Jorge's Most Outrageous Interview to Date, part two

he spinning of Vatican spinmeister “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., is even more shameless than that of the spinmeisters who earn lucrative incomes by twisting the truth into in various shapes and sizes of pretzels for various elected officials and/or candidates in the organized crime families of naturalism. Lombardi is as shameless in his efforts to manipulate the truth as he is a sloppy “theologian.” He knows as little about Catholic Faith and Morals as the man for whom he works, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Mind you, “Father” Lombardi demonstrated his shamelessness and theological sloth when he was in the employ of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, from July 11, 2006, to the time the former conciliar “Petrine Minister’s” resignation became effective on Thursday, February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m., Rome time.

Among so many other examples that could be given, Lombardi even used the phrase “therapeutic abortion” to justify “Archbishop” Salvatore Rino Fisichella’s criticism in 2009 of a conciliar “bishop” of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho who had excommunicated the butchers who killed the twin babies of a nine year-old girl who been assaulted by a relative:

ROME, February 16, 2010 ( – Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV), has told the Associated Press that he has no intention of stepping down after five senior members of the Academy issued a statement last week expressing their loss of confidence in his leadership.

“I won’t respond to these people. Too much space already has been given to them,” Fisichella told AP.

Fisichella’s response follows comments late last week from Fr. Frederico Lombardi, the head of the Holy See Press Office and a subordinate of the cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who told media that the statement has not been received by either the pope or Bertone. Lombardi, who has gone on record supporting Fisichella, told the Catholic News Agency that issuing the statement to the press was an “astonishing” move.

The author of the statement, Luke Gormally, an Ordinary Member of the Academy and the former director of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics in London, told LSN that he did not intend to pursue the matter any further.

Gormally told LSN, “Certainly, for the immediate future I have no further action in mind.”

The five signatories to the statement say they believe that Archbishop Fisichella’s speech at the Academy’s plenary meeting made it clear that he does not grasp the meaning of the Catholic Church’s absolute prohibition on the killing of unborn children.

His speech, they said, “had the effect of confirming in the minds of many academicians the impression that we are being led by an ecclesiastic who does not understand what absolute respect for innocent human lives entails.” They called this an “absurd” situation.

Fisichella, they said, maintained that the article he wrote last year, which appeared to condone the abortion of the twin children of a nine-year-old rape victim in Brazil, had been “vindicated” by a clarification issued in July 2009 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Fisichella wrote in his article, published in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that the doctors who aborted the twins did not deserve excommunication and accused the pro-life local bishop of Recife, Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, of acting hastily and failing to meet the pastoral needs of the girl.

“There are others who merit excommunication and our pardon, not those who have allowed you to live and have helped you to regain hope and trust,” he wrote

These assertions were roundly refuted at the time by a statement from the Brazilian diocese detailing the assistance that the girl and her family had been receiving from the local priest and the diocese before she was spirited away by a pro-abortion group for the abortion. This response was never given space in either the secular press or in L’Osservatore Romano and no official response to it was ever publicly made by any office of the Vatican, although Bishop Cardoso was later honoured for his actions by the pro-life group Human Life International.

Gormally told LSN today that his statement had originally been meant only as his own response to LSN’s request for information on the outcome of the PAV plenary meeting, but that later other members expressed an interest in signing. The group later released it to other news outlets.

He said he is “content” with the situation as it is and said that the statement has achieved what it set out to do by clarifying for the public what he believes the true situation is with the Academy. The statement said that within the Vatican Curia, it is “widely perceived” that Fisichella is an “inappropriate” president of the Academy.

Gormally told AP that an article by Catholic News Service, in which Fisichella had declared that there was “harmony” at the PAV plenary meeting, had been a work of deliberate “disinformation.” The statement, he said, had corrected this situation.

On Friday, February 19, Vatican Spokesman Fr. Frederico Lombardi said the statement by the five PAV members “was received neither by the Holy Father, nor by the cardinal Secretary of State, who would seem to be the natural recipients,” nor, he said, had it been presented at the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, “which would have been the natural place to address the matter.”

“It’s a bit strange that persons who are members of an academy address a request of this kind without addressing it to the competent authorities. It’s astounding and seems incorrect that such a document should be given public circulation,” Lombardi said.

However, Fr. Lombardi himself has had a hand in the growth of the controversy surrounding the PAV and Archbishop Fisichella’s article.

On March 21 2009, just days after Fisichella’s article was published, Fr. Lombardi, while accompanying the pope on a visit to Africa, told media that in his speech to Angolan dignitaries Benedict XVI had in no way intended to condemn “therapeutic abortion.” In his speech, Pope Benedict had observed, “How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of maternal healthcare!”

Lombardi, aware of the growing scandal surrounding Fisichella’s statements, hastened to assure journalists that the comments had nothing to do with the Brazilian case, and openly endorsed Fisichella’s assertions.

He said, “In this regard the considerations of Archbishop Rino Fisichella apply, when he lamented in L’Osservatore Romano the hasty declaration of excommunication by the archbishop of Recife. No extreme case should obscure the true meaning of the remarks by the Holy Father, who was referring to something quite different … The Pope absolutely was not talking about therapeutic abortion, and did not say that this must always be rejected.”

Fr. Lombardi later declined LSN’s direct request for a clarification of his remarks. (Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics; see also So Long to the Fifth Commandment, the Statement of those "Pontifical Academy for Life" members who criticized Fisichella, Dr. Marian Therese Horvat's The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position, and Rotten To The Very Roots.

“Father” Federico Lombardi, who is leaving his position as the chief spinmeister for his fellow lay Jesuit revolutionary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, on March 1, 2016, has shown himself over and over and over again to be bereft of possessing even any rudimentary understanding of moral principles.

It is never permissible to directly intend to kill an innocent human being under any circumstances.

To elaborate on this for bit before turning to his spinning for “Pope Francis’s” most recent and most outrageous interview to date, it should be pointed out that “Pope Benedict XVI” did not contradict Salvatore Rino Fisichella seven years ago or the great moral theologian at the Press Office of the Holy See, “Father” Federico Lombardi.

Mind you, the killing of the nine year-old girl’s twin babies in 2009 was not a debatable interpretation of what constitutes the double-fold effect that justifies the undertaking of a particular course of action, morally licit in and of itself, that has foreseen but unintended evil consequences. This was not even a debate, for instance, over what constitutes truly extraordinary means to sustain human life. This was a matter moral black and moral white that wound up being obfuscated by illogic and sentimentality and emotional hand-wringing.

