Although the article, Jorge Puts On His "Catholic Hat"? Don't You Believe It, published on Sunday, January 18, 2016, the Second Sunday after the Epiphany and the Commemoration of the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome (and the Commemoration of Saint Paul the Apostle and of Saint Prisca), touched upon a few of the disasters that had befallen people and lands during the maelstrom that has been Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s turn of being the counterfeit church’s universal public face of apostasy, most of the commentary was focused on reminding readers that the false “pontiff’s” endorsement of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick’s Humane Vitae, July 25, 1968, was not a “leading indicator” of the Argentine Apostate’s doctrinal orthodoxy.
Humanae Vitae was a revolutionary document issued by a through-going revolutionary, Montini, based on the personalist view of marriage that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1944 and 1951. Montini’s revolutionary against the primary end of marriage (the procreation and education of children) in the name of personalism and “responsible parenthood” paved the way wide for the triumph of what can be called “Catholic contraception” that is practiced according to a slogan coined by the anti-family population control crowd itself: “natural family planning.”
What began as something of an indult from a supposed Successor of Saint Peter has become a “papal” mandate as Jorge Mario Bergoglio told reporters yesterday, Monday, January 19, 2015, the Feast of Saints Marius and Companions and the Commemoration of Saint Canute, have an obligation to practice “responsible parenthood,” a phrase that Montini used in Humanae Vitae, to limit the size of their families by the practice of “natural family planning.”
Here is what Bergoglio said yesterday after he had quite correctly denounced governments of wealthy nations for mandating such things as the teaching of “gender theory” and, presumably, contraception, abortion and “same-sex marriage as a condition on governments in impoverished parts of the world for receiving foreign aid:
Francis said Pope Paul VI, whose 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae outlined the contraceptive ban, was warning against a "Neo-Malthusianism, " a reference to a theories that suggested in the 1960s and ’70s that exponential global population growth would lead to an irreversible world food crisis.
Citing the low rates of birth specifically in Italy and Spain, Francis said such Neo-Malthusianism "seeks to control humanity."
At the same time, however, Francis made a statement that seems without precedent for a pope, suggesting that parents may have a responsibility to limit the number of their children, saying: "This does not signify that the Christian must make children in series."
Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via Cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: "Does she want to leave the seven orphans?"
"This is to tempt God," he said, adding later: "That is an irresponsibility." Catholics, the pope said, should speak of "responsible parenthood."
"How do we do this?" Francis asked. "With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood."
"God gives you methods to be responsible," he continued. "Some think that -- excuse the word -- that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No."
"This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors," Francis said. Using the term for a practice that follows church law, he continued: "I know so many, many licit ways that have helped this."
Francis was speaking about birth control in response to a question from a Filipino journalist. Use of contraception in the Philippines is a contentious issue, as the Philippine government only recently approved contraceptive access against forceful opposition from Catholic bishops.
The pope's responses regarding birth control and ideological colonization were part of a wide-ranging conference that touched on a number of other subjects, including: Corruption in church structures, the place of women in church leadership, and global mistreatment of the poor that the pontiff said could be likened to a new form of "state-sponsored terrorism." (Bergoglio suggests Catholics should limit children.)
Ever the caricaturist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio thinks almost exclusively in naturalistic terms.
Just as Jorge Mario Bergoglio invents straw men to attack believing Catholics as “Pelagians” or “Pharisees” or “rigid” or “cold” or “heartless,” so it the case that referring to Catholics “breeding like rabbits” is another example of one of Jorge’s emotional red herrings. I mean, how many Catholic parents are actually welcoming large families? Not many. Ever concerned about lingering vestiges of the Faith he hates, Catholicism, Jorge Mario Bergolgio must take whacks at believing Catholics and Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals whenever he gets the chance. He is a disgusting, insidious little man.
