, just when Satan's program of gradual nakedness was being put into effect, we must also mention the timeliness of the message of modesty of Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922). It is fairly well known how dynamic were his two successors, Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, in promoting modesty of dress, but it is not as well known that Pope Benedict XV was before them a strenuous defender and promoter of modesty at a time when we might imagine it was not so much of a problem.

We cannot believe that the statements of Our Lady of Fatima and those of Pope Benedict XV on modesty were disconnected or were merely a matter of coincidence. We can only believe that both Our Lady of Fatima and the Holy Father of that time were inspired and guided by God Himself to speak out on modesty in dress, so as to counteract the wicked program of gradual nudism that was being inspired and guided by hell's father of iniquity.

Let us quote an important statement of Pope Benedict XV--by no means his only one--so that we may see how immodesty in dress had already begun to cause moral ruin among women and girls of his day. In an Encyclical Letter (Sacra Propediem, 1921) commemorating the 7th centenary of the founding of the Franciscan Third Order, Pope Benedict wrote as follows:

"From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the in decency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty."

If we did not know that a Pope wrote this in 1921, we would surely think it was written, or should have been written by someone, in 1972!

After thus deploring the immodesty of his day, the Holy Father exhorted women with these words: 

"In what concerns specially the Tertiary Sisters, We ask of them by their dress and manner of wearing it, to be models of holy modesty for other ladies and young girls; that they be thoroughly convinced that the best way for them to be of use to the Church and to Society is to labor for the improvement of morals." 

Whose message, do you suppose, have women and girls accepted: the message of modesty of Our Lady of Fatima and of the Holy Father or, the message of immodesty of Lucifer?

Who has recommended to them short skirts, sleeveless dresses, pants, shorts, and clownish pants suits, and so on?

Not only did women and girls buy and buy and buy the clothing that through the years became gradually shorter and skimpier and tighter and ever more unladylike, thus making the whole program of gradual nakedness a huge success, but something else happened at the same time; the sense of modesty and propriety, which God has instilled into their souls, became gradually more blurred and dim and fuzzy, until in so many it became totally blacked out and dead. They did not, and do not, know what happened to them. By blindly and stupidly following the satanic program of gradual abbreviation of attire, they destroyed in themselves a precious God-given gift--the sense of modesty--so that they have now made themselves incapable of distinguishing between modesty and immodesty, nor do so many of them care to know.

And not only have women destroyed in themselves God's gift of modesty, but they have destroyed it in their children from their earliest years, so that a whole generation has been brought up without any real understanding of modesty without any desire to possess its beauty.

And, mind you, these have been "good" and "pious" women who have done this to their children! They have been the "Lord, Lord" type who have duly said their prayers, which all are obliged to do, but who have not done "the Will of My Father Who is in Heaven" (Mt. 7. 21) by obeying His law of modesty. (Emphases added.) (Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., The Remnant, 1972.)

Powerful words, although each of us knows fellow Catholics who scoff at them as being too “severe” or “old-fashioned. Truth never has an expiration date, and that is something that Pope Pius XII himself noted in 1957:

This second virtue, modesty - the very word “modesty” comes from modus, a measure or limit - probably better expresses the function of governing and dominating the passions, especially sensual passions. It is the natural bulwark of chastity. It is its effective rampart, because it moderates acts closely connected with the very object of chastity [...] Yet no matter how broad and changeable the relative morals of styles may be, there is always an absolute norm to be kept after having heard the admonition of conscience warning against approaching danger: style must never be a proximate occasion of sin. [...] An excess of immodesty in fashion involves, in practice, the cut of the garment. The garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire. [...] It is often said almost with passive resignation that fashions reflect the customs of a people. But it would be more exact and much more useful to say that they express the decision and moral direction that a nation intends to take: either to be shipwrecked in licentiousness or maintain itself at the level to which it has been raised by religion and civilization. (Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957; as found in Norms for Modesty, which is on the website of the National Coalition for Clergy and the Laity, which also includes links to Rome's Decrees on Modesty in Dress and Cardinal Siri’s Notification Concerning Men's Dress Worn by Women. Pope Pius XII's entire address may be purchased for fifty cents at MIQ Center Catholic Books: Papal Decrees, Encyclicals.) 