The fact that two officials of the conciliar Vatican could make it appear that it is ever morally licit to directly and equivocally attack an innocent human life in order to exculpate those who kill such life speaks to us yet today, seven years later, as proof that the men who masquerade as "Vatican officials" are apostates who have long defected on very clear matters of objectively morality just as much as they have defected from articles contained in the Deposit of Faith. As is patently evident by now, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has given full rein to those who base courses of moral conduct on the casuistry of sentimentality and pure emotionalism, not according to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not weigh in publicly at the time of “Bishop” Jose Cardoso Sobrinho’s excommunication of all those involved in killing those twin babies seven years, he has, though, shown every confidence in Salvatore Rino Fisichella and Federico Lombardi even as the ladder, who turns seventy-four years of age this year, goes off to the sunset into his lay Jesuit retirement. This is because, despite his occasional gratuitous denunciations of the surgical killing of the innocent preborn, he does not think that much can or even should be done about it in the practical order of things.

To wit, Bergoglio tasked none other than Salvatore Rino Fisichella with the duty of sending out “missionary” presbyters to forgive women of the crime of killing their babies, making it very clear that he has the exact same attitude about the surgical execution of innocent preborn children as does the President of the United States of America, the nefarious statist and globalist named Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro:

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence. (Jorge to Rino: Yo, Time to Blow Some More Smoke in the Faces of the Gullible.)

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable.

He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature. (Text of Obama/Soetoro Speech at the University of Notre Dame du Lac.)

Please note the subjectivist nature of the false “pontiff’s” remarks, a clear indicator that he believes that he does not believe that the killing of an innocent preborn baby differs to any significant extent at all from a child’s using “the dog ate my homework” excuse with his teacher. In other words, the killing of a preborn baby is really no “big deal” in Jorge’s warped view as a woman has a supposedly “existential” decision to make, thus making a “choice” to “terminate her pregnancy” entirely excusable. To speak of the acceptance of baby-killing in terms of a "changed relationship with respect to life" reveals that, despite the times that he calls abortion a crime, he cannot bring himself to use the language of the Catholic Church (one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, a direct violation of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and of the Natural Law, a Mortal Sin in the objective order of things, etc.) to speak of the carnage of the innocent preborn nor to assign blame to anyone in particular for this carnage.

Although Bergoglio was not wrong in saying that many women have killed their babies surgically as a result of pressure being placed upon them by the fathers of their children and/or their own parents and friends, to say nothing of the butchers at facilities such as Planned Barrenhood and of obstetricians and gynecologists who love to strike fear into the hearts of older women about the "dangers" to themeslves and their preborn child if they do not kill the baby, the false "pope" did not name the source of this pressure, thus leaving open for the consideration of other "pressures" (such as the necessity of holding onto a particular job, pursuing one's studies, facing economic poverty, the possibility of a child to be born with one or more birth defects) as making a woman's "decision" more difficult to the extent that they experience what he describes as an "existential and moral ordeal." Obama/Soetoro referred to a "heart-rending decision."

Without for a moment minimizing the scars of women who have had their babies killed by surgical executioners, the fact remains that there is no "decision" to be made, only a child to be welcomed and love unto his eternal salvation. A woman must be instructed in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance that she must be sorry not only for the act of child-killing but must repent of the act of fornication that led to the conception of the child she paid to have murdered if she is in the state or to repent for the act of adultery in the case of a married woman. Moreover, married women who have killed their children because of pressure from husbands and/or the various ecomonic considerations must be counseled to welcome as many or as few children as God wills for them to have without seeking to frustrate the natural process of the transmission of life. Then again, the counterfeit church of concilairism has inverted the ends of marriage, making it "understandable" to the likes of Bergoglio that a married woman might have to "agonize" over accepting the child given her by God.

It is no accident that the figure of Antichrist in the White House who supports unrestricted baby-killing and the figure of Antichrist in the Casa Santa Marta within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River who says tht he is opposed such killing speak of the crime of willful murder with such great "understanding" of the "difficulties" involved. Most, although far from all, of those "difficulties," however, are entirely self-made, stemming from an unwillingess to keep oneself from the near occasion of sin and a casual embrace of contraception as that which is normal, natural and completely morally acceptable.

To write as "Pope Francis" did to Salvatore Rino Fisichella makes it appear as though there are circumstances in which a woman may be convinced that it is "necessary" for her to kill her preborn child and that she can do so with the certain knowledge of absolution in the conciliar church's "Sacrament of Reconciliation" no matter her rationale for having done so. A good confessor must make the necessary distinctions in each circumstance is presented before him, and if he cannot administer absolution if it is his judgment that the pentinent is not comittted to amend her life after having killed the fruit of her womb. Will she give up her sins of fornication if she is single or, if giving, give up her adultery?

These are not heartless or insensitive questions. As the late Father John Joseph Sullivan instructed his students at Holy Apostles Seminary when I was his student there, priests do not beat up penitents in the confession. At the same time, however, they have the obligation to ask prudent questions in a fatherly manner that bear on the circumstances of a sin if they judge such questions necessary. Bergoglio, though, is making it appear as though there can never be a circumstance in which a woman who has killed her child can be denied absolution (not that it is available from a conciliar presbyter, of course) in the “Sacrament of Reconciliation.” Sadly, there are such circumstances if a priest judges that there is not true contrition and a firm purpose on the part of the penitent to amend his life. Bergoglio is making it appear that the retention of sins in the case of abortion would not be “merciful.”

Thus, my very good and most patient few readers, it is that the answer that Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave on a week ago today, Wednesday, February 17 2017, concerning the use of contraceptives to prevent the spread of the Zika virus and, it is said, to avoid the conception of babies with deformities that the “medical experts” want us to believe is caused by a virus about whose source is mysteriously unknown is simply part of a well-established pattern of doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral wreckage:

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on. (The Most Outrageous Bergoglio Interview.)

Although “Pope Francis” called abortion a “crime,” it is one that he believes does not make anyone involved in its commission, funding or political support a moral or legal criminal. If he truly believed that abortion is a crime before God, he would say so before the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., the pro-abortion members of the Congress of the United States of America, the various pro-abortion moochers who live high on the hog off the taxpayer subsidies of the United States of America at the United Nations (and their counterpart moochers who live off the subsidies of Europeans at the European Union), City of New York, New York Mayor Warren Wilhem/“Bill de Blasio,” and, among others, State of New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo.

