Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
December 23, 2010

Making A Mockery of Catholicism

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The devil loves to mock the true Faith. He had been particularly successful in using baptized Catholics to destroy the very concept of the nature of the Church herself and the absolute immutability of her doctrine which she has received from her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Some of these baptized Catholics were, at least in the initial stages of the conciliar revolution, true cardinals and archbishops and bishops and priests before these same people engineered sacramentally barren rites that have deprived most Catholics in what is said to be the Roman Rite of the conciliar structures of true bishops and true priests and thus of most of the Sanctifying Graces that would otherwise be available to them. One scandalous statement after another that has put into question the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church has bewildered Catholics and non-Catholics alike, causing many baptized Catholics to leave the conciliar structures into the waiting arms of various fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant sects.

The devil has chosen the men to execute his plan of deception and mockery of the Catholic Faith with great care. True, these men, the conciliar "popes," each believed that were doing the very will of God Himself in seeking to "reform" the Church and "update" her liturgy and her pastoral praxis to conform to the dictates of the need of the mythical entity known as "modern man." It is nevertheless the case, however, that the conciliar "popes" have done more to damage the sensus Catholicus than all of the heretics of yore as most of those heretics in the past had the common decency to denounce the Catholic Faith. The conciliar "popes" have used what appears to be the authority of the papacy, instituted by Our Lord Himself upon the Rock of Saint Peter, our first pope, to make it appear that ambiguity and uncertainty and imprecision of doctrinal language and novelties and innovations in liturgical and "paraliturgical" rites are signs of "progress."

Our true popes have taught us that innovation and novelty are no signs of "progress":

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)


As noted in an article on this site a few weeks ago:

True popes do not engender this kind of confusion and disarray on matters of Faith and Morals on almost incessant basis. Their words are measured. They are uttered only in their official capacity, never in the means of interviews wherein they give rise to speculative thinking and novel applications of moral teaching. It would have been unthinkable for any true pope to speak in explicit terms about matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, no less to seek to make the commission of Mortal Sins against Holy Purity "safe" from their physical consequences as the very end for which the act itself is frustrated and/or perverted. It is never morally licit to premeditate the commission of a sin predicated on attempting to limit the physical effects of the sin.

The moral principles at work here have been discussed in five different articles on this site last week (If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun and Words and Actions Without Consequences. There is no need to belabor here what has been stated in those articles. No true Successor of Saint Peter and no canonized saint of the Catholic Church would put the supposed welfare of bodies over the offense given to God and the harm done to souls by the commission of Mortal Sins, especially those that are fully premeditated.

True Catholic popes and true Catholic bishops and true Catholic priests teach the faithful to avoid even the near occasion of sin, not to "plan" how they are to be kept "safe" from possible physical effects of the sins that they plan to commit and have no intention of refraining from committing in the future. Those who want to sin despite the exhortations given them by the true shepherds of Holy Mother Church are on their own as God withdraws His graces from them until such time as they choose to seek Him out in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance with a contrite heart and firm purpose of amendment as they resolve to do penance for their sins and to live more penitentially from the time they enter the confessional and are then absolved of their sins by an alter Christus acting in persona Christi. (Talk About Clothing the Emperor!)


True popes do not need the personnel who staff their doctrinal offices to scramble for a period of one month to seek to "clarify" a statement on a fundamental matter of morality that confused everyone across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical spectrum. Yet this is what has happened as a result of the remarks that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gave to German journalist Peter Seewald in what has been published as Light of the World.

The "clarification" from the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not contradict the previous "clarifications" that were issued by the "papal" spinmeister, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., is a typical conciliar exercise in positivism, attempting to justify the unjustifiable and to defend the indefensible as being perfectly Catholic.

Permit me, therefore, to provide a mercifully brief dissection of this exercise in positivism, starting with the "clarification's" first paragraph:

Following the publication of the interview-book Light of the World by Benedict XVI, a number of erroneous interpretations have emerged which have caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality. The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated. The intention of the Holy Father is clear: to rediscover the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality and, in this way, to avoid the cheapening of sexuality which is common today. (Note on the trivilization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World.")