One of the worst aspects of the false religion of conciliarism is how the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical  has resulted in the gradual acceptance of gross indecency of dress as thoroughly acceptable in the context of putative offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Some of the attire that is worn—or not worn, as the case might be in many instances—in the Novus Ordo world make some of the pagans of yore blush with shame. Offense is given to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in churches where He was once housed sacramentally and scandal is given to the little ones whose purity and innocence is so precious to Him. This Novus Ordo spirit has infected many Catholics, perhaps even some of your own family members or friends, who are immersed in the make-believe world wrought by Summorum Pontificum.

The false spirit of conciliarism is such that the compromises that are necessary to accept having "the Mass" offered in "communion with the 'pope'" lead to compromises in the lives of many of the Catholics who go to Motu Masses (or simulations of the Mass in those instances where presbyters are the officiants). "Relax." "Don't be too strict." "Just go along with the times." "Things change, you know." Really?

Try telling that to Saint John Mary Vianney, the Cure of Ars, or to Padre Pio or to Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, who had to stare down gun-toting Nicaraguans who were upset with her insistence upon exacting standards of Modesty in the tropical climate of that Central American nation. The compromises necessary to "have Mass" to please the local non-bishop in accordance with Summorum Pontificum have seen not a few priests and presbyters in the indult/Motu world called on the carpet for attempting to insist on Modesty in their chapels.

Contraception, immodesty, suggestiveness and outright lasciviousness in motion pictures, art, music, magazines, books, and advertising each have contribute to the rise of the abuse of that which God has given to men to continue the species, and it would be irresponsible to take cognizance of the fact that the conciliar authorities have systematically sought to recruit homosexuals and effeminate men into the clergy who were “malleable” enough to evangelize on behalf of a new religion, a new liturgy, and a new morality that has reached such a nadir that, as will be noted in the next and final part of this series, a supposed prefect of the conciliar curia can suggest that the Catholic Church’s condemnation of homosexual acts as being intrinsically disordered has to be changed.

Catholic young people within the conciliar structures have not been taught to refrain from the rot of a modern “culture” that is steeped in the glorification and celebration of impurity, indecency, immodesty, unnatural vice, rebelliousness, anarchy, and nihilism, and this is mostly, although not entirely, the result of conciliarism’s “official reconciliation” with the “principles of the new era inaugurated in 1789,” to paraphrase what then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger wrote in his very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology.

To call to mind Pope Leo XIII’s description of a world that has overthrown the Social Reign of Christ the King:

God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.

So great is this struggle of the passions and so serious the dangers involved, that we must either anticipate ultimate ruin or seek for an efficient remedy. It is of course both right and necessary to punish malefactors, to educate the masses, and by legislation to prevent crime in every possible way: but all this is by no means sufficient. The salvation of the nations must be looked for higher. A power greater than human must be called in to teach men's hearts, awaken in them the sense of duty, and make them better. This is the power which once before saved the world from destruction when groaning under much more terrible evils. Once remove all impediments and allow the Christian spirit to revive and grow strong in a nation, and that nation will be healed. The strife between the classes and the masses will die away; mutual rights will be respected. If Christ be listened to, both rich and poor will do their duty. The former will realise that they must observe justice and charity, the latter self-restraint and moderation, if both are to be saved. Domestic life will be firmly established ( by the salutary fear of God as the Lawgiver. In the same way the precepts of the natural law, which dictates respect for lawful authority and obedience to the laws, will exercise their influence over the people. Seditions and conspiracies will cease. Wherever Christianity rules over all without let or hindrance there the order established by Divine Providence is preserved, and both security and prosperity are the happy result. The common welfare, then, urgently demands a return to Him from whom we should never have gone astray; to Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and this on the part not only of individuals but of society as a whole. We must restore Christ to this His own rightful possession. All elements of the national life must be made to drink in the Life which proceedeth from Him- legislation, political institutions, education, marriage and family life, capital and labour. Everyone must see that the very growth of civilisation which is so ardently desired depends greatly upon this, since it is fed and grows not so much by material wealth and prosperity, as by the spiritual qualities of morality and virtue. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

None of the so-called “prescriptions” offered by Victor Manuel Fernandez in Dignitatis Infinita will work to “solve” anything as men must love God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church and not as He and His teaching have been corrupted by dirty men with dirty minds and dirtier hearts.

