Willing Servants of Antichrist, part two

Each successive undercover video released by the Center for Medical Progress reveals more and more of the evil underbelly of Planned Barrenhood, which is nothing other than the evil of every killing center in the United States of America and the rest of the world.

The latest video released by the Center for Medical Progress confirms once again that it is foolhardy to believe that those who kill the innocent in direct violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law will scrupulously observe the strictures of whichever human laws that are supposed to regulate their blood-stained business. Those who kill innocent human bills on a daily basis as a matter of routine have consciences that have been deadened to all concept of obedience to anything higher than their own unchastened desires. Expecting that killers will be honest in their business of killing is, to be rather blunt, stupid:

FRESNO, CA, August 12, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Despite official denials, Planned Parenthood would regularly "steal" aborted babies' organs without asking the mother's consent for the "donation," a former StemExpress employee says in the latest video released by the Center for Medical Progress

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for StemExpress, is featured in the latest video in CMP's "Human Capital" series.

StemExpress is a biotech company that would purchase the tissue and organs of aborted babies from Planned Parenthood.

ince the video series broke, Planned Parenthood officials have said that they always obtain the mother's consent - a legal requirement - before charging biotech companies "reimbursement costs" for storing the "organ and tissue donation."

But O'Donnell, a former technician who worked inside the Stockton and Fresno Planned Parenthood facilities, said if Planned Parenthood stood to make money, they would simply take the specimens they wanted.

"No, doesn't happen all the time," O'Donnell said. "They would not consent the donors" in every case.

“They give you a sheet, and it’s everybody for that day, who’s coming in for an ultrasound, who’s coming in for an abortion, medical or a late-term abortion,” O’Donnell explains.

Even patients who scheduled a pregnancy test were considered potential "donors," she said. “Pregnancy tests are potential pregnancies, [and] therefore potential specimens."

Her bosses looked at this as "just taking advantage of the opportunities.”

They often told her obtaining aborted babies' tissue and body parts is “not an option; it’s a demand."

“If there was a higher gestation, and the technicians needed it, there were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

In one case, O'Donnell said she spoke with a patient who refused to consent - but her co-worker emerged with numerous samples after the patient's abortion.

"What did you say to her to get that blood?" O'Donnell asked her co-worker. "She said, 'Nothing.'"

"Basically, you just went in there and took her blood, and you're going to be taking her fetus without her knowing," O'Donnell said.

She said she felt tremendous empathy for the mothers who lost children in this way. "Imagine if you're an abortion patient, and someone was going in stealing your baby's parts," she said in the video, the sixth released by CMP following its 30-month investigation.

She disputed Planned Parenthood's image as a compassionate health care provider, embodied in their slogan: "Care No Matter What." 

"The women I worked for were cold. They don't care. They just wanted their money. They don't care that a girl's throwing up in a trash can," O'Donnell said in the video.

"I'm not going to tell a girl to kill her baby so I can get money, and that's what this company does," she said. "I would tell them, 'Run.'"

O'Donnell also revealed other abuses inside the Planned Parenthood facility.

She said she was the only certified technician, but other StemExpress employees drew blood samples inside the facility.

The abortionist at the facility, Dr. Ron Berman, "had a reputation for going viciously fast...It's almost like he wanted to do it."

The atmosphere inside the abortion facilities frightened her, she said. "It's morbid," she said. "You can hear screaming. You can hear crying...It's terrifying."

“Experiences like Holly O’Donnell’s show that Planned Parenthood’s abortion and baby parts business is not a safe place where vulnerable women can be cared for, but a harvesting ground for saleable human ‘product,’" said CMP's Project Lead David Daleiden. "Taxpayer subsidies to Planned Parenthood’s barbaric abortion business should be revoked immediately, and law enforcement and other elected officials must act decisively to determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s offensive practices and hold them accountable to the law.” (New video: Planned Parenthood would 'steal aborted baby parts without the consent of mothers.)

Although silence continues to prevail at the Casa Santa Marta about the videos released thus far by the Center for Medical Progress, there are some Girondist/Menshevik “bishops” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are speaking out quite forcefully against Planned Barrenhood:

SPRINGFIELD, IL, August 13, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The Catholic bishop of Springfield, Illinois, minced no words in his response to Planned Parenthood’s exposure as a trafficker in body parts from the unborn children aborted at its facilities, at the same time condemning inaction from the White House in the scandal.

Dispensing with ambiguity, Bishop Thomas Paprocki used the terms “shocked,” “appalled” and “moral depravity” in his assessment of the evil revealed in the Planned Parenthood videos, and likened the callousness to human life today with the classical world of the Greeks and Romans, where abortion and infanticide were widespread and commonplace.

“Since the moral decadence of our 20th Century western world now rivals the decline and fall of the Roman Empire it should not surprise us that the nationwide abortion-provider Planned Parenthood has been exposed for trafficking and selling the body parts of aborted babies,” he stated in a July 26 video and column. “I say we should not be surprised, but we still should be shocked and appalled at this moral depravity.”

Bishop Paprocki also denounced the Obama administration’s complicity with the nation’s largest abortion provider, pointing out in his message how Barack Obama was the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood, when in 2013 he told the abortion behemoth it had a president who was going to be there with it fighting every step of the way.  

“What have we heard about this expose of Planned Parenthood from the White House, which was illuminated in rainbow colors when the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal throughout the country?” Bishop Paprocki asked, taking great pause. “Silence, deafening silence.”

Bishop Paprocki is among a handful of prelates to issue a particularly strong response to the Planned Parenthood video content.

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote in an August 10 column that there was no moral equivalent to abortion, saying as well that the deliberate killing of innocent life is a uniquely wicked act.

Nashville Bishop Richard Stika stated in an August 9 Knoxville News column that if Planned Parenthood's definition of an extremist is one who believes in the sanctity of the unborn and the protection that these vulnerable lives should be afforded, then he, too, is an extremist.

Each successive video released in the weeks since the Planned Parenthood trafficking for profit scandal broke in mid-July has exposed further gruesome details about Planned Parenthood’s practices in its trafficking of human remains.

The sixth video, released yesterday, discloses that Planned Parenthood would steal the remains of aborted babies without their mothers’ consent.

In his message Bishop Paprocki touched on how one of the officials in the videos, abortionist Deborah Nucatola, said Planned Parenthood’s national legal office was concerned about the liability involved in the sale of fetal body parts, and where in another video Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards lauds Nucatola's work in making connections for fetal tissue collection.

“She should be concerned,” Bishop Paprocki said, “because the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000.”

Other abortion apologists have used euphemisms to defend Planned Parenthood, the Springfield bishop said, for example that Planned Parenthood was being compensated for costs associated with organ donations.

“What they overlook or intentionally omit is that unborn babies are absolutely unable to consent to donating their organs, and the harvesting of their organs involves the premeditated killing of these babies.” ('Deafening' silence on aborted body parts scandal.)

Although silence continues to prevail at the Casa Santa Marta about the videos released thus far by the Center for Medical Progress, there are some Girondist/Menshevik “bishops” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are speaking out quite forcefully against Planned Barrenhood:

The silence denounced by “Bishop” Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, however, also characterizes the blasé attitude of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is much too busy “saving the planet” and supervising the revolution against what remains of Catholic moral theology on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the privileges reserved for the married state alone that will take place in two months.

