Always Asking All The Wrong Questions
Thomas A. Droleskey
As has been noted quite frequently on this site, human beings have a tendency to get bogged down in the trees of the forests in which they live, constantly agitated by problems and events without bothering to reflect on their root causes or to realize that there is no short-cut to the resolution of the problems that face us in the world today, whether those problems relate to the apostasies, sacrileges and blasphemies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism or to those in the world, populated by men and women who are nothing other than latter day manifestations of the barbarism of the Roman emperors and their servile minions of yore.
It is tempting, of course, to treat the questions that the conciliar "Synod of Bishops" has sent out to the array of apostates who are ordinaries or auxiliaries of the "local churches" (dioceses) in preparation for next year's "extraordinary synod" on the redefinition of marriage and the family with mockery and satire. It is also tempting to answer each in a detailed manner to demonstrate how the questions themselves are merely reflective of the loss of the sensus Catholicus that fifty-five years of Modernism have been designed to produce.
After deliberating over this most of yesterday while gathering sources for an effective commentary, I have decided to take a slightly different tack in handling the every existence of the questions pasted below by noting that the conciliar revolutionaries are always asking all the wrong questions. Thus it is I will simply list the questions themselves and then offer an overall commentary on them.
Here are the questions:
1. The Diffusion of the Teachings on the Family in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium
Describe how the Catholic Church’s teachings on the value of the family
contained in the Bible, Gaudium et spes, Familiaris consortio and other
documents of the post-conciliar Magisterium is understood by people
today? What formation is given to our people on the Church’s teaching on
b) In those cases where the Church's teaching is known,
is it accepted fully or are there difficulties in putting it into
practice? If so, what are they?
c) How widespread is the Church's
teaching in pastoral programmes at the national, diocesan and parish
levels? What catechesis is done on the family?
d ) To what extent —
and what aspects in particular — is this teaching actually known,
accepted, rejected and/or criticized in areas outside the Church? What
are the cultural factors which hinder the full reception of the Church’s
teaching on the family?
2. Marriage according to the Natural Law
What place does the idea of the natural law have in the cultural areas
of society: in institutions, education, academic circles and among the
people at large? What anthropological ideas underlie the discussion on
the natural basis of the family?
b) Is the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman commonly accepted as such by the baptized in general?
How is the theory and practice of natural law in the union between man
and woman challenged in light of the formation of a family? How is it
proposed and developed in civil and Church institutions?
d) In cases
where non-practicing Catholics or declared non-believers request the
celebration of marriage, describe how this pastoral challenge is dealt
3. The Pastoral Care of the Family in Evangelization
experiences have emerged in recent decades regarding marriage
preparation? What efforts are there to stimulate the task of
evangelization of the couple and of the family? How can an awareness of
the family as the "domestic Church" be promoted?
b) How successful
have you been in proposing a manner of praying within the family which
can withstand life’s complexities and today’s culture?
c) In the
current generational crisis, how have Christian families been able to
fulfill their vocation of transmitting the faith?
d) In what way have
the local Churches and movements on family spirituality been able to
create ways of acting which are exemplary?
e) What specific
contribution can couples and families make to spreading a credible and
holistic idea of the couple and the Christian family today?
f) What pastoral care has the Church provided in supporting couples in formation and couples in crisis situations?
4. Pastoral Care in Certain Difficult Marital Situations
a) Is cohabitation ad experimentum a pastoral reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage?
b) Do unions which are not recognized either religiously or civilly exist? Are reliable statistics available?
Are separated couples and those divorced and remarried a pastoral
reality in your particular Church? Can you approximate a percentage? How
do you deal with this situation in appropriate pastoral programmes?
In all the above cases, how do the baptized live in this irregular
situation? Are aware of it? Are they simply indifferent? Do they feel
marginalized or suffer from the impossibility of receiving the
e) What questions do divorced and remarried people pose
to the Church concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of
Reconciliation? Among those persons who find themselves in these
situations, how many ask for these sacraments?
f ) Could a
simplification of canonical practice in recognizing a declaration of
nullity of the marriage bond provide a positive contribution to solving
the problems of the persons involved? If yes, what form would it take?
Does a ministry exist to attend to these cases? Describe this pastoral
ministry? Do such programmes exist on the national and diocesan levels?
How is God’s mercy proclaimed to separated couples and those divorced
and remarried and how does the Church put into practice her support for
them in their journey of faith?