To the section of Dignitatis Infinita entitled “Violence Against Women”:

Violence Against Women

44. Violence against women is a global scandal that is gaining increasing recognition. While the equal dignity of women may be recognized in words, the inequalities between women and men in some countries remain very serious. Even in the most developed and democratic countries, the concrete social reality testifies to the fact that women are often not accorded the same dignity as men. Pope Francis highlighted this when he affirmed that “the organization of societies worldwide is still far from reflecting clearly that women possess the same dignity and identical rights as men. We say one thing with words, but our decisions and reality tell another story. Indeed, ‘doubly poor are those women who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment, and violence, since they are frequently less able to defend their rights.’”[83]

Comment Number Two:

Although there are, sad to say, more than a few examples of Catholic husbands and fathers,  suffering as they do—and everyone does--from concupiscence and their own particular faults and sinful tendencies, have given full vent to anger by treating others both women and children in a violent manner, noting especially the anger and violence that  frequently accompany various addictions such as alcoholism and gambling, the rise of contemporary violence within and without the building block of society, the domestic cell of Holy Mother Church that is the family, is the result of the rise and institutionalization of practical atheism as the foundation of daily life. Men who lack the supernatural vision provided by the Holy Faith and who lack belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace will fall into barbaric behavior of the sort that Holy Mother Church’s sought to eradicate by her missionary efforts in the First Millennium in Europe and in the Second Millenium in the Americas and parts of Asia.

We have devolved from a time when boys were taught to tip their hats at women and to open doors for them to a time in which so many people are contemptuous of almost everyone else, starting with themselves and their sanctification and salvation. The egalitarianism of feminism, one of the enduring features of the French and Marxist Revolutions, has infected the minds of many men and women to the point where, rather than viewing themselves in a complementary fashion, many people see in other human beings “competitors” who need to be humiliated or entirely vanquished.

Catholicism does indeed teach men to respect women as bearing within them the Divine impress and keeping in mind that women also are supposed to reflect the true feminine virtues of Our Lady, not to become vulgar exhibitors of male characteristics nor to obsessed with the shape and strength of their bodies. Men who demean personal chastity and self-restraint and women who demean their own femininity are bound to collide in ways that are injurious to their spiritual and temporal well-being, both individually and collectively.

As Saint Paul taught in his Epistle to the Ephesians:

Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:  23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.  25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:

That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life:  27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.  28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself.  29 For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:  30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.  32 This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.  33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband. (Ephesians 5: 21-33.)

This is the foundation of the proper relationship between husbands and wives, and let it be stated clearly also that no married man is to curry familiarity with any other woman and no married woman is to curry familiarity with any other man.

To the next part of the same section:

45. Pope St. John Paul II recognized that “much remains to be done to prevent discrimination against those who have chosen to be wives and mothers. […] [T]here is an urgent need to achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection for working mothers, fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is part of the rights and duties of citizens in a democratic State.”[84] Indeed, inequalities in these areas are also various forms of violence. He also recalled that “the time has come to condemn vigorously the types of sexual violence which frequently have women for their object and to pass laws which effectively defend them from such violence. Nor can we fail, in the name of the respect due to the human person, to condemn the widespread hedonistic and commercial culture which encourages the systematic exploitation of sexuality and corrupts even very young girls into letting their bodies be used for profit.”[85] Among the forms of violence carried out on women, how can we not mention coercive abortions, which affect both mother and child, often to satisfy the selfishness of males? And how can we not also mention the practice of polygamy? As the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, polygamy is contrary to the equal dignity of women and men; it is also “contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.”[86]

Comment Number Three:

Real equality in every area?

Nonsense.

Holy Mother Church has long taught that, noting exceptions in the fields of education and healthcare, women and men should not work together in the same workplace on a regular basis as, fallen nature being what it is, various temptations against marital fidelity might arise if only in terms of an emotional attachment that detracts from the exclusiveness of marital integrity. The situation in the “real world” as it exists today places a premium on women of childbearing years fulfilling themselves by means of “careers,” relegating their children to daycare, pre-school, and after-school programs during the work week and on those occasions when they must travel with colleagues, male and female alike, to "conferences" and work-related retreats.

As to equal pay for equal work, Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI explained that men must be paid a “living wage,” which is not a set figure. Men, who are meant to be the principal providers and breadwinners of their family, noting that divorce and excessive taxation have forced many women who want to stay at home into the workplace to support their children or to supplement their husband’s income, are to be paid commensurate with their family’s needs.