As to the subtance, it must be noted that Bergoglio’s prejudices—and they are nothing more than that—are based in an abject lack of belief that the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, during His Passion and Death and the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are neither efficacious nor sufficient for women in difficult circumstances to welcome as many or as few children as God sees fit to send them. Bergoglio believes that “too many children” would pose a “burden” on families, and he clearly believes that women who suffer from various health problems must avoid have children in order to avoid “tempting God.”
As to the first contention, all that needs to be done is to turn to the Catholic wisdom of Pope Pius XII, who addressed the following words to the association for large families in Italy:
And now a few words on your third testimony — words that may give new strength to those who are fearful and bring you a little comfort.
Large families are the most splendid flower-beds in the garden of the Church; happiness flowers in them and sanctity ripens in favorable soil. Every family group, even the smallest, was meant by God to be an oasis of spiritual peace. But there is a tremendous difference: where the number of children is not much more than one, that serene intimacy that gives value to life has a touch of melancholy or of pallor about it; it does not last as long, it may be more uncertain, it is often clouded by secret fears and remorse.
Happiness in a large family
It is very different from the serenity of spirit to be found in parents who are surrounded by a rich abundance of young lives. The joy that comes from the plentiful blessings of God breaks out in a thousand different ways and there is no fear that it will end. The brows of these fathers and mothers may be burdened with cares, but there is never a trace of that inner shadow that betrays anxiety of conscience or fear of an irreparable return to loneliness, Their youth never seems to fade away, as long as the sweet fragrance of a crib remains in the home, as long as the walls of the house echo to the silvery voices of children and grandchildren.
Their heavy labors multiplied many times over, their redoubled sacrifices and their renunciation of costly amusements are generously rewarded even here below by the inexhaustible treasury of affection and tender hopes that dwell in their hearts without ever tiring them or bothering them.
And the hopes soon become a reality when the eldest daughter begins to help her mother to take care of the baby and on the day the oldest son comes home with his face beaming with the first salary he has earned himself. That day will be a particularly happy one for parents, for it will make the spectre of an old age spent in misery disappear, and they will feel assured of a reward for their sacrifices.
When there are many children, the youngsters are spared the boredom of loneliness and the discomfort of having to live in the midst of adults all the time. It is true that they may sometimes become so lively as to get on your nerves, and their disagreements may seem like small riots; but even their arguments play an effective role in the formation of character, as long as they are brief and superficial. Children in large families learn almost automatically to be careful of what they do and to assume responsibility for it, to have a respect for each other and help each other, to be open-hearted and generous. For them, the family is a little proving ground, before they move into the world outside, which will be harder on them and more demanding.
All of these precious benefits will be more solid and permanent, more intense and more fruitful if the large family takes the supernatural spirit of the Gospel, which spiritualizes everything and makes it eternal, as its own particular guiding rule and basis. Experience shows that in these cases, God often goes beyond the ordinary gifts of Providence, such as joy and peace, to bestow on it a special call — a vocation to the priesthood, to the religious life, to the highest sanctity.
With good reason, it has often been pointed out that large families have been in the forefront as the cradles of saints. We might cite, among others, the family of St. Louis, the King of France, made up of ten children, that of St. Catherine of Siena who came from a family of twenty-five, St. Robert Bellarmine from a family of twelve, and St. Pius X from a family of ten.
Every vocation is a secret of Providence; but these cases prove that a large number of children does not prevent parents from giving them an outstanding and perfect upbringing; and they show that the number does not work out to the disadvantage of their quality, with regard to either physical or spiritual values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Large Families, January 20, 1958.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio thinks differently than Pope Pius XII because the latter was a Catholic. Bergoglio is not. The current universal public face of apostasy thinks that large families come from Catholics "breeding like rabbits." Pope Pius XII understood the blessings that accrue to parents and to their children from large families as each member learns to serve and to anticipate the needs of others. God wants souls to adore Him on earth through His Catholic Church so that they can be with him for all eternity in Heaven. And one of the ways for grown children to get to Heaven is to return to their parents when they are elderly what was given to them when they were newborn infants and toddlers who were dependent on their fathers and mothers for their spritual and temporal nourishment, education and protection.