Additionally, “Bishop” Paprocki and “Archbishop” Chaput do not realize that their false religious sect’s support for “religious liberty” and “separation of Church and State” make opposing Planned Barrenhood by legislative and political means very difficult as many Catholics in public life in both organized crime families of naturalism believe that the use of contraception is morally licit while many others believe that the direct, intentional killing of the innocent preborn is a “human right.” Why should United States Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), the minority whip of the United States Senate, fear reprisal from “Bishop” Paprocki when he, Durbin, supports and votes to funds evils that are not denounced directly and with vigor by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who shares Durbin’s concerns for the “rights” of those who enter the United States of America illegally, for universal, state-sponsored health care coverage, and for efforts to “save the planet” from the effects of “global warming.” Bergoglio isn’t concerned about the effects of sins against the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments. Why should Richard Durbin be afraid of Raymond Paprocki even if a presbyter or two in the Diocese of Springfield might deny him what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service?

Taken by themselves, of course, the statements made by “Bishop” Paprocki and “Archbishop” Chaput are very good even though they do not address the proximate root causes (namely, Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, which made possible the rise and ultimate triumph of all of the interrelated, multifaceted forces of naturalism that only those who fear the loss of human respect fear to call by its proper name, Judeo-Masonry) of the evils they “bishops” seek to oppose. It is nevertheless the case that their voices, as forceful in denouncing Planned Barrenhood murderous ways as they may be, are not the ones that are prevailing in the Casa Santa Marta or anywhere else within the walls of the Occupied Vatican of the West Bank of the Tiber River at this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Far more common within the conciliar structures, however, are reactions such as those given by the man who permitted the late United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) to receive a Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo “Mass of Christian Burial” at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help on Saturday, August 29, 2009 (see Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite; More Rationalizations and Distortions), and who permitted himself to be “baptized” by female Protestant ministerette on January 14, 2014 (see Commissar O'Malley's Latest Apostasy), Sean Patrick Commissar O’Malley, O.F.M., Cap., who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of Boston, Massachusetts, since July 1, 2003, and had notoriously permitted a variety of pro-abortion and pro-perversity "clergy" belonging to false sects speak in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross during an "ecumenical" service on April 18, 2013, after the Boston Marthon bombing:

(Vatican Radio) Cardinal Seán O’Malley, OFM Cap., archbishop of Boston and chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), responded on Wednesday to recent videos showing leaders from Planned Parenthood discussing the provision of fetal organs, tissues, and body parts from their abortion clinics.

Pope Francis, he said, "has called abortion the product of a 'widespread mentality of profit, the throwaway culture, which has today enslaved the hearts and minds of so many'.” Cardinal O'Malley went on to describe abortion as “a direct attack on human life in its most vulnerable condition.” The videos, he said, also reveal “the now standard practice of obtaining fetal organs and tissues through abortion.” Both actions, he continued, “fail to respect the humanity and dignity of human life.”

Cardinal O’Malley also drew attention to the Church’s post-abortion healing ministry Project Rachel, which welcomes “all persons… with compassion and assistance.” Project Rachel offers confidential and non-judgmental help to persons who are traumatized by their involvement with abortion.

Below, please find the full text of Cardinal O’Malley’s statement:

Pope Francis has called abortion the product of a “widespread mentality of profit, the throwaway culture, which has today enslaved the hearts and minds of so many.” The recent news stories concerning Planned Parenthood direct our attention to two larger issues involving many institutions in our society. The first is abortion itself: a direct attack on human life in its most vulnerable condition. The second is the now standard practice of obtaining fetal organs and tissues through abortion. Both actions fail to respect the humanity and dignity of human life. This fact should be the center of attention in the present public controversy.

If the Planned Parenthood news coverage has caused anyone to experience revived trauma from their own involvement in abortion, be assured that any and all persons will be welcomed with compassion and assistance through the Church’s post-abortion healing ministry, Project Rachel. If you or someone you know would like confidential, nonjudgmental help, please visit www.projectrachel.com. (Commissar O'Malley's Emoting About Planned Barrenhood Videso.)

Although Commissar O’Malley expressed his disapproval of Planned Barrenhood’s bloody ways without, it should be noted, condemning the very evil of contraception that Margaret Sanger promoted as a means to “liberate” women and to eradicate blacks, the poor and the “feeble-minded,” it is clear that his principal concern was with the reaction of women who had killed their innocent preborn children.

O’Malley’s effort to supposedly denounce evil while emoting in behalf of those whose consciences might be disturbed by the evil they have done reminds me of how the late Father Bernard Donohue, O.S.F.S., Ph.D., told me in his capacity of the Chairman of the Department of Politics at the then-named Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales (now named De Sales University) after I had given a lecture on the Natural Law as part of my application for a faculty position in his department.

Father Donohue, who preferred to be called “Bernie” by colleagues and students alike (remember, egalitarianism is the order of the day in the conciliar structures, which I mistook for around forty-eight years as the Catholic Church dating back to the emergence of Angelo Roncalli as “Pope John XIII” on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude), was upset with me for having denounced abortion as a violation of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. He told me that there was a female student in the classroom who had had three abortions, whereupon I asked him if she had ever been exhorted to go to Confession. Father Donohue was taken aback by the question as this poor girl had been permitted to stew in the bitterness of her sins, thinking that she had followed her “conscience,” while being permitted show displaced anger towards those who disturbed her conscience. The late Oblate of Saint Francis de Sales also criticized me for explaining it was Our Lord’s Holy Will for everyone to be a Catholic, telling me that there was a Mohammedan man who might have been “offended” by such a lack of ecumenism. Yes, emotionalism is the order of the day in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and it is to be utter discredit and shame that I thought that “Pope John Paul II” was going to restore “order” in the Catholic Church.

Well, it turns out, of course that the views of the late Father Bernard Donohue were indeed “mainstream” views in what should be evident to all by now is a church of satan himself, a church of sin, a church that celebrates sin and makes excuses for those who persist in sins. Oh, Our Blessed Lord Saviour Jesus Christ made excuses for us, His executioners, as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross, but He did so to show us that we must quit our sins in order to have the saving merits of His Most Precious Blood poured out into our souls at Baptism and every time we receive Absolution at the hands of a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

While “Archbishop” Charles H. Chaput, O.F.M., Cap., will be at the upcoming “synod of bishops” in Rome in two months’ time, his voice will be “balanced” by the likes of the conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago, Blase Cupich, whose comments about Planned Barrenhood were featured in of this commentary, as the Incredible Bulk, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has named him as one of the synod’s forty-eight participants, whose results have been “cooked” ever since Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday evening, March 13, 2015, knowing precisely what he was going to do from the very beginning.

None other than the Chief Commissar, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four; Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven), has been kind enough to confirm what should have been clear to anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty within the first week of Bergoglio’s selection to replace the first conciliar “Petrine Ministry” to resign from his position as the universal public face of apostasy, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: to make the Jacobin/Bolshevik interpretation of the conciliar heresies, based as each is on the heresy of dogmatic evolution that was condemned by the [First] Vatican Council's Third Session on April 24, 1870, and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and his Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, completely irreversible. The goal of the Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries is to make it appear that is a work of "mercy" to assuage the "hurting" consciences of those who desire the approval of what they think is the Catholic Church to live in sin.