Ah, Bergoglio goes out of his way to praise pro-abortion politicians for their “open borders” policies and for their embrace of all manner of draconian measures to “save the planet” from “global warming.” He even went so far as call the late Governor of the State of New York Mario Matthew Cuomo a “great man” when greeting his son the aforementioned Andrew Mark Cuomo, and his concubine, Sandra Lee, at the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, on Thursday evening, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom:

Pope Francis’ warm and forgiving nature was on display again Thursday when he said he would pray for Gov. Cuomo’s late father, Mario, sources told The Post.

The pontiff told Cuomo that Mario — who himself led New York state from 1983 to 1994 — was a great man despite Mario’s support of abortion rights.

Francis also blessed the governor’s gal pal, Sandra Lee — a cancer survivor — when the couple met the pontiff outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral before a service.

“The pope gave Sandra a special blessing for her health and her recovery and Cuomo asked the pope to say a prayer for his ­father,” the source said.

“The pope told him . . . that his father was a great man and he would keep him in his prayers.” (Jorge "blesses" Andrew Cuomo's Live-in Girlfriend and Praises Mario Cuomo.)

A supposed “pope” gave a “blessing” to a woman who is living in sin with the divorced, pro-abortion, pro-perversity Governor of the State of New York, Andrew Mark Cuomo, while praising Figlio di Sfachim’s father, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo (see  It Is Still A Terrible Thing to Fall into the Hands of the Living God).

Support the killing of babies as a “legal right” of women to “choose”?

No problem with Jorge as long as you are for “social justice” and oppose the death penalty, both in theory and in practice.

Gee, I guess I really wasted my time back in 1986 when I thought I was doing my duty as a Catholic to speak against Cuomo the Elder when I ran for lieutenant governor on the New York State Right to Life Party ticket with the longtime District Attorney of Nassau County, New York, the late Denis E. Dillon, as I was seeking to displace a "great man" whose support of evil I denounced with regularity in my teaching of college courses in American national governemnt and state and local government (as well as in courses on political theory, political philosophy, constitutional law, and political parties and elections).

Everything goes in Jorge’s false church, including all concept of authentic justice for the innocent preborn.

Bergoglio made a “quiet” show of support for the Little Sisters of the Poor in Washington, District of Columbia earlier that same day, Thursday, September 24, 2015, but he had no qualms about publicly calling Mario Cuomo a “great man.” What a fake, phony, fraud of a statist, relativist, revolutionary hypocrite of a Modernist.

As is ever the case with Bergoglio, the situation is even worse than his calling Mario Matthew Cuomo a “great man” and his refusal to denounce “Andy” Cuomo or “Bill de Blasio” or Obama/Soetoro or French President Francois Hollande or any other pro-abortion politician for their support of baby-killing and the agenda of the homosexual collective. This wretched little apostate from Argentina, who will turn eighty years of age in ten months, has actually praised a woman who killed babies for a living!

He also named former foreign minister Emma Bonino, ex-Italian president Giorgio Napolitano, and Lampedusa Mayor Giusi Nicolini as the country's "forgotten greats" for their selfless dedication to building bridges with Africa, to serving Italy, and to upholding the rights of refugees. (See Jorge Praises Feminist Pro-Abortion Radical Emma Bonino as one of Italy’s “Great Ones”.)

ROME, May 1, 2013 ( – Armed with a home-made abortion device, operated by a bicycle pump, Emma Bonino, Italy’s newly appointed Foreign Minister, started her career in the early 1970s as an illegal abortionist and radical feminist.

Emma Bonino, a member of the Italian Radical party, made her mark in Italian politics by founding the Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion (CISA) in 1975, which advanced the campaign to legalise abortion in 1978. Bonino has boasted that she and her group committed 10,141 illegal abortions. However, she avoided prosecution for the illegal abortions by being elected to public office, thereby gaining parliamentary immunity.

Today, as a leading member of Italy’s new cabinet, she is in a position to champion the pro-abortion and anti-family doctrines of the Italian Radical Party on a transnational level.


Monsignore Ignacio Barreiro, the director of the Rome office of Human Life International, told the appointment is deeply concerning. “Some cabinet positions are token, but not the Foreign Minister,” he said.

In that position Bonino, a strong supporter of the “European Project” of a federalist European superstate, will have inordinate influence at the European and international level. “More than one diplomat is dismayed at having Bonino as their boss,” Barreiro added. 

When the dust settled on Italy’s chaotic general election in February, the nation found itself with no government and a hung parliament. The crisis was not resolved until last week when Enrico Letta was confirmed as President of the Council of Ministers of Italy. His 22-member cabinet was sworn in on April 28th.

After her unsuccessful bid in 2010 for the governorship of Lazio, the region of the Roman capital, Bonino resurfaced in February this year, running for President of the Republic, supported by then-Prime Minister Mario Monti. After the re-election of Giorgio Napolitiano as head of state, many Italians were surprised to see her appointment as Foreign Minister. 

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Critics on the right have been perplexed by Bonino’s inclusion in the cabinet and in such a prominent post, saying that her inclusion is mark of “inconsistency” in the present government. 

Bonino’s appointment, Barreiro said, is “a problem of coherence”. “If you look at the coalition that has voted to put her in, it’s made of Catholics,” he said. 

A member of the International Bilderberg Group and a protégé of billionaire internationalist George Soros, Bonino was a Member of the European Parliament and of the Italian Senate, and served as Minister of International Trade from 2006 to 2008. She served on the executive committee of the International Crisis Group that created the International Criminal Court.

During her time as a Deputy, Bonino campaigned for loosening of divorce laws, and the legalization of abortion and drugs. As a leading anti-clericalist, she has been a fervent adversary of the influence of the Catholic Church in Italian politics.

The Italian Radical Party, to which Bonino belongs, has been a fixture on the extreme left of Italian politics since its founding in 1970s. Described as “libertarian” in the American model on economic issues, its social policies include support for abortion, same-sex “marriage,” legal euthanasia, artificial insemination, embryonic stem cell research, abolition of capital punishment and the legalization of “soft drugs.” 

Msgr. Barreiro, a lawyer and former diplomat at the UN, noted that many in Italy have questioned the huge influence of the Radicals on politicians of other parties. 

“The Radicals have an enormous influence but with very few votes. They have an undue ability to put pressure on other politicians that is totally disproportionate to their numbers,” he said.