First point: The confusion that led to the supposedly "erroneous interpretations" was caused by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's unprecedented public endorsement of the use of the prophylactic in question to halt the spread of a certain social disease that is spread principally through unchaste behavior in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Second point: As has been noted in several recent articles on this site, it is the conciliar "popes," especially Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (noting that Albino Luciani/John Paul I was one of sixty-four out of sixty-eight commissioners who served on Paul VI's infamous "birth control" commission in the 1960s who concluded that the abortifacient "pill" could be used by those trapped in poverty), have inverted and misrepresented the ends of marriage, placing the "unitive" end above of marriage's principal end: the procreation and education of children. They have played a key role, therefore, in undermining the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony, admitting quite readily, of course, that there were a variety of social forces at work in the world that had been let loose as a result of the Protestant Revolution and its aftermath. The late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., noted in a talk at Saint John's University in 1987 that the Protestant Revolution was about two things, lust and divorce. Who says that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children? Our true popes as they have explicated the binding precepts contained in the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law:

Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]  (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

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. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Italian Midwives, October 29, 1951.)

Third point: The inverting of the ends of marriage that resulted in the triumph of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's personalist, subjectivist "theology of the body" has led to a gross cheapening and trivilization of the gifts proper to the married state as one conciliar expert after another commits sins against the virtue of modesty by speaking in graphic and explicit terms about matters that should never issue from the mouths of human beings.

Fourth point: The resorting to graphic and explicit discussions of matters pertaining to the married state, discussions that are part of the forbidden exercise that should be referred as the miseducation of children in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and in what are called "pre-Cana" classes for the engaged, has made Catholics as casual and as graphic in their speech as are the pagans who walk amongst us. This has played its own insidious role in undermining the sanctity and fecundity of the ends proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Fifth point: The only way to recapture the truth of the ends proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is by exhorting people to obey the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as men and women seek to cooperate with the graces won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

The next passages from the Vatican "clarification" are exercises in pure positivism (asserting that something is true because it has been asserted as being true):

Some interpretations have presented the words of the Pope as a contradiction of the traditional moral teaching of the Church. This hypothesis has been welcomed by some as a positive change and lamented by others as a cause of concern as if his statements represented a break with the doctrine concerning contraception and with the Church's stance in the fight against AIDS. In reality, the words of the Pope which specifically concern a gravely disordered type of human behaviour, namely prostitution (cf. Light of the World, pp. 117-119) do not signify a change in Catholic moral teaching or in the pastoral practice of the Church.

As is clear from an attentive reading of the pages in question, the Holy Father was talking neither about conjugal morality nor about the moral norm concerning contraception. This norm belongs to the tradition of the Church and was summarized succinctly by Pope Paul VI in paragraph 14 of his Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, when he wrote that "also to be excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation whether as an end or as a means." The idea that anyone could deduce from the words of Benedict XVI that it is somehow legitimate, in certain situations, to use condoms to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is completely arbitrary and is in no way justified either by his words or in his thought. On this issue the Pope proposes instead and also calls the pastors of the Church to propose more often and more effectively (cf. Light of the World, p. 147) humanly and ethically acceptable ways of behaving which respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meaning of every conjugal act, through the possible use of natural family planning in view of responsible procreation. (Note on the trivilization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World.")


First point: Asserting that something is not does not mean that it is so. The authors of the "doctrinal note" attempt to pull off a very clumsy sleight of hand by focusing only on Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's comments in Light of the World without mentioning the additional information that "Father" Federico Lombardi provided to the press after having spoken to the "pope" personally. That additional information left the impression, ignored entirely by the intellectually dishonest authors of the "doctrinal" note, that Light of the World represents the "official" version of Ratzinger/Benedict's "unofficial" comments in his "unofficial" book. We are supposed to ignore, I suppose, the following information that Lombardi said came from the "pope" himself as though it was never made for public dissemination:

Lombardi told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended to refer only to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn't matter, the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said.

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me 'no.' The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you're a man, a woman, or a transsexual. We're at the same point. The point is it's a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Lombardi said. (Benedict Comments About HIV Widened.)


The authors of the "doctrinal" note expect us to ignore this? Really? What intellectual dishonesty. Do these people in their offices in Rome believe that the impression made by "Father" Lombardi's remarks on Tuesday, November 23, 2010, have not been imbedded deep into the consciousness of Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide. Do they really believe that the sophistic non-distinctions made in the "doctrinal" note can reverse the insidious impact of these words: "That is if you're a man, a woman, or a transsexual. We're at the same point"? They are insane or delusional if they believe this to be the case.