Pope Pius XII understood the simple Catholic truth that parents are to be open to as many or as few children as God sees fit to send them. While he noted in his Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951, that it was permissible in certain circumstances for couples to abstain periodically each month from that which is proper to the married state, he made it clear that such periodic continence was an exception, not the norm in married life:
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
Grave reasons. Not for any reason. Not as a matter of routine. Not because spouses aren't "ready" for children. Not because they might resort to artificial contraception, meaning that they will proceed with the limitation of their family size no matter what means the must use to accomplish that end. Those are not "grave reasons." Those are selfish reasons. They are rationalizations that deny the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All graces, to resist surrender to sinful temptations.
There are specific conditions that could be construed, whether individually or collectively, as grave reasons sufficient enough to justify a married couple's exclusive use of the privileges of marriage in a woman's monthly periods of infertility. Those conditions matter. They are very specific. They are exceptions to the precepts governing marriage that must be discussed with a priest, whether in or out of the confessional. Why? It is very simple. We are weak vessels of clay who are prone to find some "way out" of carrying something we believe to be too "burdensome" for us. This is even more the case now than it was in the 1950s as young couples planning to be married in our time have been bombarded with the whole ideology that it is necessary to engage in some kind of "family planning." It is part of fallen human nature for a person to think that he's got an "exceptional" case that exempts him from the general law.
It can't get any clearer than this. Pope Pius XII condemned the very mentality that is at the root of what it is known and practiced as "natural family planning."
Monsignor George A. Kelly (1916-2004) was a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and a co-founder of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. I knew very well from personal contacts and professional conferences over the decades. Monsignor Kelly wrote the following in a chapter on "birth control and the rhythm method" in The Catholic Marriage Manual, explaining that the conditions listed by Pope Pius XII for the use of the rhythm method were exceptions, not the norm, to married life:
Holy Father's statement on rhythm: Who may practice the rhythm method? A clear answer was given by Pope Pius XII in 1951 in an address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives. His Holiness pointed out that married couples are obliged to procreate and to help conserve the human race. In the Pontiffs words: "Matrimony obliges to a state of life which, while carrying with it certain rights, also imposes a fulfillment of positive work connected with that state of life." This means that rhythm is not to be used indiscriminately. The small-family or no-family state of mind is not necessarily good simply because contraceptives are not used. (Monsignor George A. Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, published by Random House in 1958, pp. 55-56.)
It is only because most young Catholics today have been exposed to the "birth control mentality" in the world and to the counterfeit church of conciliarism's propagation of the ideology of "natural family planning" in reaction to that contraceptive mentality that the "planning" of families is now considered to be a "norm" that is almost beyond question, which is why even many traditionally minded engaged Catholic couples jump at the opportunity to "learn" about a method to avoid conception that is to be used in truly exceptional circumstances.
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, noted that talk of such limits was without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church:
"I am not pleased with the statement in the text that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents' minds, because they trusted in Providence. [I am amazed] that yesterday in the Council it should have been said that there was doubt whether a correct stand had been taken hitherto on the principles governing marriage. Does this not mean that the inerrancy of the Church will be called into question? Or was not the Holy Spirit with His Church in past centuries to illuminate minds on this point of doctrine?" (As found in Peter W. Miller, Substituting the Exception for the Rule; The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Father Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, Tan Books and Publishers, 1967, is cited as the source of this quotation.)
This is not exactly what Jorge Mario Bergoglio said on the plane while returning from The Philippines to Rome yesterday.