Bonino’s past as an abortionist has not failed to keep up with her. An editorial in responded to her bid for the presidency in early April with, “A woman who has trampled all moral and juridical law, including the suppression of more than 10,000 lives, can fill the role of the highest office of the Italian State? This question is a must in the days of the end of the mandate of [President] Napolitano.”

(Bonino is an abortion worshipper and has admitted to conducting 10,141 abortions! Both links found on the most recent Novus Ordo Watch Wire Digest.)

That is quite an impressive pro-abortion resume, and one that can lead this poor woman to one place only if she does not repent before she dies: eternal damnation. Bergoglio may praise such a killer because of her alleged work with refugees, but such praise will damn them both to hell for all eternity as he, believing himself to be the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth, has a duty to condemn her baby-killing, the debt of which she owes God, of course, is not canceled out by any good she may have done for "humanitarian" reasons.

Once again, contrast Bergoglio's words of praise for pro-abortion politicians for their alleged "good works" of statism and open borders with how Pope Pius XI described such individuals in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

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.)

Even the thought of using such language is foreign to the "merciful" mind of the wicked Modernist from Argentina.

Moreover, as noted earlier, Bergoglio uses all manner of naturalistic language (throwing away one to save another) without making any advertence at all to the Fifth Commandment. Everything is couched in terms of subjectivism, not objective truth, because he bases his moral theology, such as it is, on the very relativism condemned by Pope Pius XII when he spoke to the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus in 1957:

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

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

It is with this mind, my very, very patient readers, that one must read Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s subjectivism and relativism that he used to justify the use of “contraceptives” to “avoid pregnancy” because of the alleged dangers of the mysterious Zika virus, which he terms a “lesser evil” than, it must be presumed, the conception of a child with deformities that are linked by “medical experts” to the Zika virus even though they are unsure whether this is in fact the case. The Zika virus whatever it is and wherever it came from, is being used as a pretext to justify both the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn.

This having been noted, the great “moral theologian” from Argentina, the man who is believed by most people in the world to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, has contended that is a “lesser evil” to use contraception when there is a possibility that a child could be conceived with a deformity.


The use of contraception at any time for any reason is evil no matter any “permission” that was given by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick for consecrated religious sisters serving in Africa to take the “pill” as a prophylactic in the event they were subjected to an assault upon their bodily integrity.

Although the premise of Montini/Paul VI’s having given “permission” for the use of contraceptives is without documented proof,  I, for one, had heard about it in the 1980s and then again in the 1990s from several conciliar presbyters, who may have been circulating an “urban legend. Urban legend or not, though, the fact remains that it is evil to use contraceptives at any times to “avoid pregnancy.”

As a naturalist whose views on matters of Faith and Morals are shaped by affective sentimentality, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that it is not possible for a married couple (or for fornicators, adulterers, bigamists, sodomites) to refrain from acting upon their carnal desires. He has no concern for the eternal good of souls, only a concern for the temporal welfare of human bodies at a time of an alleged health “crsis,” thereby inverting the following plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself:

[28] And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 28.)

Given his patent disregard for unmarried men and women (and/or for any combination of an unmarried man with a civilly divorced woman or a civilly divorced man with a civilly divorced woman) engaging in that which is proper to the married state alone, it is also clear that the Argentine Apostate does not believe the following words of Saint Paul the Apostle that were written under the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

[1] Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; [2] And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. [3] But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: [4] Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. [5] For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5: 1-5.)

Bergoglio does not believe that fornicators or adulterrs or bigamists or sodomites are at risk of eternal damnation. All that matters is "love" and "mercy," not "rules" that cannot be used in today's world where so many people are said to live on "the existential peripheries." The only people at risk of damnation, Beroglio believes, are those who fulfill a Spiritual Work of Mercy by admonishing the sinner, which this warped man believes is itself a sin!

The truth is, obviously, that every act of conjugal intimacy, which is used licitly only by a man and a woman in a sacramentally valid marriage, must be left open to the transmission of new life according to the will of God. Even if a married couple, acting upon pastoral advice, is deemed to have a genuine circumstance that requires them to refrain from such intimacy during a woman’s monthly infertile period according to the strict conditions laid down by Pope Pius XII in his Address to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951, this is a passive avoidance of pregnancy, not one that involves the deliberate frustration of the first end of marriage and thus a denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage.

Alas, Bergoglio’s entire false premise is based his acceptance of the personalist view of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that was advanced by Herbert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand in the 1940s and that was “baptized” by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, which overturned the ends of marriage in favor what is called the “unitive end” (the good of the spouses) over the true primary end of marriage, the procreation and education of children.

The Personalism endorsed by Montini/Paul the Sick in Humanae Vitae led directly to the undermining of marriage as it is premised first of all on spouses and not on the honor and glory of God by bringing forth as many (or as few) children as He chooses them to have, and it was, as noted just above, condemned by Pope Pius XII in a decree issued by the Holy Office on April 1, 1944:

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius XII amplified this condemnation when he delivered his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, October 29, 1951:

"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.

Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.

According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.

Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".

That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.

Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".

Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

This was a ringing condemnation of the very philosophical and theological foundations of the indiscriminate, institutionalized teaching and practice of "natural family planning" in the lives of Catholic married couples. It is also yet another papal condemnation of conciliarism's view of marriage.

One cannot overemphasize the importance of Pope Pius XII's condemnation of the very personalist ideology that is at the root of what is called today "natural family planning" as it came just a little over seven years and one-half years after the Holy Office's condemnation of the work, which was identical to that of Dietrich von Hildebrand's, of Father Herbert Doms, who had inverted the end of marriage. The condemnation of Father Doms' work was alluded to in a passage from the October 29, 1951, address just cited above. Here it is once again for the sake of emphasis:

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Yes, the very document that some "conservative" commenators who are lambasting the man they believe to be "Pope Francis" for his exhoration in behalf of the use of contracpetives as a "lesser evil" than the spreading of a disease or the possiblity of the conception of a deformed child, Humanae Viate, was and remains a revolutionary document that formally overthrew the primary end of marriage—the propagation and education of children—in favor of the personalism of Hebert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944 and again in 1951. Montini did this in order to justify what he called was "responsible parenthood" and the use of what became known as "natural family planning" to limit the size of families in response to an alleged "population crisis." (For a full explication of the revolutoinary nature of Humanae Vitae and natural family planning, see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)

Montini/Paul the Sick, on the other hand,  prefaced Humanae Vitae's expanded conditions for the use of a woman's infertile periods as the basis of avoiding the conception of children upon with yet another reference to the myth of overpopulation:

1. The most serious duty of transmitting human life, for which married persons are the free and responsible collaborators of God the Creator, has always been a source of great joys to them, even if sometimes accompanied by not a few difficulties and by distress.