The “real world” as it exists today sees single women competing with men for positions and promotions, which itself forces many stay-at-home mothers into the workplace. This is all an inversion of the world as God means it to be, and it is no diminution of the intelligence, talents, or abilities of women to note that the most powerful and fulfilled women in the world are those who model themselves after Our Lady and care selflessly for their husbands and children.

The “equal pay for equal work” slogan is a caused championed by Marxism, something noted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:

Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)  

Forcing women out of the family and into the sweatshops and the factories was a goal of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but also of the Industrial Revolution of Calvinist capitalism. Wives and mothers whose husbands worked long hours in factories for substandard wages were forced in many instances to go to work themselves in order to supplement their husbands' meager incomes. This is what prompted Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI to insist that the man, the principal breadwinner of the family, to be paid a "living wage," that is, to be paid enough to support their families without forcing their wives to abandon the home and to enter unnecessarily into the work force. The living wage is not a flat sum of money. Indeed, Holy Mother Church teaches that a just employer will pay his employees a sum proportionate to the work that they do and proportionate to the number of children with which he has been blessed by God. 

Pope Pius XI put the matter this way in Quadresgimo Anno, May 15, 1931:

In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.) 

Women, having become accustomed to "equality" in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature), are now celebrating their ability to lead and to serve in positions that rob them of the dignity as women and have caused many to abandon all trace of recognizable femininity in favor of careerist approach to life that makes a commitment to their families a burden. This is why many women use contraception and kill their babies by surgical means if they escape the snare of contraceptive abortifacients of one sort of another, and the presence of so many women of child-bearing age in the work place has caused such a level of unemployment and under-employment for husbands and fathers that many wives and mothers are forced into the workplace ust to pay the bills and to have enough to pay for the confiscatory taxes that keep so many families enslaved to the civil state and to credit card companies.

Ah, behold the wreckage of a society where the naturalist ideology of feminism prevails even to a large extent in the minds of believing Catholics, including traditionally-minded Catholics across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide that many of them accept and applaud feminism as an advance in the direction of "full rights" for women when it is merely an enslavement of them to their own pride at the expense of their own eternal and temporal good and that of their families and their very nations.

Pope Pius XII issued a set of Papal Directive for Women of Today on September 11, 1947, in which he discussed the role of women in public life, a matter that revolutionaries such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez believe is "settled" in favor of an indiscriminate "right" of women to seek elected office regardless of their domestic responsibilities:

There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function -- the participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all.

Your own role is, in general, to work toward making woman always more conscious of her sacred rights, of her duties, and of her power to help mold public opinion, through her daily contacts, and to influence legislation and administration by the proper use of her prerogatives as citizen. Such is your common role. It does not mean that you are all to have political careers as members of public assemblies. Most of you must continue to give the greater part of your time and of your loving attention to the care of your homes and families. We must not forget that the making of a home in which all feel at ease and happy, and the bringing up of children are very special contributions to the common welfare. So we rejoice in the fact, which you yourselves rightly recorded, that among rural families, which are still such a large part of society, woman's work in the home still goes hand in hand with her contribution to the social and national economy.

Those among you who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, your delegated representatives. Give them your confidence, understand their difficulties, the hard work and sacrifices their devotion entails; give them your help and support.  (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

Readers may or may not recall Paragraph fifty-three of Jorge’s and Victor’s Amoris Laetitia represented a revolution against such a papal allocution, which was merely a reiteration of the basic precepts of the Order of Creation and the Order of Redemption concerning the roles befitting the dignity and true femininity of wives and mothers. perhaps it is prudent to remember that Pope Pius XII explained that this is not a matter for the "world" to determine," stating that Holy Mother Church has every right to interpose herself in the temporal sphere when necessary:  

But under the pretense of saving the Church from the risk of being led astray in the "temporal" sphere, a slogan launched some ten years ago, continues to gain acceptance: return to the purely "spiritual." And by that is understood that the Church should confine her activities to a purely dogmatic teaching, to the offering of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments, and that all incursion into, or even the right of examination in the domain of public life, all intervention in the civil or social order, should be denied her. As if dogma did not have a bearing upon every aspect of human life, as if the mysteries of the faith with their supernatural wealth, were not to maintain and invigorate the lives of individuals and, as a logical consequence, to harmonize public life with the law of God, to impregnate it with the spirit of Christ! Such vivisection is nothing short of being anti-Catholic. (Pope Pius XII, Papal Directives for Women of Today, September 11, 1947.)