Here is an excerpt from Commissar Maradiaga Rodriguez's address at the so-called Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California, on Friday, January 20, 2015:

Maybe some thought that the Church renovation was only that. But the institutional and functional changes —alone in themselves— proved insufficient, superficial. Sometimes they created new problems and crises both unnecessary and deep. Any change in the Church eventually requires considering a renovation of the motivations that the new options inspire. Without deep-rooted, living and explicit motivations, no human group, no institution and no society can survive for a long time, much less renovate itself. Motivations answer to the fundamental “why” of the options, the enterprises, the demands, and the same reason for being of the institution.

The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible. The wind that propels the sails of the Church towards the open sea of its deep and total renovation is Mercy.

For the Church, the motivations are more than essential; they are its identity stamp. The “why” of its organization and its action cannot be decisively explained by the human sciences or the pure historical rationality: they refer to Jesus and his Gospel as the global, indispensable and predominant motivation. It is the motivation of the Spirit. Therefore, to speak of motivations in Christianity is to speak of the mystical, of spirituality.

The institutional and functional renovation of the Church requires a renovation of its mystical dimension. And at the roots of the mystical is mercy.

2.4 The Maternal Heart of Mercy

Catholic spirituality in history, due to its same incarnate nature, never takes place as an “activity” isolated from the pastoral, the theological, the social and the cultural conditions. Since one of its dimensions —it is not the only one— is to motivate believers to follow of Jesus. This following acquires renovated nuances, demands and topics consistent with the mission and with the human experience of the believers. While the life of Christ and the Gospels are always the same, the experiences and the options that inspire are always historical.

Spirituality is not a science nor one more praxis in the Church. It is the “nourishment” of the pastoral, the theology and the community, whatever their “model” is.

When this was forgotten by the process of ecclesial renovation, this caused “schizophrenia” in some Christians, which is one of the causes of many failures. In a short time, they progressed in all of the levels of the renovation. They changed many pastoral, theological, and disciplinary categories. The image and the mission of the Church changed. Likewise, its concept that related faith with history and society changed; therefore the social and political options became more important.

In this context, there was no mystical renovation and it remained “traditional,” consistent with another vision of the faith and of the mission, and inconsistent with the new ecclesial experiences.

In this context, a spirituality does not motivate, it becomes irrelevant. It ends up being perceived as a useless appendix and ends up being abandoned, since a mystic that does not nourish the human experience stops having meaning; a spirituality that is foreign to the ecclesial model that is being lived leads to the crisis of the Christian “schizophrenia.” Many abandonments of the ecclesial life, and even of the faith, are rooted there. The only answer is not in abandoning all mystic or reversing the renovation of the institutions or options (due to fear of a collapse of the Christian values), but in deeply renovating the faith and spirituality starting from love to reach mercy. That is what the Pope wants. (See more at: Commissar Rodriguez on the Irreversible Nature of Bergoglio's "Merciful" Revolution.)

Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez is playing a very important role for his fellow villain of Antichrist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, by using clever code language that is designed to kill off whatever remains of a semblance of the sensus Catholicus in the souls of those Catholics within the structures of the conciliar sect who realize that numerous saints, including Saint John the Baptist himself, the last of the Old Testament Prophets and the veery precursor of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, and the English and Irish Martyrs, shed their blood to defend: the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. Commissar Oscar is also attempting to swat away a Catholic’s natural revulsion at the aberrant nature of the sin of Sodom and its related vices, thereby showing once again that men of sin serve a “church of sin,” a “church” that belongs wholly to Antichrist.

Although Bergoglio wants the average Catholic who is attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to think that some kind of “discussion” and debate will take place at his “synod” in two months. What will actually happen at this “synod,” however, is all for public consumption.

Reports will leak out concerning “conflicts,” sometimes fierce ones, over administering what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who lack a conciliar decree of marital nullity (thus making a mockery of those within the conciliar structures who have done so, sometimes after they were directed by a priest or a presbyter to proceed in this manner, and of those who have chosen not to seek such a decree). Led by Jorge and Oscar and Walter Kasper and most of the German “bishops”, et al., the Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries are intent to make it appear that a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage “fails,” to use words that Bergoglio himself has uttered on a number of occasions, including in his general audience address of August 5, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of the Snows:

If we then also look at these new bonds through the eyes of the young sons and daughters — and the little ones watch — through the eyes of the children, we are aware of a greater urgency to foster a true welcome for these families in our communities. For this reason it is important that the style of the community, its language, its attitudes, always be attentive to people, starting with the little ones. They are the ones who suffer the most in these situations. After all, how can we encourage these parents to do everything possible to raise their children in the Christian life, to give them an example of committed and exercised faith, if we keep them at arm’s length from the life of the community, as if they are excommunicated? We must act in a way so as not to add even more to the burdens which the children in these situations already feel they have to bear! Unfortunately, the number of these children and youth is really large. It is important for them to feel the Church as loving mother to all, always ready to listen and to meet.

In these decades, in truth, the Church has been neither insensitive nor lazy. Thanks to the in-depth analysis performed by Pastors, led and guided by my Predecessors, the awareness has truly grown that it is necessary to have a fraternal and attentive welcome, in love and in truth, of the baptized who have established a new relationship of cohabitation after the failure of the marital sacrament; in fact, these persons are by no means excommunicated — they are not excommunicated! — and they should absolutely not be treated as such: they are still a part of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI spoke about this question, calling for careful discernment and wise pastoral accompaniment, knowing that there are no “simple solutions” (Speech at the Seventh World Meeting of Families, Milan, 2 June 2012, answer n. 5). Here the repeated call to Pastors to openly and consistently demonstrate the community’s willingness to welcome them and encourage them, so they may increasingly live and develop their membership in Christ and in the Church through prayer, by listening to the Word of God, by attending the liturgy, through the Christian education of their children, through charity and service to the poor, through the commitment to justice and peace.

The biblical icon of the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11-18) summarizes the mission that Jesus received from the Father: that of giving his life for the sheep. This attitude is also a model for the Church, which embraces her children as a mother who gives her life for them. “The Church is called to be the house of the Father, with doors always wide open”.... No closed doors! No closed doors! “Everyone can share in some way in the life of the Church; everyone can be part of the community”.... The Church “is the house of the Father, where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems” (Ap. Exhort. Evangelii Gaudium, n. 47). (General Propaganda Address, August 5, 2015.)

The only kind of love that “fails” when those in a ratified and consummated marriage, which no power on the face of this earth can end legitimately, is a love of Our Lord and His Holy Cross. A ratified and consummate marriage is indissoluble. No power on the face of the earth can end such a marriage, which ends only with the death of one of the spouses. (Mr. Michael Creighton's study, Modern Problems of Marriage, addresses the issues of those who have been the unwilling victims of a divorce and/or had obtained a conciliar decree of nullity before coming to accept the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal). As was noted a few weeks ago, Bergolio and his fellow servants of Antichrist make a mockery of those Catholics who have stayed within the confines of the conciliar "Code of Canon Law," including those, such as the late Genevieve Gleason, who conducted themselves properly as married persons long after their spouses had obtained a "civil divorce" (see ).