Second point: It is not the business of the Catholic Church to instruct sinners as to the best methods of avoiding the physical consequences of their sinful behavior. It is the mission of the Catholic Church to exhort sinners to quit their lives of sin. God leaves those intent on destroying their souls to themselves as they also destroy their bodies.

Third point: Related to this, the first end of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls as she keeps faithful to these words of her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

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

Fourth point: The Vatican "clarification" sets up a straw man when claiming that critics of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's was viewed as a means of endorsing contraception to avoid pregnancy rather than as a means for people engaged in vice-for-pay to "protect" themselves from the physical consequences of their actions. It was "Father" Federico Lombardi who, when seeking a "clarification" from the false "pontiff," was told that the gender of the individual using the prophylactic did not matter. If the gender does not matter and the vice in question is practiced by members of the opposite gender, therefore, the result of the  use of the prophylactic DOES frustrate the natural ends of the conjugal powers God has given to man to populate the world here on earth so that He can be given honor and glory by them as they seek to save their souls as members of the Catholic Church and thus populate Heaven.

Fifth point: Intention, therefore, does not matter in the case of perverted vice or natural vice as both involve the misuse and/or frustration of the gifts proper to marriage.

Sixth point: That having been noted, the logical result of the false "pontiff's" words has been--and will continue to be--the belief among the vast majority of Catholics who practice some kind of contraception to ask themselves the following simple question: If Them, Why Not Others?. The authors of the "clarification" are fooling themselves if they believe that their "doctrinal note" is going to stop Catholics from running with the conclusion that it is a "only a matter of time" before some "pope" approves of some kind of contraceptive behavior in certain cases.

The next two passages of the Vatican "clarification" are replete with sophistry and junk medicine:

On the pages in question, the Holy Father refers to the completely different case of prostitution, a type of behaviour which Christian morality has always considered gravely immoral (cf. Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, n. 27; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2355). The response of the entire Christian tradition and indeed not only of the Christian tradition to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: "Flee from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18). The practice of prostitution should be shunned, and it is the duty of the agencies of the Church, of civil society and of the State to do all they can to liberate those involved from this practice.

In this regard, it must be noted that the situation created by the spread of AIDS in many areas of the world has made the problem of prostitution even more serious. Those who know themselves to be infected with HIV and who therefore run the risk of infecting others, apart from committing a sin against the sixth commandment are also committing a sin against the fifth commandment because they are consciously putting the lives of others at risk through behaviour which has repercussions on public health. In this situation, the Holy Father clearly affirms that the provision of condoms does not constitute "the real or moral solution" to the problem of AIDS and also that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality" in that it refuses to address the mistaken human behaviour which is the root cause of the spread of the virus. In this context, however, it cannot be denied that anyone who uses a condom in order to diminish the risk posed to another person is intending to reduce the evil connected with his or her immoral activity. In this sense the Holy Father points out that the use of a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." This affirmation is clearly compatible with the Holy Father's previous statement that this is "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection." (Note on the trivilization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World.")


First point: How do sinners "liberate" themselves from the practice of the vice in question? Obedience to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? Cooperation with the graces sent to them by Our Lady.

Second point: If the vice in question is to be shunned, why find a way to supposedly "help" those who are involved in it?

Third point: If the prophylactic in question is not "the real or moral solution" and is "not really the way to deal with the evil" in question, why propose it as justifiable in the case of those who are engaged in vice-for-play? The ends do not justify the means at any time for any reason.

Fourth point: People who use the prophylactic in question are not thinking in terms of reducing the evil of their actions. They are seeking to protect themselves from the bodily consequences that flow therefrom. It is utter sophistry to insist that those who use the prophylactic are living in a "more human way" when they commit a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance by seeking self-gratification in a perverted man. "More human way"? This is insanity.

Fifth point: The prophylactic in question does not reduce the "risk" of the spread of this disease. Let me reiterate what I wrote a few weeks ago now:

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has accepted the propaganda about a worldwide "crisis" concerning the spread of a certain disease that is contracted principally by means of unchaste behavior in exactly the same manner that Giovanni Montini/Paul VI accepted the propaganda concerning a "crisis" caused by "accelerated population growth" that was, as the late Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., pointed out repeatedly throughout his life's work, was fictitious in order to justify the expanded use of natural means of limited the size of one's family that had been discussed by Pope Pius XII in his address to Italian midwives on October 29, 1951.