Bergoglio and Fernandez believe that mothers cannot be "confined" to the home as this would be to disparage their equality with men, and in this he is thus aping the feminism of in French Revolutionaries in 1789 and the Russian Bolsheviks in 1917, which itself spawned the feminism that has characterized the Zionist State of Israel from its very beginnings. 

Consider how closely the text below corresponds with the ideology expressed by Victor Manuel Fernandez in Dignitatis Infinita in a manner entirely consistent with paragraph fifty-three of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, that he ghostwrote for Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich). 

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.

In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.

Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.

The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.

The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.

Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!

Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!

Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!

A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!

That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.

And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.  

It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us. 

It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world. (Soviet Power and the Status of Women) 

Comrades, the elections to the Moscow Soviet show that the Party of the Communists is gaining strength among the working class.  

It is essential that women workers take a greater part in the elections. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world to abolish completely all the old, bourgeois, infamous laws which placed women in an inferior position compared with men and which granted privileges to men, as, for instance, in the sphere of marriage laws or in the sphere of the legal attitude to children. The Soviet government was the first and only government in the world which, as a government of the toilers, abolished all the privileges connected with property, which men retained in the family laws of all bourgeois republics, even the most democratic.  

Where there are landlords, capitalists and merchants, there can be no equality between women and men even in law.

Where there are no landlords, capitalists and merchants, where the government of the toilers is building a new life without these exploiters, there equality between women and men exists in law.

But that is not enough.

It is a far cry from equality in law to equality in life.

We want women workers to achieve equality with men workers not only in law, but in life as well. For this, it is essential that women workers take an ever increasing part in the administration of public enterprises and in the administration of the state.

By engaging in the work of administration women will learn quickly and they will catch up with the men.

Therefore, elect more women workers, both Communist and non-Party, to the Soviet. If she is only an honest woman worker who is capable of managing work sensibly and conscientiously, it makes no difference if she is not a member of the Party--elect her to the Moscow Soviet.

Let there be more women workers in the Moscow Soviet! Let the Moscow proletariat show that it is prepared to do and is doing everything for the fight to victory, for the fight against the old inequality, against the old, bourgeois, humiliation of women!

The proletariat cannot achieve complete freedom, unless it achieves complete freedom for women. (N. Lenin, February 21, 1920  To the Working Women.) 

This could have been written by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and/or Victor Manuel Fernandez as they are comrades-in-revolutionary-arms with the Franch and Bolshevik Revolutionaries.

Contemporary feminism is but one expression of pride. It is an aspect of the narcissistic selfism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who once wrote that there was nothing more wonderful for him to experience than his own visage in a mirror. Rousseau's radical egalitarianism, which rejected all social distinctions based on nature and function found in the Order of Creation and in the Order of Redemption, helped to bring forth the French Revolution and its assault upon all legitimately constituted authority in the Church and in the world. Women were taught that their place was besides the men at the barricades, that they were to be "liberated" from the responsibilities of home and hearth, especially those of child-rearing.  

The Bolshevik Revolution did the same, helping to pave the way for the "Roaring Twenties" in the West as Talmudic sympathizers of the Bolshevik Revolution produced motion pictures and magazines designed to introduce Bolshevik standards as the basis of undermining the role of men in society and to take women out of the home so that their children would be trained from infancy through young adulthood by the agents of all forms of naturalism (Judeo-Masonic and Bolshevik in particular). Contemporary feminism is but an outgrowth of the devil's efforts to replace Our Lady as the model of femininity with that of the "Eve" of modernity, fully liberated from "man" and from God Himself.  

Every man, woman and child is called to remember that he is a creature, a contingent being who did not create himself and whose mortal body is destined one day for the corruption of the grave. None of us is the equal to the Most Blessed Trinity. We must submit ourselves to everything He has revealed to us through Holy Mother Church without seeking to declare ourselves "equal" before Him, without Whom we do not take our very next breath. We must pray to Him humbly as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary.  