This is the age of subjectivism. Indeed, this is the age of the triumph of subjectivism as the basis of “theology” and “pastoral praxis. The subjectivism that is at the heart of all conciliarism—and not just the prefabricated results that Bergoglio’s synod will produce—was described very clearly in a report written by Catholic researcher Mary Jo Anderson for Catholic World News:

There is a storm warning ahead for the Ordinary Synod on the Family, scheduled for October 2015 in Rome. Can there be “the possibility of an evolution of the ecclesiastical doctrine of marriage” in the Catholic Church without the Synod fathers “betraying their own traditions”? That evolution is the goal of some prominent theologians and canonists who met for three separate workshops earlier this year, under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Tdivorziati Risposati: In Un Volume la Riflessione Piu Avansata, published by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana (LEV), is a guide to the three workshops. The book was reviewed in the July 25 issue of the Italian Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana; the review details the proceedings of those workshops that, while perhaps not “secret,” were not publicized by the Pontifical Council for the Family. Unlike the semi-secret, but unofficial, “Shadow Council” held at the Pontifical Gregorian University in May, no members of the press were invited to the workshops.

The workshops were held in January, February, and March of this year. LEV’s 500-page compilation of the proceedings purports to outline the most “advanced reflection” on the relationship of the family and the Church, particularly on the hot-button issues that sparked controversy during the preliminary Synod on the Family in October 2014.

When the mid-point relatio of that preliminary synod was released to the public last year, Catholic observers and even some synod participants learned that novel “pastoral” initiatives had been proposed, including openness to homosexual “gifts” and a “pathway” for the divorced and remarried to be permitted to receive Communion.

The debate over Communion for the remarried caused cardinal tempers to flare. Many recoiled at the suggestion that settled Church doctrine should even be a topic of discussion when so many grave matters threaten families. Issues such as religious freedom, catechesis, persecution, and poverty drew less discussion because energy was directed toward defense of the doctrinal teaching on marriage and family. Prior to the synod, a much-circulated “Kasper Proposal,” presented by Cardinal Walter Kasper during a February 2014 consistory of cardinals, was touted as a pastoral approach that skirted the thorny problem of changes to the doctrinal teaching on marriage.

The question that looms large in these discussions strikes at the very foundation of sacramental theology: How can those in an objectively sinful marital arrangement—the divorced and civilly remarried—be admitted to the sacrament of Communion? It was Jesus himself who taught that marriage was indissoluble (Mt. 19:3-12). Even pastorally, can we ignore the clear prescription of Christ? Are we to hold that Christ’s own words on marriage are too hard for our contemporary era? Or is the demand for new pastoral elasticity itself a sign of the secular pressures against marriage that the synod hoped to address?

In the tense week following the release of the synod’s midterm relatio, these tendentious proposals failed to gain sufficient votes for inclusion in the final synod document. Despite the rejection of the majority of the synod fathers, in an unusual procedural move, paragraphs dealing with those topics were retained in the final document with a notation of their failure to pass. This effectively insured that the issues remained open for discussion in meetings of varying authority and influence.

It was in this context that the Pontifical Council for the Family hosted its closed-door workshops, which gathered 29 canonists, moral theologians, psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophers to find an “interdisciplinary contribution” to the Ordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family in October. There were no bishops or cardinals among the experts.

mong the participants was Father Eberhard Schockenhoff, professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg in Germany. Father Schockenhoff also serves as an advisor to the German Bishops’ Conference. His own theological orientation is revealed in his book Redeemed Freedom, in which he proposes a negotiation-style communication between man and the Creator of the Cosmos. God does not impose commandments on man; rather, the Creator communicates his love for man, principally in granting man near-absolute freedom. This schema dismisses God’s will for man; man is captive to his own limited determinations about what is true. The only revelation that matters is that God in his heaven loves man. It is a love that makes no demands other than that man discover himself.

In addition to Communion for the divorced and remarried, Father Schockenhoff urges approval of homosexual clergy and finds “stable” homosexual pairs to be ethical.

During the workshop proceedings, Father Schockenhoff insisted that “the possibility of an evolution of the ecclesiastical doctrine of marriage is greater than the suggested assertion that the Church cannot change its practice without betraying their own tradition.”

Support for the Schockenhoff’s position was offered by Father Gianpaolo Dianin, an expert on pastoral care of the family and a member of the Theological Faculty of Triveneto. His paper on the Eucharist and “irregular unions” was offered at the third workshop, on March 14. Father Dianin, who is also rector of the major seminary of Padua, explored instances in Church history in which adjustments to the regulation of marriage were made on the basis “of the new problems that emerged from time to time.” Following Father Schockenhoff, he admonished Christians who might treat the divorced and remarried as “dangerous people, unreliable who betrayed a promise,” and instructs pastors that they must overcome that “mentality in the community.” It’s unclear whether or not there is a place for instruction of the remarried regarding living chastely, in those situations in which they remain civilly married for the sake of raising their children.

On the issue of the Eucharist and “irregular unions” it was noted by Father Dianin that today, given contemporary challenges that secularism has put on Catholic marriages, there are numerous pastors who wish to do “something” for their parishioners but feel constrained by Church discipline that “understands little” of the hardships.

Participants at the workshop acknowledged a need for a more specific theology of marriage in contemporary times if the synod fathers were to adopt these proposals. Some recalled the work of noted liberals such as Bernard Haering, the German theologian whose controversial concept of a “moral death” of the bond of marriage could inform pastoral care. (That idea is little different from deciding on one’s own whether or not one is still sacramentally married. In the 1990s Cardinals Lehmann and Kasper were admonished by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for telling congregants to simply follow their own consciences.)

As Church discipline stands now, Communion for civilly remarried Catholics can only be received if the couple abstains from sexual intercourse, as is stated in Familiaris Consortio. However, many theologians openly dissent from the teaching. According to Famiglia Cristiana, canonist Alphonse Borras of the Catholic Institute of Paris said that the requirement of sexual abstinence was “profoundly ambiguous,” as it reduces sexuality to “genital activity” only.

It was reported that the March workshop featured an extended discussion of the uncomfortable position of the remarried within the wider Catholic community. Humberto Miguel Yanez, SJ, director of the Department of Moral Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, observed: “We gave Communion to the genocides that have never made public recantation, the capitalists who exploited the workers to grow their profit without limits, the mobsters who have exploited the Church to legitimize their business and their crime, war criminals who never repented, but is not allowed to remarried divorcees.”

It’s an emotional plea that Yanez makes, but hardly the theological basis the Kasperites are hoping to build for changing pastoral practice. Yanez’s illustration is not unlike a teen caught taking the family car without permission who points at the transgressions of his sister in hopes of deflecting his parents’ disapproval. Yanez, who was received into the Jesuit order by then-Father Bergoglio when the future pontiff was the provincial in Argentina, joins Father Schockenhoff’s camp—in this case the sinner is the Church, who causes the remarried to feel “excluded.”