5. On Unions of Persons of the Same Sex
a) Is there a law in your country recognizing civil unions for people of the same-sex and equating it in some way to marriage?
What is the attitude of the local and particular Churches towards both
the State as the promoter of civil unions between persons of the same
sex and the people involved in this type of union?
c) What pastoral attention can be given to people who have chosen to live in these types of union?
In the case of unions of persons of the same sex who have adopted
children, what can be done pastorally in light of transmitting the
6. The Education of Children in Irregular Marriages
What is the estimated proportion of children and adolescents in these
cases, as regards children who are born and raised in regularly
b) How do parents in these situations approach
the Church? What do they ask? Do they request the sacraments only or do
they also want catechesis and the general teaching of religion?
How do the particular Churches attempt to meet the needs of the parents
of these children to provide them with a Christian education?
d) What is the sacramental practice in these cases: preparation, administration of the sacrament and the accompaniment?
7. The Openness of the Married Couple to Life
What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae
vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to
evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be
suggested in this regard pastorally?
b) Is this moral teaching
accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of
couple’s accepting this teaching?
c) What natural methods are
promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice
the teachings of Humanae vitae?
d) What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?
e) What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?
f) How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?
8. The Relationship Between the Family and the Person
Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the human person. How
can the family be a privileged place for this to happen?
b) What critical situations in the family today can obstruct a person’s encounter with Christ?
c) To what extent do the many crisis of faith which people can experience affect family life?
9. Other Challenges and Proposals
What other challenges or proposals related to the topics in the above questions do you consider urgent and useful to treat? (Preparing for the Synod.)
Look at these questions. Just look at them. They are absurd. I will deal with the first six categories in broad strokes below. The seventh will be examined in part two of this commentary tomorrow, Monday, November 11, 2013, the Feast of Saint Martin of Tours.
Poll after poll has indicated just how much knowledge that ordinary Novus Ordo-attending Catholics, no less the sixty-five to seventy-five percent of baptized Catholics who do not even bother to darken conciliar temples in order to engage in "full, active and conscious" participation in a liturgical abomination that is devoid of sacramental validity, have for even the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council and those of the postconciliar "pontiffs," no less of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Although the story that follows has been related on this site many times before, I will do so again as there are many new readers to this site in recent months. The story, dating back eighteen years ago now, showed the state of conciliar "education" then. It is even worse now.
Over nine thousand souls were
in front of me during the thirty years that I served as a professor of
political science in various institutions around the United States of
America between the time that I started teaching discussion sections of
American National Government at the then named State University of New
York at Albany in January of 1974 to the time I taught my last class at
the C. W. Post Campus on Long Island University on January 11, 2007,
over six years ago now. Some of them became close friends for various
lengths of time before time and events and differences led to a natural
parting of the ways. Others are still friends. Still others find me on
this site now and again and drop me a line or two to say hello.
Friendship is, after all, a free gift that is neither earned nor owed.
What matters, of course, is that we continue to pray for those whom the
Providence of God put in our paths at some point or another in our
One student wrote to me in November of 2009,
introducing himself to me by saying that I probably didn't remember
him. Oh, I remember most of my former students, this one especially one
as I have referred to him (without naming him) several times on this
site. This is what I wrote to him after he had written to me to ask if I remembered him:
I am tired, busy writing another article for my www.Christorchaos.com
website, where you have been quoted any number of times, including as
follows in one article (and this is the EXACT quote preceded by an
Most of the over nine thousand students I
taught in various colleges and universities between January of 1974 and
July of 2003 (with an eleven-day reprise during the winter intersession
at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University from December 28,
2006, to January 11, 2007) were baptized Catholics. Most of those
Catholic students knew little about the Faith, and the little that they
thought they knew was wrong. The material that I presented on Special
Creation and Adam's Fall and Our Lord's Redemptive Act on the wood of
the Cross (one cannot understand politics without understanding human
nature, and one cannot understand human nature absent the teaching of
the true Church) was completely foreign to most of these Catholic
One student, a young man from Westchester
County, New York, despite having been through thirteen years of
Catholic education, had never heard of Original Sin and Adam and Eve's
Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden. Anthony blurted out in amazement
when I was lecturing on First and Last Things in an Introduction to
Political Science course at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island
University in the Fall 1995 Semester, "Is this what the Faith is about?