Yes, my friends, it is the Rosary that is, after Holy Mass and Eucharistic piety, the chief means by which the evils of the present day will be retarded, and the seeds planted for the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Instead of babbling on about one naturalistic "solution" after another in alleged "debates," those who aspire to high office ought to be promoting Our Lady's Holy Rosary, which speaks more powerfully of our total reliance upon Christ the King and upon her, Our Immaculate Queen, than all of the meaningless verbiage that passes out like so much gas from the mouth and is then lost the fogs of the minds of men.

Men and women who pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary will be inspired to the heights of mutual respect.

Here is the final part of Dignitatis Infinita’s treatment of “violence against women”:

46. In this consideration of violence against women, one cannot condemn enough the phenomenon of femicide. On this front, the entire international community must have a coordinated and concrete commitment, as Pope Francis reiterated, “Our love for Mary must help us to feel appreciation and gratitude for women, for our mothers and grandmothers, who are a bastion in the life in our cities. Almost always in silence, they carry life forward. It is the silence and strength of hope. Thank you for your witness. […] But in thinking of our mothers and grandmothers, I want to invite you to combat a scourge that affects our American continent: the numerous cases where women are killed. And the many situations of violence that are kept quiet behind so many walls. I ask you to fight against this source of suffering by calling for legislation and a culture that repudiates every form of violence.”[87]

Comment Number Four:

May I propose to the apostates dressed up as officials of the Catholic Church even though they are laymen that the United States of America is suffering from the effects of the falsity of its anti-Incarnational, Judeo-Masonic, naturalistic principles that are simply manifesting the perfection of their inherent degeneracy and that, in Latin America, the conciliar revolutionaries have been so concerned with promoting “liberation theology” that they have “liberated” many cradle Catholics into the waiting arms of various Protestant “missionaries” who entice them with what sounds like Christianity even though it was inspired by the devil himself.

To reiterate what has been written in an earlier segment of this series, contraception is violence against the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and this violence against God leads directly to violence against the innocent preborn and women alike.
Period.

Way, way, way down on the list of “abuses” against “human dignity” within the text of Dignitatis Infinita is the subject of the surgical execution of innocent preborn children. Readers will see that the text below reeks of conciliarspeak and is not founded on any respect for the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment. We are to oppose abortion, Victor Manuel Fernandez, would have us believe, because it is an abuse against “human dignity,” and he is really serious about this contention, which makes leaves little place for the binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Law:

Abortion

47. The Church consistently reminds us that “the dignity of every human being has an intrinsic character and is valid from the moment of conception until natural death. It is precisely the affirmation of such dignity that is the inalienable prerequisite for the protection of a personal and social existence, and also the necessary condition for fraternity and social friendship to be realized among all the peoples of the earth.”[88] On account of the intangible value of human life, the Church’s magisterium has always spoken out against abortion. In this regard, Pope St. John Paul II writes: “Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. […] But today, in many people’s consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior, and even in law itself is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard, the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness’ (Is. 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion, there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as ‘interruption of pregnancy,’ which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.”[89]Unborn children are, thus, “the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays, efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this.”[90] It must, therefore, be stated with all force and clarity, even in our time, that “this defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, ‘every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offense against the Creator of the individual.’”[91] In this context, it is worth recalling St. Teresa of Calcutta’s generous and courageous commitment to the defense of every person conceived.

Comment Number Five:

One lousy paragraph dressed up in conciliarspeak buried deep within the text of Dignitatis Infinita.

One lousy paragraph that nowhere explains that willful murder is the first of the four sins that cry out to vengeance as it is an offense not against human dignity but against the Author of Life Himself and of the preborn child as His creature.

Whatever forceful language is contained in the one lousy paragraph above comes mostly from Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, and even it contains no reference to the Fifth Commandment.

Moreover, if human life is “sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development,” then why do the conciliar revolutionaries support “brain death”/human organ vivisection and “hospice”/“palliative care” and why are their so sanguine in their support of statist pro-abortion politicians in the United States of America and everywhere else in the world.

To paraphrase the late John Newton Mitchell, who was President Richard Milhous Nixon’s Attorney General from January 21, 1969, to March 1, 1972, “Watch what the conciliar revolutionaries do, not what they say” because what they do is show their utter indifference to the plight of the innocent preborn by maintaining reprobates such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, Kathleen Hochul, Christopher Murphy, Philip Murphy, Andrew Mark Cuomo, Susan Collins, Michelle Lujan Grisham. Gavin Newsom, Richard Durbin, and countless other baptized Catholics in the United States of America and around the world, including French President Emanuel Macron in perfectly “good standing” within the corrupted structures of a corrupt religious sect.