At all times the fulfillment of this duty has posed grave problems to the conscience of married persons, but, with the recent evolution of society, changes have taken place that give rise to new questions which the Church could not ignore, having to do with a matter which so closely touches upon the life and happiness of men.

2. The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kinds. In the first place, there is the rapid demographic development. Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources, with growing distress to many families and developing countries, so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great. Moreover, working and lodging conditions, as well as increased exigencies both in the economic field and in that of education, often make the proper education of a larger number of children difficult today. A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society, and in the value to be attributed to conjugal love in marriage, and also in the appreciation to be made of the meaning of conjugal acts in relation to that love.

Finally and above all, man has made stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature, such that he tends to extend this domination to his own total being: to the body, to psychical life, to social life and even to the laws which regulate the transmission of life.

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today, and granted the meaning which conjugal relations have with respect to the harmony between husband and wife and to their mutual fidelity, would not a revision of the ethical norms, in force up to now, seem to be advisable, especially when it is considered that they cannot be observed without sacrifices, sometimes heroic sacrifices?

And again: by extending to this field the application of the so-called "principle of totality," could it not be admitted that the intention of a less abundant but more rationalized fecundity might transform a materially sterilizing intervention into a licit and wise control of birth? Could it not be admitted, that is, that the finality of procreation pertains to the ensemble of conjugal life, rather than to its single acts? It is also asked whether, in view of the increased sense of responsibility of modern man, the moment has not come for him to entrust to his reason and his will, rather than to the biological rhythms of his organism, the task of regulating birth.

4. Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968.)

It is upon these false premises that the hideous friend of the lavender collective handed so many Catholic couples over to the devil so that they could immersed in considerations of physicality that have never had any place in Catholic teaching. Although Montini/Paul VI re-stated the immutable teaching of the Church concerning the begetting of children, this was part of the "bait and switch" game as he used his own text to place what he called the "unitive" end before that of procreation:

And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents."8

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.

In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968.)

Who had been calling for "responsible parenthood" for five decades prior to her death on September 6, 1966?

The nymphomaniac, racist and eugenicist named Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League that became known as Planned Parenthood, that's who. Her followers continue to champion this shopworn slogan that found its way into the text of an alleged "papal" encyclical letter. Montini/Paul VI's acceptance of "responsible parenthood" slogan of Margaret Sanger and her diabolical minions, coupled with the inversion of the ends of marriage propagated by Dietrich von Hildebrand, constitutes a revolution against the ends of marriage that have "baptized," if you will, a supposedly "natural" form of contraception that is to be used as a matter of routine, not in truly extraordinary cases, where is it only lawful, that is, permissible, and never mandated.

The inclusion of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children by the use of "knowing" the physicality of a woman's body has been interpreted rather broadly, shall we say. In plain English: the use of "psychological" reasons to abstain from the conception of children has been used to reaffirm the "consciences" of those who are "not ready" for children. This is no different whatsoever than those who have chosen the use of artificial means to prevent the conception of children because they are "not ready" to have them. They have careers. They have poor finances. They have elderly parents for whom to care. They have "plans." They have to get through school. And on and on on. Everybody's got a "serious reason." These are nothing other than excuses and rationalizations that consider marriage in purely naturalistic and materialistic, if not utilitarian, terms without any true love of God and thus of trust that He will send married couples all of the supernatural and temporal helps that they need to provide for the children that God sees fit to send them.

The "teaching" that led to what is called today as "natural family planning" is not to be found in Pope Pius XII's October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession. It is to be found in Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, devoted to the "responsible parenthood" slogan of Planned Parenthood and the United Nations and environmental groups.

Truly responsible Catholic parenthood is founded in a love for God's Holy Will and by training however many or few children in the truths of the Catholic Faith, which require parents to eschew worldliness and to arm them with the supernatural and natural means to live in a "popular culture" devoted to the glorification of the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused those Seven Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is, sin. That's truly responsible Catholic parenthood. Not that which is represented by "Paul the Sick" and Humanae Vitae.

As one who does not believe that is either possible or desirable for men and women to refrain from acting on their passions, Bergoglio’s answer about the use of contraceptives calls to mind Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s belief, expressed in an interview with German journalist Peter Seewald that was published as a book at the end of 2010, that men engaged in the selling of their bodies could licitly use a certain type of prophylactic in order to avoid spreading the HIV/AIDS disease, a belief that showed the supposed “restorer of tradition” to be just as much a naturalist as his successor from Argentina.

What I wrote at the time in November of 2010 applies to Bergoglio’s answer of a week ago—and to “Father” Federico Lombardi’s attempt to justify it that will be discussed below:

Leaving aside Ratzinger/Benedict's comments on other matters mentioned in the news story above until I am in physical possession of the new book and have read its contents, which include the "pope's" statement that he is not opposed "in principle" to the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand (see Benedict 'does not object' to Communion in the hand), I want to restrict myself in this brief commentary to an assessment of the proposition that there can be a "moralization" of the use of the prophylactic by men who sell their bodies to commit sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Some defenders of all things Benedict might want to do attempt to justify this absurd effort to "moralize" the use of the prophylactic in the commission of an inherently heinously evil action by making advertence to the principle of the double-fold effect, which teaches us that it is moral to pursue a just end even if one can foresee evil but unintended consequences attendant to it.

The typical example that was used in moral theology classes was the case of an expectant mother with uterine cancer whose uterus had to be removed. This is a morally justified action. Attendant to this morally justified action, however, would be the death of the preborn child, a foreseen but unintended evil consequence that occurs as a result of the removal of his mother's womb. Although this example has been mooted by advances in medical technology that can keep an expectant mother suffering from cancer alive without such a surgical intervention until her preborn baby has reached the stage of viability outside of the womb and can be kept alive in an incubator thereafter, it nevertheless demonstrates that a morally licit action may be undertaken even though there might be evil but unintended consequences that occur as a result.

Another example involves the prosecution of a just war.