Why hasn't anyone taught this to me before?" "Because." I explained to
him, "you have been the victim of Catholic educational fraud." Sadly,
that young man was not then--and is not today--alone.
Don't remember you? Quite the contrary! You were an excellent student.
There was also a time in the Spring of 1983 that a an earnest young student at Nassau Community
College in the Spring 1983 Semester who was a product of Catholic
education and asked "Who's Judas?" when I mentioned the name of the
betrayer of Our Lord in a class lecture. "Perhaps the bishops and priests and nuns responsible for your
training," I told her.
Another student of mine, who took to heart my efforts to transmit the Faith in the context of two political sciences at Saint John's University, Jamaica, Queens, New York, during the 1984-1985 academic year, began teaching religion, after receiving a graduate degree from a "conservative" catechetical institute, at a conciliar-controlled high school in 1990 and asked me to review the curriculum that she was expected to teach. The curriculum was purely conciliar, based on the touchy-feely "God is love," "we love God," God loves us," "we love others because God loves us" that passed for "religious education" in conciliar circles. After examining the curriculum, I telephoned the student to say, "The basic problem with this whole curriculum is it is premised on the belief that these students know Who God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. They have no such knowledge.
Fifty-five years of deliberate misrepresentation, distortion and corruption of Catholic teaching have produced Catholics of all ages, but especially the young, who are totally ignorant of the most basic truths of the Holy Faith. They do not know much, if anything, about the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, or Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick's revolutionary Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, that inverted and distorted the ends proper to marriage, and the soon-to-be "canonized" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's post-synodal exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981.
Furthermore, of course, what "knowledge" most young Catholics have about Sacred Scripture is erroneous, filled with the "demythologizing" of the Old Testament and, of course, of the miracles performed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Public Ministry. Much of this "demythologizing" has to do with denying that Our Lord had perfect knowledge of His Sacred Divinity after His Incarnation. This is particularly important as one of the standard ways in which young Catholics are taught to disbelieve in the tenets of the Faith by Modernists in conciliar-controlled schools, religious education programs, colleges, universities and seminaries. The Holy Office, however, decreed on this matter as follows on June 5, 1918, the Feast of Saint Boniface, when presented with various propositions casting doubt of the self-knowledge of Our Lord as True God and True Man from the first moment of the hypostatic union at His Incarnation:
When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be safely taught:
I. It was established that there was in the soul of Christ while living among men the knowledge which the blessed and and the comprhensors have [cf. Phil. 3: 12, 13].
II. Nor can the opinion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all things in the World, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.
III. The opinion of certain more recent persons on the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is to be accepted in Catholic schools no less than the notion of the ancients on universal knowledge.
The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, the prayers of the Consultors being held first, decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 561-562.)
Pope Pius XII reiterated this teaching concerning the perfect self-knowledge possessed by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the first moment of His Incarnation in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:
75. Now the only-begotten Son of God embraced us in His
infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began. And that He
might give a visible and exceedingly beautiful expression to this love, He
assumed our nature in hypostatic union: hence -as Maximus of Turin with a
certain unaffected simplicity remarks -- "in Christ our own flesh loves us." But the knowledge and love of our Divine
Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation,
exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in
the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and
in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and
unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O
marvelous condescension of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of
boundless charity. In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the
Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united
to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps
her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
Why should young Catholics be expected to know anything even about the counterfeit church of conciliarism's corrupted teaching on marriage and the family when they do not understand basic catechetical truths that were taught so clearly, despite its defects here and there, in the Baltimore Catechism, and in other such catechisms, including Father Joseph Deharbe's Small Catechism? Canon Ripley's This Is The Faith is excellent for use in the instruction of fallen away or poorly catechized Catholics and for use in the instructing of converts.
Most young Catholics whose parents are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not believe in God's Special Creation of man, the existence of a real Adam and Eve, Original Sin or the devil. They are taught that the Bible is not inerrant an is is merely allegorical in most instances and that Our Lord Himself had to "struggle" to find out His mission in life as He came in His "inner consciousness" to come to a slow knowledge over time that He was indeed the Son of God in the Flesh.
Many teachers and catechists in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism represent the Holy Family as just another gathering of human beings who had their own "struggles" in relating to each other. Our Lady herself, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has asserted so blasphemously, had to struggle with her emotions and her doubts, an assertion that is a denial of her perfect integrity, one of the chief doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception (see What More Time Needs To Be Wasted On This Horrible Man?). It is thus that many young Catholics in the conciliar structures are taught that the Holy Family had the same kinds of "struggles" and "conflicts" as do all families.