The problem with these “exclusion” pleas is that it is not up to the Church but to the couple, who do have the pastoral option to live according to Familiaris Consortio if their case isn’t eligible for annulment. Because it is very difficult, very sacrificial, many pastors find it uncomfortable to suggest this path.

Certainly members of a community ought to be reminded by pastors to treat charitably all those among them who live in difficult situations, for all have sinned. But marriage, divorce, and remarriage is not a single sin or even a repeated sin. It is living in a perpetual state of sin that places one beyond the requirements for worthy reception of the sacraments. This is a truth that is seldom noted in any discussion by liberal proponents of proposed changes to pastoral care. Those bishops and theologians who oppose the Kasper Proposal begin from the standpoint of the soul—the eternal destiny of man. In that view there is no intent to “exclude,” rather to avoid additional sin incurred when one receives Communion while not in a state of grace.

However, this tactic of delegating a sort of victim status to those who are civilly remarried has prominent supporters. During the workshop, French theologian Xavier Lacroix, former professor at the Catholic University of Lyon, attempts to place the issue in the context of “forgiveness”: “There is no Christian life without forgiveness…it is not an excuse or a forgetting, but a re-gift.” The difficulty with this approach is that forgiveness as such presumes that transgressions are repented of, whereas a civil union while still sacramentally married to another is an objective instance of living in persistent adultery.

Friar Eduardo Scognamiglio teaches theology at the Theological Faculty of Southern Italy. At one of the workshops, he expressed his expectation that this question will raised at the synod: “Can you honestly deprive a believer of the Eucharist through the entire course of his existence?”

The workshops are reported to have devised a complex proposal as a path toward reinstatement of the remarried to the sacraments. The path included a penitential “journey” under the guidance of a pastor or bishop. There were serious objections.

Father Jose Granados, professor of dogmatic theology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute in Rome, noted that a path of penance should dissolve the illicit union, and where that is not possible, there must be complete chastity within the civil union. His was considered to be the most “radical” solution. Others agreed that the path of penance can be a public prelude to welcoming the couple back to Communion, without the requirement of marital continence. (Presumably, this public penance is intended to forestall scandal among the faithful who witness divorced persons receiving Communion). However, Father Dianin stressed that the relatio synodi does not mention the commitment to live “as brother and sister,” pointing out that it refers not only to repentance, but to a penitential journey under the guidance of the bishop that assumes at least a partial re-admission to Communion, for example, on Easter Sunday.

Father Dianin introduced the tradition developed by the Second Lateran IV (1215) of the “Easter duty”—the reception of confession and Communion that is expected of Catholics at least once a year. His idea was that the “minimum” should not be denied to the divorced and remarried. His idea found some consensus, but others pointed out that if it is “right” once a year, it is senseless to limit it the rest of the year.

Still others objected to the public-penance path as an invasion of privacy and a psychological burden. Their hope was to find a path back to the sacraments, though a less public one.

Gian Luigi Brena, SJ, professor of philosophical anthropology at the Institute Aloisianum of Padua, emphasized the penitential journey as “a short duty.” Pastors must avoid heavy burdens as a prerequisite to begin the path because “forgiveness is not earned, nor deserved, but is a free gift of the Lord.” Father Brena made his intent clear to the other participants of the seminar: “We cannot allow it [the penitential path] to lead us to forget the mercy…threatening to remain firm in judgment toward the people in need, without giving acceptance and forgiveness.” He added a caution: “Besides, the current framework would not seem to be secure, in which case there would be no need for a double synod.”

The workshop sessions indicated a distinct willingness to promote “evolution” of current pastoral practices. The hefty volume of proceedings of the workshops has not yet been studied by a broader group of experts. On the basis of theology alone there is sure to be vociferous objections to any path, penitential or otherwise, wherein those who continue to live in sin according to the words of Jesus are returned to Communion.

There is another consideration. The synods are formally called to address the family in the context of evangelization. From an evangelical standpoint, who would believe in a God whose very own words we officially contrive to ignore? Are we to imagine that the Gospel is today less appealing than it was to the first Christians who heard and believed? Rather, as these thunderheads mount, might the synod fathers ask if the problem is not the clear teaching of Christ himself, but is rather that our flaccid, over-indulged society finds the Christian journey too difficult? The African Church does not find the teachings burdensome; they recognize them as salvific. What of their witness? Is theirs the compelling evangelical path?

The meetings were held January 17, February 21, and March 14, 2015. Among those in attendance were Msgr. Fabio Fabene, assistant secretary of the Synod of Bishops; Msgr. Jean Laffitte, secretary to the Pontifical Council for the Family; and Msgr. Carlos Simon Vazquez, undersecretary for the Pontifical Council for the Family. None of the above addressed the workshops. (Closed Door Discussions Are Published.)

Mrs. Anderson’s final remarks in her article demonstrate that she is genuinely concerned about those who are contriving to ignore the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. What Mrs. Anderson either does not recognize or seem willing to admit is that the entire conciliar revolution has contrived to ignore the words of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and those of our true popes and Holy Mother Church’s twenty authentic general councils from the earliest days of the false “pontificate” of “Saint John XXIII.”

Undergirded by Modernism’s condemned and philosophically absurd “evolution of dogma,” the documents” of the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisterium of the conciliar “popes” have endorsed a “new ecclesiology” that makes it appear as though Protestants and the Orthodox are part of the “Church of Christ,” that Old Covenant of Moses has never been revoked, that false ecumenism and inter-religious “prayer” services, separation of Church and State, and “religious liberty,” each of which has been condemned by our true popes, that the doctrine of Papal Primacy can be “understood” in ways that appeal to heretical and schismatic sects, that popes do not enjoy plenipotentiary power over bishops, governing “collegially” with them, and that the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas corrupted an “unfiltered” reading of Sacred Scripture and our Church Fathers. Multiple examples documenting this to be the case are to be found in many articles on this site and in No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth.

Moreover, the conciliar revolutionaries have contrived to ignore the patrimony of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in order to concoct a “new order” that has enshrined and helped to propagate their false doctrines, each of which has made possible novel “pastoral” practices, each of which has “evolved” in what can be called the “hermeneutic” of its very own right down to what is unfolding at present with the planning and ultimate conclusion of Jorge’s “synod.”

It is also the case, of course, that the conciliar revolutionaries have contrived to undermine the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony, starting with the interventions of some bishops at the “Second” Vatican Council itself, which prompted the following response with the Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani:

"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. See also my Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.)

The bishops who intervened in behalf of "family planning" at the "Second" Vatican Council were seeking to overturn Pope Pius XII's 1944 condemnation of the personalist writings of Father Herbert and Dietrich von Hildebrand that inverted the ends of Holy Matrimony, placing the "unitive" end above that of what the Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial is the primary end of marriage, the propagation and education of children. The personalist view advanced by Doms and Von Hildebrand led directly to the undermining the stability marriage as it was premised first of all on the good of the spouses and not on the honor and glory of God by bringing forth as many (or as few) children as He has willed from all eternity for them to have.

Here is the decree of the Holy Office, issued on April 1, 1944, that condemned the personalist view of Holy Matrimony:

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.)