Monsignor George Kelly, however, noted the following in his The Catholic Marriage Manual arabout the use of the rhythm method being the exception to, not the norm of, married life for Catholics:
If the necessary conditions are not met in a particular case, would a couple commit sin in practicing periodic continence? And if it is sinful, how serious is the sin? Writing in The American Ecclesiastical Review, Father Goodwine has answered:
"If any one of the required conditions (that the parties be willing to abstain, that they be able to abstain without proximate danger of serious sin, and that they have a justifying reason) is not met, recourse to periodic continence will be sinful.
"In certain cases it may even be seriously sinful,"For instance, if the first condition is not verified and the practice of periodic continence is insisted on by the partner against the reasonable objections of the other, a sin of injustice would be committed. In such circumstances one partner would be unjustly depriving the other of his right to the marriage act during the fertile periods. So also, if the second condition is not met and the practice of periodic continence becomes a proximate occasion of sins against chastity, there would be serious sin. The otherwise permissible practice of periodic continence becomes seriously wrong when it leads to grave danger of other mortal sins. Similarly there would be serious sin if the practice involves a proximate danger of divorce or breakup of the marriage, or of other sins against the obligations of married life."
Large families the Christian ideal: Pope Pius XII has described large families as "those blessed by God, beloved by the Church and considered by it as one of its most precious treasures."
In an address to the Association of Large Families of Rome and Italy, His Holiness restated a truth that is sometimes forgotten that "faith in God supplies parents with the strength necessary to face the sacrifices and renunciations required for the rearing of children; Christian principles guide and lighten the difficult task of education; the Christian spirit of love watches over the family's order and tranquillity while it dispenses, almost drawing upon nature itself, the intimate family joys common to parents, children and brothers. . . . "But God also visits large families with His providence, to which the parents, especially poor ones, give an open testimony by placing in it their entire trust when human efforts are not sufficient. It is a trust well founded, and not in vain . . . God does not deny the means to live to those He calls to life."
In this connection, the following comments by Father Goodwine should be carefully considered.
"There is a tendency to limit the discussion of periodic continence to questions of strict morality, to concentrate almost exclusively on right and wrong, to attempt to draw the line between what may and what may not be done without committing sin," Father Goodwine states. "All too often such discussions lose sight of the Christian ideal of family life. Hardly ever do we hear any mention of the ideal of parenthood or of family life as the ideal type of married life.
"God instituted marriage as the means for the propagation of the race. The fruitful marriage, therefore, and not the sterile marriage, is the marriage that falls in best with God's plan. Having children is the primary goal of marriage. The family, therefore, consisting of father, mother and children is the ideal for the Christian.
"There is something amiss when a couple wishes to marry, yet does not want to have any children; or determines to postpone having children for one, two or more years; or intends to have only three or four or six children but no more. A priest friend of mine likens such people to a young man seeking ordination to the priesthood who makes the stipulation that he will never have to say Mass, administer the sacraments, preach, or take duty. Such a young man would be seeking to avoid the very purposes for which men are ordained to the priesthood. So, too, the married couple who, without sufficient reason, seek to avoid children, fail to fulfill their purpose in life. Even the couple who has a sufficient reason for practicing rhythm can be counseled to do more than is required by duty; to strive deliberately and consciously after the ideal.
"The present Holy Father has said: It is one of the fundamental demands of right moral order that a sincere inner acceptance of the office and duties (of parenthood) correspond to the use of conjugal rights.' There must then be a willingness on the part of married persons and on the part of couples entering marriage to 'serve' motherhood and fatherhood a willingness to become parents. Perhaps more attention should be paid to what Dr. John Kane, of Notre Dame, calls the 'almost unanimous conclusion' of sociological studies on marital happiness: 'Happiness in marriage is not associated with the presence or absence of children in the family, but with a strong desire to have children. (Text as found in Monsignor George Kelly, The Catholic Marriage Manual, Random House, 1958, pp. 58- 60.)