Contrast the weasel words above with the words of our true popes:

"For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature." (translation by Reverend Brian Harrison, Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?)

There is no such talk in Dignitatis Infinita as Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his own “doctrinal” protégé, William “Cardinal” Levada, authorized the publication of the International Theological Commission’s  The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, which concluded that there is every "hope" that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. This study, which was one of those "non-binding" conciliar documents, you understand, gave "official" expression to Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's own view, which are in contradiction to the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church: 

Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of limbo, if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be."  (Joseph Ratzinger, as Quoted in Vittorio Messori's The Ratzinger Report.)

The words of Pope Pius XI about abortion also contrast sharply with the sole paragraph in Dignitatis Infinita dealing with the singularly most important moral issue in the world today: the direct, intentional killing of innocent human preborn babies:

But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother's womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic "indication." Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the "indication," which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: "Thou shalt not kill:" The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the "law of extreme necessity" which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: "Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife."

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it.

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

"States' righters" should take particular note of the last paragraph above: "Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven." In other words, it is not up to the "people" or to their "state governments" to do anything except to determine what kind of penalties will be imposed upon those who participate in the killing of the innocent preborn. This is, as noted about five weeks ago now, a matter of God's rights, not states' rights.

Pope Pius XII was equally unstinting in his direct language based not in “human dignity” but respect for and obedience to the law of God:

If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.

We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever its condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, pp. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, pp. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)

Every statement in the counterfeit church of conciliarism about authentic issues of moral theology (as opposed to ideological agenda items) features soft language replete with various “nuances” where there are no nuances to be found.

Then again, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church, and anyone who asserts that she can be the author of a false liturgy and false doctrines is doing, to put it very mildly, a grave disservice to her absolute and perpetual immunity from error and heresy.

We are to reverence, not disparage, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. Catholics must follow and obey the man they believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. Catholics are not free to fall into the heresy of Gallicanism in order to justify a theological relativism that makes the triumph of moral relativism inevitable.   

Pope Saint Leo the Great made this very point in homily that is included in the readings for Matins in the Divine Office for today, April 26, 2024 the Feast of Pope Saints Cletus and Marcellinus universally and the Feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel in some places:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Well, it is all there, isn’t it?

The Catholic Church is incapable of being touched by any kind of error, no less heresy, no, not even in her Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

We must continue to trust in Our Lady during this times when right is called wrong, the existence of objective truth, both supernatural and natural, is said to admit of uncertainty, and a putative “pope” can mouth one Modernist cliché after another with complete impunity as the “people” who are stepped in “evil” see him as the one who can “ratify” their lives of wanton sin and thus shut up anyone who would dare to tell them to reform their lives. Every Rosary we offer up as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary plants a few seeds for the restoration of the papacy and thus of the fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Let us remember also to invoke the Mother of God under her title of Our Lady of Good Counsel on this her feast day.

The image of Our Lady of Good Counsel with the Child Jesus appeared miraculously, accompanied by celestial music, on the Feast of Saint Mark, April 25, 1467, in the Church of Santa Maria in Genazaano, Italy, which had been entrusted to the Order of Saint Augustine one hundred eleven years before. Popes Urban VIII, Innocent XI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, and Leo XIII have had a great devotion to the miraculous image of Our Lady of Good Counsel. Pope Leo XIII inserted the title of Our Lady of Good Counsel into the Litany of Loreto before he died in 1903, and our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, even placed his entire pontificate under her protection. 

We are blessed to have a copy of the image of Our Lady of Good Counsel in our home. It was given to us by a Catholic woman at a Catholic Family News conference in Cleveland, Ohio, in 2004. What is even more remarkable who gave us that image was blind. However, she had the supernatural vision to see what many Catholics forget: that we need pray more to Our Lady of Good Counsel during these times of apostasy and betrayal. This image has had a prominent place wherever we have lived since then, and we pray every day for the repose of the soul of the good Catholic woman, ever accompanied by her selfless husband and her loyal seeing-eye dog, who enhanced our lives with the image of Our Lady of Good Counsel.

Our Lady of Good Counsel, we need a miracle now!

Restore a true pope to the Throne of Saint Peter!

Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, 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.

Popes Saint Cletus and Marcellinus, pray for us.