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria 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 Father Herbert Doms and 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.

No, what is happening at present under the regime of Antipope Francis is not really that novel. It only seems to be novel because the Argentine Apostate and his fellow willing servants of Antichrist have stripped away all of the sophism that had been used to mask the reality of the evil of the conciliar concept of moral theology concerning the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Indeed, those who do not go histrionic or apoplectic every time Jorge makes does or says something to reaffirm unrepentant sinners in their lives of sin ought to recall that the supposed “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI set off a firestorm of confusion and contradiction when he said to journalist Peter Seewald that it might be morally licit for a married couple to resort to a certain contraceptive device if one or both of the spouses suffered from a disease that is contracted principally, although not exclusively, by means of unnatural use of that proper to the married state alone (see If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun,Words and Actions Without Consequences, Making a Mockery of Catholicism).

Underlying the Antipope Emeritus’s contention, however, was the exact same belief possessed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio concerning the supposed “impossibility” of married couples facing health difficulties and/or those whose marriages are canonically invalid to ask Our Lady to send them the graces to live in a Josephite manner, although it should be noted that Bergoglio and his supporting cast of villains really do not believe that it is possible, necessary or even desirable for anyone, including those who are engaged in perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, to deny themselves the “love” that comes from supposed “intimacy.”

Pope Pius XII explained that God does not demand the impossible from us, that it is eminently possible for men to cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Calvary, to do what seems difficult, something that he discussed in the specific context where a married couple would have to refrain as a matter of mutual consent from that proper to marriage out of legitimate, documented concerns for the wife’s health and survival:

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 seven months ago in an interview 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 not "impossible" for anyone to obey the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and to assert that one can "love" others while defying those precepts is to mock God and the efficacy of His graces in a diabolical manner.

Authentic love of one person for another is act of the will that seeks the good of the other, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of that person’s immortal soul. No one “loves” another by doing or saying anything that interferes with the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. It is God’s Holy Will for us to save our souls, not to have our souls, which have been redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, stained by what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins that damn us to Hell for all eternity if not repented and then Absolved by a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. Bergoglio and his fiends do not believe that anyone jeopardizes the salvation of his immortal soul by “loving” others in a way that may not “conform” to what have become “unrealistic” expectations based upon teachings that no longer reflect the “reality” of how people live in the “modern” world.

Alas, this is all part and parcel of boilerplate Modernism no matter how “new” it may seem to some commentators today.

Pope Saint Pius X critiqued the Modernist’s desire to base dogma and pastoral praxis on the conditions in which men find themselves rather than on the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, noting that this method was used that was used to deny the historicity of the Gospels themselves, including the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord Himself:

Finally, they require, by virtue of the third principle, that even those things which are not outside the sphere of history should pass through the sieve, excluding all and relegating to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call the logic of facts or not in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely .subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

As noted in part one of this commentary a week ago now, the "evolution" of Modernism in itself had "progressed" fifty years after Pascendi Dominci Gregis to the point that various Jesuit theologians were "pushing the envelope" on matters of moral theology, especially pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, causing Pope Pius XII to speak in very blunt terms at the Thirtieth General Convention of the Society of Jesus in 1957:

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained in the very "proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one" that does indeed "tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from should be done. He was not cut off from the Society as an "unworthy and unfaithful son." No, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an entirely "worthy" servant of the very methodology condemned by Pope Pius XII, which means that the conciliar "Petrine Minister" at this time of apostasy and betrayal is a willing servant of Antichrist.

It was in defense of the truth about Our Lord and His Holy Doctrine that Pope Saint Pius X clearly explicated the Divine Redeemer’s approach toward sin and error:

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

It was in defense of the truth about Our Lord and His Holy Doctrine that Pope Saint Pius X clearly explicated the Divine Redeemer’s approach toward sin and error:

Catholicism is clear. Heresy and error demand complexity and paradox. This is why the conciliar revolutionaries recoil at the clarity of Saint Paul the Apostle’s Second Epistle to the Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Timothy 1: 1-5.)

Behold the false teachers who have upon us. Their numbers are legion, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a true son of the conciliar revolution, and among whose numbers are to be counted the likes of each member of this false "pope's" "Council of Cardinals" (i.e. The Commissars). The endless reaffirmation of hardened sinners in their sins stands in diametrical opposition to the examples of countless Catholic bishops and priests, many of them raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church, who worked to reform the morals of the people who had been entrusted to their pastoral care.

Here is an account of the work done by Saint Anthony Mary Claret to deal with Catholics in Cuba who were living in sin:

Here he was met by disturbing news. In this town of pilgrimage [Cobre] where the island's most famous shrine was located, his missionaries had found hardly a dozen legitimately married couples! He praised their diligence in having substantially raised this figure prior to his arrival but--even so! This shocking situation required a strong hand--the hand of a patient but uncompromising prelate. The unhappy fact was that the Spanish-descended Cubans rarely condescended to marry their Negro and mulatto concubines, even when their half-caste progeny might number as many as nine or ten. Rightly suspecting that this intolerable state of affairs might prove typical, he attacked the problem vigorously. A committee was appointed to study each case individually. On its recommendations, he let it be known, all such unions must be regularized or, where impediments existed, dissolved!

It was a most trying undertaking, fraught with complications, both tragic and absurd. Persons who expressed their willingness, even eagerness, to legalize their unions were frequently not free to receive the Sacrament of marriage. Others, without the excuse of impediments under Church law were sometimes overcome with indignation to hear that they were expected to make wives of their colored concubines. There were emphatic affirmations that Spain prohibited mixed marriages, a fallacy the archbishop had no need to consider. In all her colonial history Spain had never forced any such regulation. However, for any who persisted in this persuasion in spite of Padre Claret's assurances, his command was clear. They must immediately terminate their illicit unions. It would be a painful problem--the provision for their innocent children--but it would have to be faced. Although he praised God that many of these easy-going folk accepted their prelate's reprimands contritely and docilely obeyed his injunctions to amend their lives, Cobre had certainly given him a first-hand acquaintance with the repugnant moral deterioration that had engulfed a traditionally Christian nation. (Fanchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, published originally by Farrar, Straus and Cudahy in 1957 an republished in 1985 by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 130-131.)

Saint Anthony Mary Claret did not accept sophistries used to disguise moral relativism. Quite unlike Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis the Possessed, Saint Anthony Mary Claret preached Catholic doctrinal truth to the people of Cobre, Cuba, knowing that this truth possesses the inherent power to attract and to covert an unprejudiced soul who is willing to cooperate with the graces sent to them by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Another Spaniard, Saint Francis Solano, for example, preached a sermon in the public square in Lima, Peru, in 1610 during which he prophesied of the great earthquake that God would visit upon Lima to chastise the people there for their ingratitude and immorality:

By the time Francis had reached the market, the theme of his sermon was clear. God was love, yet man was constantly thwarting that love. Many times this was because of thoughtlessness, but there were also countless times when it was because of sheer selfishness, and even malice. Well, atonement for sin must be made by means of penance.

"Unless you do penance, you shall likewise," Our Lord had said to his disciples.