This is a ringing condemnation of the views expressed by the conciliar "popes" and "bishops" and those who teach what has become known as "the theology of body" that originated with the series of general audience addesses of "Saint John Paul" II in 1981 (he was giving one of those addresses on Wednesday, May 13, 1981, when he was shot and seriously wounded by Mehmet Ali Agca in Saint Peter's Square). It is also a ringing condemnation of anyone and everyone today who says that it is better that couples practice "natural family planning" under all circumstances rather than to sin by the use of contraceptive pills and devices. Condemned. Completely. Unequivocally.
Monsignor George Kelly and Father Goodwine both refused to limit a consideration of the morality of the use of rhythm to what was considered "legal" as they understood that God wanted His redeemed creatures to strive for the ideal. It is a strict legalistic minimalism that characterized much of doctrinal, liturgical and moral studies in the 1940s and 1950s that led to the widespread acceptance of the revolutionary dogmas and liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the 1960s and thereafter. Those who refuse to accept this must simply refuse to open their very eyes to the evidence that has been presented before them, leaving souls, including their own, to wallow in the corruption of error and deception.
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio each have fed into the "birth control mentality," doing so by using a phrase, "natural family planning," that was suggested to leaders of "pro-family" organizations as a means to qualify for grants from the Federal government's Title X "family planning" programs that encouraged the limitation of the size of families.
Mrs. Randy Engel explained this in The McHugh Chronicles:
From the quotes of Rev. Daly and Rev. Rice cited at the beginning of this chapter, we can obtain a clearer understanding of the anti-child nature of so-called “family planning.” But where did the term “natural family planning” (NFP) originate? And how did it become part of the Catholic lexicon on marriage and family life?
As far as this writer can determine (from an NFP source present at the scene of the crime), credit for the term “natural family planning” or “NFP” goes to a pro-abort bureaucrat by the name of Dr. Philip Corfman, who made the suggestion at one of the grant-seeking expeditions of NFP leaders at the Agency for International Development (USAID) within the State Department in the early 1970s.
By adopting the “language of the enemy,” the NFP Movement also adopted the anti-baby ideology of the enemy. This was its first grave error. The second was to begin to feed from the government’s anti-life Title X trough. And the third and final error was to cooperate with compulsory programs of population control, but this was still some time in the future. (25) (www.newengelpublishing.com; you may order this book, The McHugh Chronicles, whose chapters were published originally, if I recall correctly, in The Wanderer in the late-1980s, from Mrs. Engel's website.)
As was pointed out two days ago in Jorge Puts On His "Catholic Hat"? Don't You Believe It, it was Humanae Vitae, issued by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick on July 25, 1968, that, although reaffirming the Catholic Church's prohibition of the use of contraception, embraced the personalist philosophy of Dietrich von Hildebrand and Father Herbert Doms, a philosophy that had been condemned twice by the Holy See (in 1943 and in 1944) and referenced by Pope Pius XII in his October 29, 1951, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, that "opened wide the doors" to the use of various methods of determining a woman's monthly fertile and infertile periods without any serious restrictions whatsoever. Humanae Vitae, of course, turned Pope Pius XII's conditions for the lawful, permissible exclusive use of a woman's monthly periods of infertility on their head. The use of the phrase "natural family planning" has thus ceded ground to the "population control" movement to such an extent that the acceptance of "family planning" by "moral" means has become so widespread amongst Catholics today Catholics who reject it and the ideology it represents are considered to be suspect of having defected from the Holy Faith. Jorge Mario Bergoglio's invoking it yet again yesterday is not a sign of his heterodoxy, not his orthodoxy on issues of Catholic moral theology concerning marriage and the family.
Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio further showed his naturalism when he said that a woman with seven children was “tempting God” by continuing to bear children while needing Caesarian sections to deliver. It is clear that Bergoglio does not believe that it is heroic for a woman in such circumstances to continue to fulfill God’s plans for a married woman in her child-bearing years to welcome new life as God sees fit to send it. He sees the world only in terms of naturalism, which is why he believes that the woman he reference would be cruel to her children to leave them without a mother if she died in childbirth even though her prayers from eternity, presuming that she died in a state of Sanctifying Grace, would help them in ways that she could never while alive with them on the face of this earth.