Never mind the horrific conciliar documents on marriage and the family. Most Catholics of all ages are complete ignorant of Pope Leo XIII's Arcanum, February 10, 1880, Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri (The Christian Education of Youth), December 31, 1929, and Casti Connubii, December 13, 1930. These three documents described with prophetic accuracy the problems that face the family today, problems that the conciliar officials do not care to understand have multiplied and grown worse over time because of their very failure to heed the warnings provided us by our true popes in order to do precisely what Martin Luther and Henry Tudor did in the Sixteenth Century, to teach that divorce and remarriage is consonant with fidelity to Christ the King, and what the Anglicans, doing the bidding of Margaret Sanger and her population limitation/eugenics cronies, did when endorsing the use of contraception for married couples in certain circumstances.
In other words, the lords of conciliarism have done in five decades what the devil had been planning ever since Martin Luther's revolution began on October 31, 1517: legitimizing divorce in spite of the plain words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as they ignoring the stern admonitions and prophetic warnings given by Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum and by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
Nevertheless, the naturalists, as well as
all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the
State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked
doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has
God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of
foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides
in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not
derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and
Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a
sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers.
We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and
customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest
knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed
and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was
thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those,
marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the
authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even
in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of
the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human
race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature,
and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will
of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone
in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.
Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be
considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of
Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to
decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ
Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is
plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such
power has been transferred to the civil ruler.
Lastly should be borne in mind the great weight and
crucial test of history, by which it is plainly proved that the
legislative and judicial authority of which We are speaking has been
freely and constantly used by the Church, even in times when some
foolishly suppose the head of the State either to have consented to it
or connived at it. It would, for instance, be incredible and
altogether absurd to assume that Christ our Lord condemned the
long-standing practice of polygamy and divorce by authority delegated to
Him by the procurator of the province, or the principal ruler of the
Jews. And it would be equally extravagant to think that, when the
Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not
lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or
secretly commanded him so to teach. No man in his senses could ever be
persuaded that the Church made so many laws about the holiness and
indissolubility of marriage, and the marriages of slaves with the
free-born, by power received from Roman emperors, most hostile to the
Christian name, whose strongest desire was to destroy by violence and
murder the rising Church of Christ. Still less could anyone believe this
to be the case, when the law of the Church was sometimes so divergent
from the civil law that Ignatius the Martyr, Justin, Athenagoras, and
Tertullian publicly denounced as unjust and adulterous certain marriages
which had been sanctioned by imperial law.
Furthermore, after all power had devolved upon the
Christian emperors, the supreme pontiffs and bishops assembled in
council persisted with the same independence and consciousness of their
right in commanding or forbidding in regard to marriage whatever they
judged to be profitable or expedient for the time being, however much it
might seem to be at variance with the laws of the State. It is
well known that, with respect to the impediments arising from the
marriage bond, through vow, disparity of worship, blood relationship,
certain forms of crime, and from previously plighted troth, many decrees
were issued by the rulers of the Church at the Councils of Granada,
Arles, Chalcedon, the second of Milevum, and others, which were often
widely different from the decrees sanctioned by the laws of the empire.
Furthermore, so far were Christian princes from arrogating any power in
the matter of Christian marriage that they on the contrary acknowledged
and declared that it belonged exclusively in all its fullness to the
Church. In fact, Honorius, the younger Theodosius, and Justinian, also,
hesitated not to confess that the only power belonging to them in
relation to marriage was that of acting as guardians and defenders of
the holy canons. If at any time they enacted anything by their edicts
concerning impediments of marriage, they voluntarily explained the
reason, affirming that they took it upon themselves so to act, by leave
and authority of the Church, whose judgment they were wont to appeal to
and reverently to accept in all questions that concerned legitimacy and
divorce; as also in all those points which in any way have a necessary
connection with the marriage bond. The Council of Trent, therefore, had
the clearest right to define that it is in the Church's power "to
establish diriment impediments of matrimony," and that "matrimonial
causes pertain to ecclesiastical judges."
Let no one, then, be deceived by the
distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon --
the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial
contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to
the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions
concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather
severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in
Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and
that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate
without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage
the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself,
whenever that contract is lawfully concluded. . . .
Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial
contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened;
deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to
the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the
breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families;
the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the
risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men.
Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy
the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen
that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of
families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of
the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind
of evil-doing in public and in private life.
Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we
shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous,
because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint
powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great
indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of
passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness
for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds
of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water
bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are
all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to
mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began
to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial
separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed
that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they
had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by
repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The
Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example
of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their
soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was
so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be
true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls,
but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants
allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet
from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces
increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all
wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged
the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.
Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For
whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery
that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have
foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud
and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to
feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they
had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an
amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.
Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of
divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to
be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects
and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency
with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore,
show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of
the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can
be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of
religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor
marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they
do not change their views, not only private families, but all public
society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably
driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even
now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most
clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from
divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of
society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1880.)
87. Opposed to all these reckless opinions, Venerable Brethren, stands the
unalterable law of God, fully confirmed by Christ, a law that can never be
deprived of its force by the decrees of men, the ideas of a people or the will
of any legislator: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
And if any man, acting contrary to this law, shall have put asunder, his action
is null and void, and the consequence remains, as Christ Himself has explicitly
confirmed: "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth
adultery." Moreover, these words refer to every kind of marriage, even that
which is natural and legitimate only; for, as has already been observed, that
indissolubility by which the loosening of the bond is once and for all removed
from the whim of the parties and from every secular power, is a property of
every true marriage.
88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind
in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: "If anyone
should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a
deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let
him be anathema;" and again: "If anyone should say that the Church errs in
having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and
the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of
adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent,
having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage
during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries
another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits
adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae."
89. If therefore the Church has not erred and does not err in teaching this,
and consequently it is certain that the bond of marriage cannot be loosed even
on account of the sin of adultery, it is evident that all the other weaker
excuses that can be, and are usually brought forward, are of no value
whatsoever. And the objections brought against the firmness of the marriage bond
are easily answered. For, in certain circumstances, imperfect separation of the
parties is allowed, the bond not being severed. This separation, which the
Church herself permits, and expressly mentions in her Canon Law in those canons
which deal with the separation of the parties as to marital relationship and
cohabitation, removes all the alleged inconveniences and dangers. It will
be for the sacred law and, to some extent, also the civil law, in so far as
civil matters are affected, to lay down the grounds, the conditions, the method
and precautions to be taken in a case of this kind in order to safeguard the
education of the children and the well-being of the family, and to remove all
those evils which threaten the married persons, the children and the State. Now
all those arguments that are brought forward to prove the indissolubility of the
marriage tie, arguments which have already been touched upon, can equally be
applied to excluding not only the necessity of divorce, but even the power to
grant it; while for all the advantages that can be put forward for the former,
there can be adduced as many disadvantages and evils which are a formidable
menace to the whole of human society.
90. To revert again to the expression of Our predecessor, it is hardly
necessary to point out what an amount of good is involved in the absolute
indissolubility of wedlock and what a train of evils follows upon divorce.
Whenever the marriage bond remains intact, then we find marriages contracted
with a sense of safety and security, while, when separations are considered and
the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes
insecure, or at least gives ground for anxiety and surprises. On the one hand we
see a wonderful strengthening of goodwill and cooperation in the daily life of
husband and wife, while, on the other, both of these are miserably weakened by
the presence of a facility for divorce. Here we have at a very opportune moment
a source of help by which both parties are enabled to preserve their purity and
loyalty; there we find harmful inducements to unfaithfulness. On this side we
find the birth of children and their tuition and upbringing effectively
promoted, many avenues of discord closed amongst families and relations, and the
beginnings of rivalry and jealousy easily suppressed; on that, very great
obstacles to the birth and rearing of children and their education, and many
occasions of quarrels, and seeds of jealousy sown everywhere. Finally, but
especially, the dignity and position of women in civil and domestic society is
reinstated by the former; while by the latter it is shamefully lowered and the
danger is incurred "of their being considered outcasts, slaves of the lust of
men." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is intent on "cooking the books" with the questions that have been posted by the authorities of the Vatican "synod of bishops" by changing the presumption, however weakly held it may be in practice, in favor of the bond of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony to a presumption of "mercy" instead:
Vatican City, 8 November 2013 (VIS) – This morning Pope Francis received in audience the participants in the plenary assembly of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the dicastery of the Curia Romana which aside from exercising the function of supreme judicial authority, oversees the correct administration of justice in the Church. On this occasion, the Assembly focused on promoting an effective defence of the bond of marriage in canonical annulment.