"I will say these words, too," Francis thought. "Oh, Heavenly Father, may they help some souls tonight to turn away from sin!"

Naturally many at the market were astonished when they saw the Father Guardian of Saint Mary of the Angels making his way through their midst. Since his return from Trujillo he had appeared in the streets only rarely, and certainly never in the evenings. Then in a little while there was even more astonishment. Father Francis had come not to buy for his friars, or even to beg. He had come to preach!

At first, however, since business was brisk, not much heed was paid to his words. Merchants vied with one another in calling out the merits of their wares while customers argued noisily for a lower price. Beggars whined for alms. Babies cried. Dogs barked. Donkeys brayed. Older children ran in and out of the crowd intent upon their games. Music was everywhere--weird tunes played by Indian musicians on their wooden flutes, gay Spanish rhythms played on guitar and tambourine. At the various food students succulent rounds of meat sizzled and sputtered as they turned over slow fires. Then suddenly a thunderous voice rang about above the noisy and carefree scene:

"For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is in the world."

It was as though a bombshell had fallen. At once the hubbub died away, and hundreds of Lima's startled citizens turned to where a grey-clad friar, cross in hand, had mounted an elevation in the center of the marketplace and now stood gazing down upon them with eyes of burning coals. But before anyone could wonder about the text from Saint John's first epistle, Francis began to explain the meaning of concupiscence: that, because of Original Sin, it is the tendency within each person to do evil instead of good; that this hidden warfare will end only when we have drawn our last breath.

"If we were to die tonight, would good or evil be the victor within our hearts" he cried. "Oh, my friends! Think about this question. Think hard!

Within just a few minutes Lima's marketplace was as hushed and solemn as a cathedral. All eyes were riveted upon the Father Guardian and all ears were filled with his words as he described God's destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrha because of the sins committed within them.

"Who is to say that here in Lima we do not deserve a like fate?" he demanded in ringing tones. "Look into your hearts now, my children. Are they clean? Are they pure? Are they filled with love of God?"

As the minutes passed and twilight deepened into darkness, the giant torches of the marketplace cast their flickering radiance over a moving scene. As usual, crowds of people were on hand, but now no one was interested in buying or selling. Instead, faces were bewildered, agonized and fearful. Tears were streaming from many eyes as Francis' words continued to pour out in torrents, urging repentance while there was still time.

"Can we say that we shall ever see tomorrow?" he cried, fervently brandishing his missionary cross. "Can we say that this night is not the last we shall have in which to return to God's friendship?"

As these and still more terrifying thoughts struck home one after another, the speaker stretched out both arms, bowed his head, and in heartrending tones began the Fifth Psalm. At once the crowd was filled with fresh sorrow and made the contrite phrases their own:

"Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy.

"And according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity.

"Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

"For I know my iniquity, and my sins is always before me.

"To Thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before Thee: that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest overcome when Thou art judged . . ."

Soon wave upon wave of sound was filling the torch lit marketplace as priest and people prayed together. Then Francis preached again, doing his est to implant a greater sorrow for sin and an even firmer purpose of amendment in the hearts of his hearers. Finally, looking neither to right nor left, he prepared to depart for Saint Mary of the Angels. But on all sides men and women pressed about him, sobbing and begging for his blessing.

"Father, please pray for me!" cried one young girl. "I've deserved to go to Hell a thousand times!"

"Last year, I robbed a poor widow of ten pounds of gold!" declared a swarthy-faced Spaniard. "May God forgive me!"

"'I'm worse than anyone," moaned a wild-eyed black man. "Tonight, I was going to kill a man . . . and for money!"

So it was that first one, then another, cried out his fault and expressed a desire to go to Confession at once. But Francis had to refuse all such requests. Yes, he was a priest. It was his privilege and duty to administer the Sacraments. But he was also a religious, and bound by rule to various observances. One of them was that he must be in his cell at Saint Mary of the Angels by a certain hour each night.

"There are other priests in the city who can help you, though," he said kindly. "Go them now, my children. And may the Holy Virgin bring you back to her Son without delay." (Mary Fabyan Windeatt, Saint Francis of Solano: Wonderworker of the New World and Apostle of Argentina and Peru, published originally by Sheed and Ward in 1946 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1994, pp. 167-172.)

This is just a slight contrast with the approach taken by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his Commissars, each of whom doubts the ability of the truths of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, when preached with conviction for love of Christ the King and for the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem, to touch hearts and to reform lives in an instant.

The false compassion of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his Commisars is of the devil, not of Our Lord Himself.

None other than the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, a Doctor of Holy Mother Church, had a few choice words about the delusions of sinners that are fed by the likes of Bergoglio and his fellow willing servants of Antichrist. Consider the following passages from Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri’s sermon for Sexagesima Sunday:

The Devil brings sinners to hell by closing their eyes to the dangers of perdition. He first blinds them, and then leads them with himself to eternal torments. If, then, we wish to be saved, we must continually pray to God in the words of the blind man in the gospel of this day,” Lord, that I may see." Give me light: make me see the way in which I must walk in order to save my soul, and to escape the deceits of the enemy of salvation. I shall, brethren, this day place before your eyes the delusion by which the devil tempts men to sin and to persevere in sin, that you may know how to guard yourselves against his deceitful artifices.  

2. To understand these delusions better, let us imagine the case of a young man who, seized by some passion, lives in sin, the slave of Satan, and never thinks of his eternal salvation. My son, I say to him, what sort of life do you lead? If you continue to live in this manner, how will you be able to save your soul? But, behold! the devil, on the other hand, says to him: Why should you be afraid of being lost? Indulge your passions for the present: you will afterwards confess your sins, and thus all shall be remedied. Behold the net by which the devil drags so many souls into hell. “Indulge your passions: you will hereafter make a good confession." But, in reply, I say, that in the meantime you lose your soul. Tell me: if you had a jewel worth a thousand pounds, would you throw it into a river with the hope of afterwards finding it again? What if all your efforts to find it were fruitless? God! you hold in your hand the invaluable jewel of your soul, which Jesus Christ has purchased with his own blood, and you cast it into hell! Yes; you cast it into hell; because according to the present order of providence, for every mortal sin you commit, your name is written among the number of the damned. But you say.” I hope to recover God’s grace by making a good confession." And if you should not recover it, what shall be the consequences? To make a good confession, a true sorrow for sin is necessary, and this sorrow is the gift of God: if he does not give it, will you not be lost for ever?  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 118-119.)

The conciliar revolutionaries, of course, live in a delusional world. Their world is so delusion that they do not even tell the unrepentant sinner that he has to make a good confession, not that the thought of doing so enters into the minds of most unrepentant sinners today. There are countless thousands of conciliar revolutionaries who have said that the path to Heaven is open to everyone.



Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said otherwise:

[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? [17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. [22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. [24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

[26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. [28] And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. [29] For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. (Matthew 7 13-29.)

The conciliar revolutionaries show us very clearly that they do not believe in the very words of Our Lord Himself. This is because their Scripture exegesis, such as it may be, is founded upon Modernist  principles, which leads them to rationalize away the plain meaning of Our Lord’s words and/or to doubt that He ever spoke them in the first place.