Even a soul in Purgatory, who is in the process of paying back the temporal punishment due to his forgiven Mortal Sins, unforgiven Venial Sins and general attachment to sin, is more perfectly attached to the will of God as a member of the Church Suffering than he was while alive, and a soul in Heaven has achieved the purpose for which he was created, being attached solely to the love of God as he intercedes with Him for the salvation of the souls of his children and other loved ones. The death of a mother in childbirth teaches her surviving children to love God above all creatures as they have Masses offered and remember their mother’s soul in their prayers every day until they themselves face the moment of the Particular Judgment.
Ironically, it was on May 16, 2004, that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, “canonized” a mother, Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla, who made this precise sacrifice. Dr. Molla was a pediatrician who knew the risks of what her third pregnancy entailed back in 1961. She took those risks, trusting entirely in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the intercessory power of His Most Blessed Mother.
Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla understood Catholic moral theology, thus being completely information about the Catholic moral principle known as the "double-fold effect." The principle of the double-fold effect teaches that it is morally licit to take a morally justified course of actions that might result in unintentional but foreseen evil consequences.
She faced one of the prototypical examples of the principle of the double-fold effect that one would find in standard moral theology texts before the “Second” Vatican Council” as she was diagnosed with a cancerous uterus while carrying her third child in that Dr. Molla knew that it is morally licit to save the life of an expectant mother by removing her uterus. Such a removal would have resulted in the death of the child. That death, though, would have been the unintentional but foreseen evil consequence of the first intention of the procedure, namely, to remove a diseased organ of the mother. No direct attack upon the child would have been undertaken. The child would have died as a secondary effect of the justified act of removing his mother's uterus.
While a mother might choose to forego such a procedure, as Gianna Beretta Molla did in her own pregnancy in 1961, to forfeit her own life for the sake of her child's, this act of extraordinary heroism is not required by the Natural Law. Dr. Molla knew full well that God would provide for her husband and children in the even that she died during childbirth as wound up being the case. Jorge Mario Bergoglio discouraged the women he referenced yesterday from so believing. Please, please, please, tell me that this man knows Catholic Moral Theology. He does not.
It would be for a true pope to review the cause of Dr. Molla’s authentic canonization, including the re-examination and verification of the miracles attributed to her intercession.
That having been noted, though, the example of Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla is just one of so many others that Jorge Mario Bergoglio simply dismisses by saying that mothers who continue to bear children despite health risks are “tempting God.” Bergoglio thus shows himself once again as man who is a complete naturalist, not a member of the Catholic Church who is possessed of the sensus Catholicus.
Moreover, Pope Pius XII spoke in supernatural terms concerning Catholic teaching on the inviolability of all innocent life, emphasizing the value of a mother's prayers from eternity who scoffed at suggestions made by physicians in 1905 to kill her preborn child:
At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.
Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.
This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).
It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill! We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.
But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.
Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.
It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.
Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.
The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.
Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)
The story of the mother who gave up her life one hundred ten years ago now rather than to kill the innocent child in he womb stands as a stark contrast to the naturalism displayed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio as he reprimanded that courageous for "tempting God." The prayers of the mother who sacrificed her life rather than to authorize the killing of her child made possible her daughter's entry into the religious life. Bergoglio thinks not of such realities
Quite in contrary to the naturalist Bergoglio, Pope Pius XII exhorted Italian midwives in 1951 to teach mothers to think supernaturally. Our last true pontiff explained that God’s grace is sufficient and efficacious in cases wherein a married couple had to refrain from that which is proper to the married state because of a legitimate, diagnosed health threat to the mother, something that applies as well in cases of women who become pregnant in the presence of health risks:
Perhaps you will now press the point, however, observing that in the exercise of your profession you find yourselves sometimes faced with delicate cases, in which, that is, there cannot be a demand that the risk of maternity be run, a risk which in certain cases must be absolutely avoided, and in which as well the observance of the agenesic periods either does not give sufficient security, or must be rejected for other reasons. Now, you ask, how can one still speak of an apostolate in the service of maternity?