Even a just war carries with it a risk of civilian casualties as a result of misdirected attacks or bombings. Civilians and civilian population centers may never be targeted deliberately in warfare. It may happen, however, that civilians will die as a result of accidents or mistakes, instances whose occurrence must be limited as far as is humanly possible and which decision-makers have a positive moral obligation before engaging in hostilities to determine if their occurrence would be frequent enough so as to render the prosecution of a just war immoral by the weight of the preponderance of foreseen but unintended evil consequences. This determination is made in accordance with the Catholic moral principle of Proportionality, which teaches us that a morally licit act may be rendered immoral to pursue if its accompanied by that preponderance of foreseen but unintended evil consequences that wind up worsening an already inflamed situation (hardening of hearts, dislocation of families, economic distress, incalculable damage to the infrastructure of a nation, the widening of hostilities).

In the case proposed by Ratzinger/Benedict, however, the principle of the double-fold effect does not apply as the action that the false "pontiff" seeks to "protect" from its natural physical consequences is inherently evil.

Furthermore, the contention that the use of the prophylactic in question will protect a sinner from the evil consequences of his inherently evil actions is contradicted by medical science and is thus specious on its very face.

Ratzinger/Benedict has fallen, perhaps entirely unintentionally as a result of the imprecision of his apostate mind and his utter lack of horror of the sense of personal sin, has fallen into the condemned moral proposition of Proportionalism, which was advanced by the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J., that contends a morally illicit action can be rendered morally licit to pursue if there is a preponderance of mitigating circumstances (e.g., the "burden" of an unwed women bringing her preborn child to life, the "necessity" to use contraceptive pills and devices, the "utility" of telling a deliberate lie to extricate one from various troubles). Ratzinger/Benedict seems--and it is his lack of precision that is creating such so much confusion and consternation at this time--to be saying that the goal of "preventing" the spread of a certain disease that is contracted principally as a result of the commission of perverse sins against nature can justify the use of the prophylactic in question as “good” though the action itself is illicit.


The illogic of Ratzinger/Benedict's position can be demonstrated further by a simple exercise in noting the fact that the rationale that he uses to make the case for the "moralization" of the use of the prophylactic can be applied beyond men who sell themselves to commit perverse sins against nature. If such "professional men," shall we say, can use the prophylactic, then why cannot all men who are engaged in the commission of the sin of Sodom do so as they are not using it for "contraceptive" purposes any more than those sinners who get paid for committing their sins? Readers of this little-read site (which has fallen rather dramatically in the Alexa rankings in recent weeks) will find out in short order that the members of the lavender brigade and the "rainbow" sash coalition will be asking this exact question, and they will have many a "Catholic" theologian and "priest" backing them up as they do so.

Once again, of course, we are face to face with the utter illogic of minds that have fallen far, far, far from the Catholic Faith. Ratzinger/Benedict is incapable, it appears, of realizing that he has opened the floodgates to the promotion of the sin of Sodom just as surely as Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick did when he appointed the commission to determine whether the "birth control pill" operated in such a manner upon a woman's body as to be morally unobjectionable, thereby raising the hopes of those Catholics who desired a "change" in this immutable teaching of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Ratzinger/Benedict's answer to Peter Seewald will cause an unmitigated moral disaster for souls. It will also cause great divisions in the families of "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics who are still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are dealing with relatives and friends who are addicted to the commission of these perverse sins against nature.

"Father" Federico Lombardi has attempted to do "damage control" on this matter as follows: 

At the end of Chapter 10 (Chapter 11 in the English edition) in the book, “Light of the World,” the pope responds to two questions about the struggle against AIDS and the use of the condom, questions that refer back to the discussion that followed the pope’s comments on this topic during his trip to Africa in 2009.

The pope underlines clearly that, at that time, he did not want to express a position on the problem of condoms in general, but he wanted to affirm strongly that the problem of AIDS cannot be resolved solely with the distribution of condoms, because much more must be done: prevention, education, assistance, counsel, being close to people, both so that they do not become sick, and also in cases where they are sick.

The pope observes that even in non-church circles a comparable awareness has developed, as is seen in the so-called ABC theory (Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are much more decisive and fundamental in the struggle against AIDS, while the condom appears as a last resort when the other two are lacking. It should therefore be clear that the condom is not the solution to the problem.

The pope then takes a wider view and insists on the fact that concentrating only on the condom signifies the “banalization” of sexuality, which loses its meaning as the expression of love between persons and becomes like a “drug.” To fight against the banalization of sexuality is “part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.”

In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that the church “of course does not regard (condoms) as a real or moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

In saying this, the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by putting it in the context of the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

At the same time, the pope takes into consideration an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality may represent a real risk to the life of another person. In such a case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but maintains that the use of the condom to diminish the danger of infection may be “a first assumption of responsibility”, “a first step in a movement toward a … more human sexuality”, as opposed to not using the condom and exposing the other person to a fatal risk.

In this statement, the pope’s reasoning certainly cannot be defined as a revolutionary shift.

Numerous moral theologians and authoritative ecclesiastical figures have maintained and still maintain similar positions; however, it is true that until now we had not heard them expressed with such clarity from the mouth of a pope, even if it is in a colloquial, and not magisterial, form.

Benedict XVI therefore courageously gives us an important contribution that clarifies and deepens a long-debated question. It is an original contribution, because on one hand it maintains fidelity to moral principles and demonstrates lucidity in refusing an illusory path like “faith in condoms”; on the other hand, however, it shows a sympathetic and far-sighted vision, attentive to discovering small steps — even if they are only initial and still confused — of a humanity that is often spiritually and culturally impoverished, toward a more human and responsible exercise of sexuality. (Text of Vatican "Clarification")  

Spinmeisters such as Josh Earnest have nothing on Federico Lombardi when it comes to attempting to make something so obviously wrong appear correct. This was a clarification? Lucidity? Saying that something is so does not not make it so. Federico Lombardi's "clarification" is nothing other than an exercise in pure positivism, that is, asserting that something is so because it has been asserted as being so.

Undaunted and without any sense of shame, Lombardi provided the following statement about his current boss’s justification of the use of contraceptives by using the same kind of false argumentation that he used in the case of “Bishop” Jose Cardoso Sobrinho in 2009 and as he used with Ratzinger/Benedict in 2010:

ROME, February 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has affirmed that the Holy Father was indeed speaking of “condoms and contraceptives” when on the flight back from Mexico, Pope Francis said couples could rightly “avoid pregnancy” in the wake of the Zika virus scare.