Our Lord, however, meant every word of what is recorded in Sacred Scripture, which is inerrant as every word contained therein was written under the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Saint Leonard of Port Maurice explained that, quite to the contrary of the conciliar revolutionaries' belief that the “Heaven is open” and that no one need to fear Hell or Purgatory as neither exists, that few in number are those who are saved:

Woe to you who command others! If so many are damned by your fault, what will happen to you? If few out of those who are first in the Church of God are saved, what will happen to you? Take all states, both sexes, every condition: husbands, wives, widows, young women, young men, soldiers, merchants, craftsmen, rich and poor, noble and plebian. What are we to say about all these people who are living so badly? The following narrative from Saint Vincent Ferrer will show you what you may think about it. He relates that an archdeacon in Lyons gave up his charge and retreated into a desert place to do penance, and that he died the same day and hour as Saint Bernard. After his death, he appeared to his bishop and said to him, "Know, Monsignor, that at the very hour I passed away, thirty-three thousand people also died. Out of this number, Bernard and myself went up to heaven without delay, three went to purgatory, and all the others fell into Hell."

Our chronicles relate an even more dreadful happening. One of our brothers, well-known for his doctrine and holiness, was preaching in Germany. He represented the ugliness of the sin of impurity so forcefully that a woman fell dead of sorrow in front of everyone. Then, coming back to life, she said, "When I was presented before the Tribunal of God, sixty thousand people arrived at the same time from all parts of the world; out of that number, three were saved by going to Purgatory, and all the rest were damned."

O abyss of the judgments of God! Out of thirty thousand, only five were saved! And out of sixty thousand, only three went to heaven! You sinners who are listening to me, in what category will you be numbered?... What do you say?... What do you think?...

I see almost all of you lowering your heads, filled with astonishment and horror. But let us lay our stupor aside, and instead of flattering ourselves, let us try to draw some profit from our fear.

Is it not true that there are two roads which lead to heaven: innocence and repentance? Now, if I show you that very few take either one of these two roads, as rational people you will conclude that very few are saved. And to mention proofs: in what age, employment or condition will you find that the number of the wicked is not a hundred times greater than that of the good, and about which one might say, "The good are so rare and the wicked are so great in number"? We could say of our times  what Salvianus said of his: it is easier to find a countless multitude of sinners immersed in all sorts of iniquities than a few innocent men. How many servants are totally honest and faithful in their duties? How many merchants are fair and equitable in their commerce; how many craftsmen exact and truthful; how many salesmen disinterested and sincere? How many men of law do not forsake equity? How many soldiers do not tread upon innocence; how many masters do not unjustly withhold the salary of those who serve them, or do not seek to dominate their inferiors? Everywhere, the good are rare and the wicked great in number. Who does not know that today there is so much libertinage among mature men, liberty among young girls, vanity among women, licentiousness in the nobility, corruption in the middle class, dissolution in the people, impudence among the poor, that one could say what David said of his times: "All alike have gone astray... there is not even one who does good, not even one." (Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, The Little Numbr of Those Who Are Saved.)

These are words that should terrify each one of us, especially as we embark upon Lent in just four days. The spiritually lax do not enter the Kingdom of God. We must pray to Our Lady every day to help us to save our souls as it is far easier to go to Hell for all eternity than it is to go to Heaven. The conciliar revolutionaries preach the exact opposite.

The religion of Saint Leonard of Port Maurice and of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori is not that of the universal salvationists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who make light of the gravity of sin and whose very fabricated liturgy makes no reference to Hell, to the possibility of losing one’s soul for all eternity or to a God Who judges souls. The conciliar religion is all about human self-congratulations designed to propagate fables that tickle the itching ears of men so as to earn the applause of “the world.”

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given  you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do ?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that ” God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be.  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s sermon for the First Sunday of Lent is a discourse about the number of sins beyond which God will not grant forgiveness. The conciliar revolutionaries commit Martin Luther’s sin of Presumption by presuming that unrepentant sinners do not have to be exhort to reform their lives, that it is enough for them to know that they are loved by God and “welcomed” by what is thought to be the “Catholic community” without any mention of their spiritually suicidal behavior that is an incentive to others to follow them in leading lives of licentiousness. The founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer offered some sobering words concerning such a recklessly false notion of God and His forgiveness:

8. O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against the loss of your money; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you cautiously avoid all danger of falling into it; and for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a beastly pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to confession after I commit this sin." And when, I ask, are you to go to confession? You say: “On tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as he has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? “Diem tenes,” says St. Augustine, “qui horam non tenes.” You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: “I will go to confession tomorrow.” Listen to the words of St. Gregory: “He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners.” (Hom. xii. in Evan). God has promised pardon to all who repent; but he has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, perhaps he will not. But, should he not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost for ever.  

9. Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No, you would not. How then does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you lose your soul, heaven, and God? Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? Oh! what temerity, what folly is it, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an eternity of torments with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "Nemo," says St. Augustine, “sub spe salutis vultæ grotare.” No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. Folly! which, in conformity with the divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. “Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof.” (Isa. xlvii. 10, 11.) You have sinned, trusting rashly in the divine mercy: the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes. What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after this sermon, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost. ("On The Number of Sins Beyond Which God Will Not Forgive: Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982. The entire texs of the sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday and the First Sunday of Lent are found in the appendices below.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori addressed his sermon to Catholics who attended Holy Mass. Those who lived during the years of his priesthood in the Eighteenth Century were well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, which is why the great bishop and doctor could ask, “Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? It is pretty difficult for non-practicing Catholics in the conciliar structures who have committed themselves to lives of unrepentant sin to answer Saint Alphonsus’s question in the affirmative when men such as Jorge Mario Bergolio tell them that the path to Heaven is wide open for them as they, the conciliar revolutionaries, deny the existence of Hell and almost every single other truth of the Catholic Faith, sometimes in its entirety and at other times by means of obfuscation or by the invocation of the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolution.

Although readers of this site know these things, I am sure that some readers have relatives and friends who are more open now to considering commentaries such as this one. Truth resonates. The truths contained in the writings from and about Saint Anthony Mary Claret, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, and Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, to say nothing of the prophetic witness given by Saint Francis Solano here in the Americas, will resonate anew in the souls of those who are open to accept the fact that the Catholic Church cannot be the author of heresy or error and that men who promote heresy and error cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately within her.

Indeed, as will be noted in a revised article to be posted later today, Monday, August 17, 2015, Saint Hyacinth, who was one of the first Dominicans, is quite a contrast to the infidelity of the conciliar revolutionaries as he did what they forbid: he sought the conversion of the Orthodox. Saint Hyacinth cared about preaching the truth, not about a "dialogue of encounter" that is nothing other than a placebo for those who do not want to give up their sins while believing that they can be saved nevertheless.

This is a time for more Rosaries, more penance, more reading of Sacred Scripture and spiritual books. Our Lady, who was given us by her Divine Son to be our Mother as she stood so valiantly beneath His Holy Cross, stands ready to help us to save our souls despite our own best efforts to go to Hell. Why do we tarry so long in clinging to her as we beg him with humility for the graces that we need to prosper spiritually in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

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 John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Lawrence the Deacon, pray for us.