The pontiff mentioned, first of all, that the activity of the dicastery is intended to promote the work of the ecclesiastical tribunals, called to respond adequately to the faithful “who turn to the justice of the Church, seeking a just decision”, and he described as “very favourable” the assembly's attention to the figure of the defender of the bond, “whose presence and intervention are obligatory throughout the entire process”.
In particular, he cited the instruction “Dignitas connubii” which describes the role of the defender of the bond “in cases of annulment on the grounds of mental incapacity, which in some tribunals constitutes the only permissible cause for annulment”, and “underlines the diligence with which [the defender of the bond] must appraise the questions addressed to expert witnesses, as well as the results of their reports”. Therefore, the defender of the bond must offer a careful service and “must not limit himself to a hasty reading of the acts, nor to bureaucratic or generic answers. In this delicate task, he is called upon to establish harmony between the prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law and the concrete situations in the life of the Church and society”.
The complete and faithful fulfilment of the duties of the defender of the bond “does not constitute impingement upon of the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical judge, who is solely competent in deciding the case. When the defender of the bond exercises his right to appeal, also to the Roman Rota, against a decision that he considers detrimental to the truth of the bond, his task does not intrude upon that of the judge. On the contrary, the judges may be assisted in their activities by the diligent work of the defender of the matrimonial bond. The Vatican Council II defined the Church as a communion. This is the context in which the services of the defender of the bond, and the esteem granted to him, should be regarded, in a respectful and attentive dialogue”.
The Holy Father mentioned that “those who work in the name of the Church are part of the Church”, and therefore “the link between the Church who evangelises and the Church who administers justice must be kept alive. Service to justice is a commitment to apostolic life: it must be exercised while remaining focused on the icon of the Good Shepherd, who tends to the lost and injured sheep”.
Pope Francis concluded by encouraging the participants in the plenary to persevere in their dedication to the “transparent and correct exercise of justice in the Church, in response to the legitimate wishes of the faithful who turn to their pastors, especially when in good faith they seek authoritative clarification of their status”. (Those Who Administer Justice Must Remember The Good Shepherd.)
In other words, you see, goodbye, presumption of the indissoluble bond of a ratified and consummated marriage. Hello, Reno on the Tiber.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is all about tickling the itching ears of the "faithful" by invoking the mercy of the Good Shepherd. This terrible human being knows full well that the questions in the survey sent to the conciliar "bishops" by his underlings in the Vatican that there is huge support among Catholics for legitimizing "irregular" situations in the name of "mercy" and to heed to their "wishes" even if they are opposed to plain teaching of the Divine Redeemer.
Jorge has himself an agenda, and none of it involves maintaining the Faith of our Fathers.
The Natural Law?
What possible knowledge of the Natural Law can Catholics have today when they have been denied access to the true patrimony of the Catholic Church and have been taught, quite instead, that the opposite of what Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial and is part of the very nature of man himself is true because of the "changed circumstances" in which we find ourselves today?
Most Catholics today, including many even in fully traditional Catholic circles, know very little about the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, which is why readers some write to me now and again to define them. The conciliar authorities have engaged in nothing other than spiritual grand larceny, and they are now reaping the whirlwind of their own revolutionary schemes.
Indeed, the conciliar revolutionaries have subjected Catholic youth to the Marxist and Judeo-Masonic program for their corruption by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, which made its chief entrance into conciliar schools and religious miseducation programs courtesy of the cooperation of one Monsignor, later "Bishop," James T. McHugh, with Mary Calderone, the founder of the Sex and Information Committee of the United States (see Mrs. Randy McHugh's The McHugh Chronicles and her definitive Sex Education - The Final Plague). This has been done despite the explicit prohibition against such instruction found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri that was reaffirmed by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931:
65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism
which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate
matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who
with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called
sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the
dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a
foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all
indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at
an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is
argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.
66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to
recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the
Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in
ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that,
particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much
of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous
occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.
67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all
things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and
opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who
have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such
precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are
adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:
Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that
often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find
occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest
importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so
delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor
refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its
poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that
instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or
kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking
generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those
remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the
virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"
Response: In the negative, and that the method must be persevere entirely as set forth up to the present entirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, associated with the wicked, and all occasions of sin.