Fr. Lombardi told Vatican Radio today, “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”

According to Lombardi, the pope spoke of “the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations. He is not saying that this possibility is accepted without discernment, indeed, he said clearly that it can be considered in cases of special urgency.”

Lombardi reiterated the example that Pope Francis made of Pope Paul VI’s supposed “authorization of the use of the pill for the religious who were at very serious risk” of rape.  This, said Lombardi, “makes us understand that it is not that it was a normal situation in which this was taken into account.”

On the plane Thursday, the pope was asked by one reporter whether the Church can “take into consideration the concept of ‘the lesser of two evils?’” when it comes to the question of preventing pregnancy to avoid transmission of the virus.

The pope opened his answer by categorically condemning abortion as a solution to the Zika virus, but on the question of avoiding pregnancy, he added: “We are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment.”

"The great Paul VI in a difficult situation in Africa permitted sisters to use contraception for cases of rape,” he told reporters.

"Avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil," the pope added. "In certain cases, as in this one, such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”

The pope’s answer, in particular the apparent parallel he drew between the case of the nuns’ use of contraception and the case of the Zika virus, has widely led to the interpretation that the pope was approving the use of contraception in some cases.

(Find a full transcript of the pope’s remarks on the plane here.)

In his famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI reiterated the Church’s long-standing and definitive teaching that artificial contraception is "intrinsically wrong," namely that it is always and in every instance evil, because it contradicts the procreative purpose of sex. 

Some moral theologians have said that non-abortifacient contraceptives could be used in cases of rape as a means of self-defense against an aggressor. This distinction would not apply in the case of voluntary intercourse between couples concerned about Zika.

In addition to referencing the Congo nuns, Lombardi pointed today to Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on condoms in his 2010 book-length interview The Light of the World. Therein, Lombardi said, Benedict “spoke about the use of condoms in the case of risk of contagion by AIDS.”

In the book, Pope Benedict told journalist Peter Seewald that in some cases, such as that of a male prostitute, the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” Pope Benedict followed the comments by saying that the Church “does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith corrected mainstream media misinterpretations of those statements that falsely presented them as justifying contraception.  In its statement, the CDF said, “A number of erroneous interpretations have emerged” that have “caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality.”

“The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought,” the statement added.

The CDF statement also dismissed the suggestion that the use of a condom by HIV-infected prostitutes could constitute a “lesser evil.” This interpretation, it says, is erroneous since, “An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.”

The CDF summarized the intention of the pope’s comments: “The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another – even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity.” (Vatican Affirms Jorge Was Speaking About Contraceptives for Zika.)

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: none other than Montini/Paul the Sick and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI paved the way for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to speak as he did a week ago, and he full well intends to use the “discernment option” as the means to give “official” sanction to the long-ignored advice that many priests and presbyters within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been using for the past fifty years as they have told married men and women to “use their consciences” to make an “informed decision” about using contraceptives of one sort or another.

Contrary to all of this, though, are the following words of Pope Pius XI as contained in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, that reiterated the absolute prohibition against all forms of contraceptives at all times for any reasons whatsoever:

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

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

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

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

Would anyone want to argue that the propaganda in favor of some type of "family planning" has abated in the past eighty-five years?

Of course not.

We know that even young traditionally-minded Catholics are influenced by this propaganda, believing that it is "impossible" for them to have a large family, sometimes counseled to believe that they should be "informed" about the natural means by which they could avoid conceiving a child so that they do not have a temptation to use artificial contraception, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply following the example of his fellow revolutionaries, especially Montini/Paul VI and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in charting a path to throwing out anything that remains of true moral reasoning within the structures of a false church whose false doctrines and sacrilegious and sacramentally barren liturgical rites have devastated souls and thus contributed to the worsening of the state of social problems worldwide. As go souls, you see, so goes the world, and the world is a mess because of the sad state of so many souls, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who are steeped in all manner of errors and personal sins at a time when supposed “popes” have called none of them to correction and conversion.

The concluding part of this series, which will not appear until Friday of the Second Week of Lent, February 26, 2016, will wrap up this commentary on Bergoglio’s interview of a week ago while explaining that nothing of what we are witnessing now is anything other than what the old Modernist from South America has always believed.

We must strive, therefore, in this Holy Season of Lent to quit even our attachment to Venial Sins and to our worldliness as the pleasures of Heaven await us if we preserve to the end in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s true Church, the Catholic Church, she who is His spotless, virginal, mystical spouse who is incapable of giving us any kind of error or heresy.

Our Lord, knowing that we are but weak vessels of clay, desired to teach us by means of His Transfiguration atop Mount Thabor of the glories that await us that were given, if only fleetingly, to Saints Peter, James and John as a means of aiding them to understand that the scandal of the Cross would be followed by His own Easter triumph over the power of sin and death, something that Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in his reflection on Remniscere Sunday, which was three days ago, that is, on Sunday, February 21, 2016:

The subject offered to our consideration, on this second Lent, is one of the utmost importance for the holy season. The Church applies to us the lesson which our Saviour gave to three of His apostles. Let us endeavour to be more attentive to it than they were.

Jesus was about to pass from Galilee into Judea, that He might go up to Jerusalem to be present at the feast of the Pasch. It was that last Pasch, which was to begin with the immolation of the figurative lamb, and end with the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. Jess would have His disciple to know Him. His works had borne testimony to Him, even before those who were, in a manner, strangers to Him; but as for His disciples, had they not every reason to be faithful to Him, even to death? Had they not listened to His words, which had such power with them that that they forced conviction? Had they not experienced His love, which it was impossible to resist? And had they not seen how patiently He had borne with their strange and untoward ways? Yes, they must have known Him. They had heard one of their company, Peter, declare that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Notwithstanding this, the trial to which their faith was soon to be put was of such a terrible kind, that Jesus would mercifully arm them against temptation by an extraordinary grace.

The cross was to be a scandal and a stumbling block to the Synagogue, and alas ! to more than it. Jesus said to His disciples at the Last Supper: ‘All of you shall be scandalized in Me this night.’ Carnal-minded as they were, what would they think when they should see hi seized by armed men, handcuffed, hurried from one tribunal to another, and doing nothing to defend Himself! And when they found that the high priest and the pharisees, who had hitherto been so often foiled by the wisdom and the miarcles of Jesus, had now succeeded in their conspiracy against Him, what a shock to their confidence! But there was to be something more trying still: the people, who, but a few days before, greeted Him so enthusiastically with their Hosannas, would demand His execution; and He would have to die, between two thieves, on the cross, amidst the insults of His triumphant enemies.