If, in your sure and experienced judgment, the circumstances require an absolute "no," that is to say, the exclusion of motherhood, it would be a mistake and a wrong to impose or advise a "yes." Here it is a question of basic facts and therefore not a theological but a medical question; and thus it is in your competence. However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a "technique" of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty. Your apostolate in this matter requires that you have a clear and certain judgment and a calm firmness.
It will be objected that such an abstention is impossible, that such a heroism is asking too much. You will hear this objection raised; you will read it everywhere. Even those who should be in a position to judge very differently, either by reason of their duties or qualifications, are ever ready to bring forward the following argument: "No one is obliged to do what is impossible, and it may be presumed that no reasonable legislator can will his law to oblige to the point of impossibility. But for husbands and wives long periods of abstention are impossible. Therefore they are not obliged to abstain; divine law cannot have this meaning."
In such a manner, from partially true premises, one arrives at a false conclusion. To convince oneself of this it suffices to invert the terms of the argument: "God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able".
Do not be disturbed, therefore, in the practice of your profession and apostolate, by this great talk of impossibility. Do not be disturbed in your internal judgment nor in your external conduct. Never lend yourselves to anything which is contrary to the law of God and to your Christian conscience! It would be a wrong towards men and women of our age to judge them incapable of continuous heroism. Nowadays, for many a reason,—perhaps constrained by dire necessity or even at times oppressed by injustice—heroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent that in the past would have been thought impossible. Why, then, if circumstances truly demand it, should this heroism stop at the limits prescribed by the passions and the inclinations of nature? It is clear: he who does not want to master himself is not able to do so, and he who wishes to master himself relying only upon his own powers, without sincerely and perseveringly seeking divine help, will be miserably deceived.
Here is what concerns your apostolate for winning married people over to a service of motherhood, not in the sense of an utter servitude under the promptings of nature, but to the exercise of the rights and duties of married life, governed by the principles of reason and faith. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)
There you have it.
For anyone to assert that it is "impossible" for a married couple to maintain complete marital abstinence by mutual consent if truly extraordinary circumstances require it, whether for reasons of being remarried invalidly after having received a decree of nullity from a conciliar tribunal or for the reasons outlined by Pope Pius XII in 1951, that it is "too tough" for them to do so, perhaps it would be more than little wise to become familiar with these words of Pope Pius XII cited just above. Additionally, these words have direct relevance to Bergoglio's discussion of "tempting God," Who will not abandon the supernatural and temporal needs of children who lose their mother while delivering a brother or a sister of theirs.
It is clear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is one of the false prophets of the likes that Our Lord Himself warned us about in the Gospel reading read yesterday during Holy Mass on the Feast of Saints Marius and Companions and the Commemoration of Saint Canute:
At that time, as Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying: Tell us, when are these things to happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the world? And in answer Jesus said to them, Take care that no one leads you astray. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. For you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. Take care that you do not be alarmed, for these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there will be pestilences and famines and earthquakes in various places. But all these things are the beginnings of sorrows. Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and will put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will fall away, and will betray one another, and will hate one another. And many false prophets will arise, and will lead many astray. And because iniquity will abound, the charity of the many will grow cold. But whoever perseveres to the end, he shall be saved. (Matthew 24: 3-13.)
We continue to have recourse to Our Lady during this time of apostasy and betrayal as we bear whatever we must, including being shot figuratively with arrows by our relatives and former friends and acquaintances for believing us to be daft for considering Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be a false prophet and a foreshadowing of Antichrist himself, as the consecrated slave of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
Vivat Christus Rex!
Viva Cristo Rey!
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 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.
Saints Fabian and Sebastian, pray for us.