By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 597-598.)
It does not get any plainer than that.
Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries have miseducated several generation of young Catholics to place themselves openly in occasions of sin. This is a denial of the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into human hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.
How do children learn to grow
By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds,
bodies, souls, and strength.
By eliminating, as far as is humanly
possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating
the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose
children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed
relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with
playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture
and by "education" programs that serve in public schools to be
instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the
means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments,
which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of
conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day
with fervor and devotion.
Just take a look at the statement issued by the Holy Office on March 21, 1931.
Do we need "theft instruction" in order to keep our
children from stealing. Do children, who are naturally curious, have to
learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to
know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such
"theft instruction" actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to
The fact that the conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River have seen fit to defy the prohibitions against explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments because they are penultimate naturalists. That these hideous revolutionaries have had to ask the questions that they did is the direct result of their own defiance of Catholic teaching. This is not surprising as they are living and breathing apostates whose almost every word and action is in defiance of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Ministering to Those in "Irregular" Situations?
After all, how much time needs to be spent commenting on the insanity of "responding" to alleged "pastoral challenges" presented by "same-sex couples" and how best to educate children in the custody of those engaged in wanton acts of perversity against the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments?
There would be no such "pastoral challenges" if we lived a world informed by the Catholic Faith where civil rulers sought to govern according to the Divine Mind of Christ the King as He has discharged it in Holy Mother Church. Those engaged in lives of unrepentant Mortal Sins against Holy Purity, whether natural or unnatural, are unfit to serve as parents, and the authorities of the civil state would depute the local bishop or one of his representatives to seek the removal of the children from such situations so that they could be raised by parents who would care for them unto eternity, teaching them to hate sin while praying for the conversion of those steeped in it.
What to do in our present circumstances?
A good pastor of souls would seek the conversion of those steeped in sin, instructing them they are unfit to fulfill their parental duties, the first of which involves their spiritual formation. Such a pastor would seek to talk to the children privately, if possible, recognizing that their insertion into the framework of a Catholic school might cause teachers to treat their parental care as perfectly normal, not the abnormality that it is.
As it is, of course, the conciliar revolutionaries simply want to "look the other way" in the name of "diversity," outreach," "mercy" and "compassion" as everyone is, at least according to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, invited to the "feast" (see What Was That I Was Saying About Cesar Romero?). Children must be taught to "understanding" and "tolerant"
of those who have different "backgrounds" than they do. This is insidious. It is yet another way in which the conciliar revolutionaries are attempting to cater to the demands of the Homosexual Collective as they actually want to encourage silence about the sin of Sodom and its social acceptance on the part of the clergy and the laity in order to mainstream such acceptance as part of normal "teaching and "pastoral praxis."
Let me provide you with a partial listing of the ways in which the conciliar "pastoral outreach" towards those who are steeped in unrepentant sins of perversity is entirely contrary to the Catholic Faith and thus the good of souls.
11) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children.
12) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts
against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children
because their very sinful lives put into jeopardy the eternal of the
souls of the children they seek to adopt. It is not possible for people
who are sinning unrepentantly to teach children to hate sin as God hates
sin. They are immersed in sin. Pope Pius XI put it this way in Casti
Connubii, December 31, 1930:
But Christian parents must also understand that
they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on
earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true
God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to
raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household,
that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
13) Those engaged in
unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are
further unfit to adopt children because they have no right in the Divine
Positive Law or the natural law to live together as a "couple." Once
again, Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii:
Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since
the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such
high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the
faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and
the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of
nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that
state. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
14) Those engaged in
unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandment have no
right in the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law to present a
"model" of parenthood that is from the devil himself. The words that
Saint Paul wrote about perversity in Rome in his own day are quite
apropos of our own:
Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of
their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among
themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and
served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful
affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use
against which is their nature.
And in like manner, the men also, leaving the
natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards
another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in
themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And as they liked not to have God in their
knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those
things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice,
fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention,
deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious,
proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Who, having known the justice of God, did not
understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not
only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do
them. (Romans 1: 24-32)
15) Matrimony was elevated to a Sacrament by Our
Lord at the wedding feast in Cana. The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is
entered into by one man and by one woman to achieve these ends: the
procreation and education of children, the mutual good of the spouses, a
remedy for concupiscence. Pope Pius XI noted this in Casti Connubii:
This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly
called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely,
more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more
excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the
duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage.