Is it not to be feared that these disciples, when they witness His humiliations and sufferings, will lose their courage? They have lived in His company for three years; but when they see that the things He foretold would happen to Him are really fulfilled, will the remembrance of all they have seen and heard keep them loyal to Him? Or will they turn cowards and flee from Him? Jesus selects three out of the number, who are especially dear to Him: Peter, whom He has made the rock, on which His Church is to be built, and to whom He has promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven; James, the son of thunder, who is to be the first martyr of the apostolic college; and John, James’s brother, and His own beloved disciple. Jesus has resolved to take them aside, and show them a glimpse of that glory, which, until the day fixed for its manifestation, He conceals from the eyes of mortals.

He therefore leaves the rest of His disciples in the plain near Nazareth, and goes in company with the three privileged ones towards a high hill called Thabor, which is a continuation of Libanus, and which the psalmist tells us was to rejoice in the name of the Lord. No sooner has He reached the summit of the mountain than the three apostles observe a sudden change come over Him; His Face shines as the sun, and His humble garments become white as snow. They observe two venerable men approach and speak to Him upon what He is about to suffer in Jerusalem. One is Moses, the lawgiver; the other is Elias, the prophet, who was taken up from the earth on a fiery chariot without having passing through the gates of death. These two great representatives of the Jewish religion, the Law and the Prophets, humbly adore Jesus of Nazareth. The three apostles are not only dazzled by the brightness which comes from their divine Master; but they are filled with such a rapture of delight, that they cannot bear the thought of leaving the place. Peter proposes to remain three for ever and build three tabernacle, for Jesus, Moses, and Elias. And while they are admiring the glorious sight, and gazing on the beauty of Jesus’ human Nature, a bright cloud overshadows them, and a voice is heard speaking to them: it is the voice of the eternal Father, proclaiming the Divinity of Jesus, and saying, ‘This is My beloved Son!’

This transfiguration of the Son of Man, this manifestation of His glory, lasted but for a few moments: His mission was not on Thabor; it was humiliation and suffering in Jerusalem. He therefore withdrew into Himself the brightness He had allowed to transpire; and when He came to the three apostles, who, on hearing the voice from the cloud, had fallen on their faces with fear, they could see no one save only Jesus. The bright cloud was gone; Moses and Elias had disappeared. What a favour they have had bestowed upon them! Will they remember what they have seen and heard? They have had such a revelation of the Divinity of their dear Master! Is it possible that, when the hour of trial comes, they will forget it, and doubt His being God? And when they see Him suffer and die, will they be ashamed of Him and deny Him? Alas! the Gospel has told us what happened to them.

A short time after this, our Lord celebrated His last Supper with His disciples. When the supper was over, He took them to another mount, Mount Olivet, which lies to the east of Jerusalem. Leaving the rest at the entrance of the garden, He advances with Peter, James, and John, and then says to them: ‘My soul is sorrowful even unto death: stay you here and watch with Me.’ He then retires some little distance from them, and prays to His eternal Father. The Heart of our Redeemer is weighed down with anguish. When He returns to His three disciples, He is enfeebled by the agony He has suffered, and His garments are saturated with Blood. The apostles are aware that He is sad even unto death, and that the hour is close at hand when He is to be attacked: are they keeping watch? are they ready to defend Him? No: they seem to have forgotten Him; they are fast asleep, for their eyes are heavy. Yet a few moments, and all will have fled from Him; and Peter, the bravest of them all, will be taking his oath that he never knew the Man.

After the Resurrection our three apostles made ample atonement for this cowardly and sinful conduct, and acknowledged the mercy wherewith Jesus had sought to fortify them against temptation, by showing them His glory on Thabor a few days before His Passion. Let us not wait till we have betrayed Him: let us at once acknowledge that He is our Lord and our God. We are soon to be keeping the anniversary of His Sacrifice; like the apostles, we are to see Him humbled by His enemies and bearing, in our stead, the circumstances of divine justice. We must now allow our faith to be weakened, when we behold the fulfillment of those prophecies of David and Isaias, that the Messias is to be treated as a worm of the earth, and be covered with wounds, so as to become like a leper, the most abject of men, and the Man of sorrows. We must remember the grand things of Thabor, and the adorations paid Him by Moses and Elia, and the bright cloud, and the voice of the eternal Father. The more we see Him, humbled, the more we must proclaim His glory and divinity; we must join our acclamations with those of the angels and the four-and-twenty-elders, whom St. John, one of the witnesses of the Transfiguration, heard crying with a loud voice: ‘The Lamb that was slain, is worthy to receive power and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and benediction!’ (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume V: Lent, translated from the French by Dom Laurence Shepherd, O.S.B., Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, p, 186-190.)

Here the apostle shows what manner of life should be followed by Christians; and the Church, by repeating his words, exhorts the faithful to profit of the present season of grace, and regain the beauty of the image of God, which the grace of Baptism first gave them. A Christian is a ‘vessel of honour,’ formed and enriched by the hand of God; let hi, therefore, shun whatsoever would degrade his noble origin, and turn him into  vessel of dishonor, fit only to be broken and cast with the unclean into the sink of hell. The Christian religion has so far ennobled man, that even his very body may share in the soul’s sanctity; on the other hand it teaches us that this sanctity of the soul is impaired, yea, altogether effaced, by the loss of the body’s purity. The whole man, therefore, both body and soul, is to be reformed by the practices of this holy season. Let us purify the soul by the confession of our sins by compunction of heart, by the love of God; and let us give back its dignity to the body, by making it bear the yoke of penance, that that so it may b be, henceforth, subservient and docile to the soul, on the day, of the general resurrection, may partake in her eternal bliss. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume V: Lent, translated from the French by Dom Laurence Shepherd, O.S.B., Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, p, 192-193.)

May each Rosary we pray be a means of consoling the good God, Who has given us His own Most Blessed Mother’s Fatima Message to fulfill as far as we are able in our daily lives. We must spend ourselves for the conversion of sinners, starting with our own daily conversion in this penitential season.

Although we may be given brief moments of consolation by Our Lord in our life, we are meant to walk with courage and steadfastness in this vale of tears to plant seeds for His greater and honor and glory and for the good of souls without counting the cost and without looking for results.

Be of good cheer in the midst of these terrible times. God is still charge, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph in the end.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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