For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an
especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as
Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he
said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that
Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the
sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The
love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing
lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in
the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since
love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home
demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its
primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming
and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their
partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and
above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor,
on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." For all men
of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can
and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed
before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive
at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many
This mutual molding of husband and wife, this
determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as
the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose
of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted
sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the
child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual
interchange and sharing thereof. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
16) It is never permissible to put even one child
into spiritual, if not physical, jeopardy by claiming that so many
others would be helped if the Church did not cooperate with an unjust
law. Our Lord said that it would be better for one to have a millstone
thrown around his neck and thrown into a lake than to lead one of his
little ones astray. He was not joking.
17) The civil state has no authority from God to
sanction illicit relationships, whether between a man or a woman (such
as Andrew Cuomo's relationship with his current girlfriend, which he is
publicly flaunting) or between those of the same gender who are
committing sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. What Pope Pius XI
wrote in Casti Connubii about "civil unions" between unmarried men and women applies just as equally to those who are committed the sin of Sodom:
To begin at the very source of these evils, their
basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to
be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord
to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some
confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of
matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of
producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement
impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or,
as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since,
unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the
dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and
rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At
the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea
matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the
mind of man, established solely by his will.
all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is
already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin
and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The
evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its
advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and
customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin
solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and
must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and
the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence
it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of
wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to
suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the
same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.
Armed with these principles, some men go
so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the
present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of
matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and
"companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and
its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without
offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a
matrimony in the full sense of the law.
Indeed there are some who desire and
insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least,
excused by their general acceptance among the people. They
do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of
the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful
abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured
nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)
The fact that an immoral practice has become an institutionalized evil as something "good" accepted by large segments of society, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike, does not that the spotless, virginal mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Divine Bridegroom, Christ the King, "mitigates" her teaching in the name of "mercy." This might be the path of the "new evangelization" that is simply part of a "new ecclesiology" and its "new orientation" to the world and to truth itself, both supernatural and natural. It is not the path of Christ the King and His Catholic Church.
A Chastisement for Refusing to Obey Our Lady's Fatima Message
France, the elder daughter of Holy Mother Church, was punished because King Louis XIV and the bishops who enabled him refused to consecrate the entirety of France to His Most Sacred Heart as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instructed Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque to request.
We are suffering from a chastisement because both of our last true popes, Popes Pius XI and XII, refused to consecrate Russia collegially to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as she requested in Fatima, Portugal, first in a general way on July 13, 1917, and then, fulfilling her promise that she would come to call for the consecration, to Sister Lucia dos Santos in Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929:
At this point Lucia
explained that she understood the apparition was a representation of the
Holy Trinity, as she heard Mary speak to her: "The moment has come in
which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops in the
world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart,
promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the
Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come
to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray."
Lucia told all
this to her confessor who ordered her to write it down, and she also
said that later on Jesus had spoken as follows to her: "They did not
wish to heed My request. Like the king of France, they will repent and
do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread her errors
throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church; the
Holy Father will have much to suffer." (Our Lady's words at Fatima.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no intention of fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message, not he has the ability to do so, of course. No, his false church has had to reinvent A New Fatima For A New Religion, and it is high time for those who profess devotion to Heaven's Peace Plan to take seriously those two simple and direct letters written by the late Father Martin Stepanich, O.FM., S.T.D., whose first anniversary of death occurs on Monday, November 18, 2013, the Feast of the Dedication of the Church of Saints John and Paul, about a decade ago: Father Martin Stepanich Letter August 16, 2005 and Father Martin Stepanich Letter, November 15, 2005.
Our Lord is permitting the wheat and the cockle to grow together at this time of apostasy and betrayal. He will come to separate the cockle planted by the apostates soon enough. We must simply pray to Our Lady that the cockle of our own sins do not choke off whatever "wheat" we might be producing by means of the graces she sends us each day, mindful of our need of burning off that cockle, if you will, by our acts of penance and reparation that we give unto her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
What are we waiting for?
Our Lady is waiting to help us.
Why do we tarry to trust in her loving care?
Why do refuse to believe that the path out of this mess runs through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!
Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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 Andrew of Avelino, pray for us.
Saints Tryphon, Respicius and Nympha, pray for us.