Montini/Paul VI wrote of this "accelerated population growth" both in Populorum Progressio, March 25, 1967, and Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968. Montini/Paul VI claimed in Populorum Progressio that population had grown "more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse," a claim that was pure propaganda from various population control ideologues, including those at the United Nations Organization that he, Montini/Paul VI, had said on October 4, 1965, was the "last hope of concord and peace" (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965).

In like manner, you see, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has now used the "crisis" of the spread of a social disease that can be halted only by a conversion of sinners to the Catholic Faith as they seek to cooperate with the graces won for them by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to live the Virtue of Chastity as befits their state-in-life as the means to justify the wanton use of a certain prophylactic by men and women are infected with that disease even though doing so might result in the frustration of the natural end of human conjugal relations. He sees the spread of the disease in question as a "greater evil" than denying the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of the marital act, heedless of the fact that those who are not infected with the disease are going to see his "widened" comments as approval for their own "alternative lifestyles" despite his stated opposition to the unchaste behavior. Such is the paradox of a mind that is not Scholastically trained.


The next-to-last passage in this "doctrinal note" is an exercise in complete positivism:

Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. The Holy Father did not say as some people have claimed that prostitution with the use of a condom can be chosen as a lesser evil. The Church teaches that prostitution is immoral and should be shunned. However, those involved in prostitution who are HIV positive and who seek to diminish the risk of contagion by the use of a condom may be taking the first step in respecting the life of another even if the evil of prostitution remains in all its gravity. This understanding is in full conformity with the moral theological tradition of the Church. (Note on the trivilization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World.")


First point: It is the "pope" himself who left his "conservative" defenders to fend for themselves as they grappled to try to find some sophistic means to justify his comments. Some did indeed rely upon the "lesser evil" argument while others resorted to the intention of the sinner. This confusion was caused by Ratzinger/Benedict all by himself, causing those who have never uttered a word in defense of the honor and majesty and glory of God has been blasphemed and profaned by their "pope's" open violation of the First and Second Commandments to find some tortuous way to defend the indefensible. Ironically, many of those who tried to come to the "pope's" rescue four weeks ago did so while they sought to provide a moral justification for the very thing that they themselves had for years opposed as they stood as one with the late John "Cardinal" O'Connor, who said that the assertion that the prophylactic in question is effective in limiting the spread of a social disease was the "big lie." Ratzinger/Benedict himself is solely responsible for giving his remarks a "lesser evil" and proportionalistic cast.

Second point: No one can "respect" the physical life of his partner in sin while helping to kill two souls with one sin, including, obviously, his own. The soul is, after all, the animating principle of the human body.

Third point: See the first point concerning the false assertion that use of the prophylactic in question will "diminish the risk of contagion." This is indeed nothing other than a big, fat lie. And it is irresponsible for the alleged "doctrinal" office of what purports to be the Catholic Church to defend their "pope" in this regard.

Fourth point: To assert that one is taking "responsibility" by the use of the prophylactic in question is proportionalism no matter how strongly the authors of the "doctrinal" note may seek to deny this fact.

The final passage reiterates the conciliar errors concerning the ends of marriage and the "trivialization" of the gifts proper to marriage, making it appear as though "love" rather than duty to God in fulfillment of the primary end of marriage can be halted by Ratzinger/Benedict's absurd comments to Peter Seewald:

In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage. In this regard it is also important to condemn any behaviour which cheapens sexuality because, as the Pope says, such behaviour is the reason why so many people no longer see in sexuality an expression of their love: "This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being" (Light of the World, p. 119). (Note on the trivilization of sexuality. Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World.")


The entire Vatican "doctrinal note" is what can be called an exercise in "special pleading," that is, at least in this case, trying to find some way to justify the words of a "pope" that are without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. This is what defense attorneys do when they seek to provide a defense for clients whose guilt is beyond question; the attorneys attempt to make the facts fit their own case as they, not all too infrequently, put others on trial to deflect attention from their client's guilt (it worked with Orenthal James Simpson and it works all the time in American courtrooms). The "lawyers" in the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have a bad client on their hands. Their defense of their client, however, is rather lame and, much in the manner of the Congregation's June 29, 2007, "doctrinal note" on Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, suffers from circuitous, sophistic reasoning that nowhere cites a single source prior to the "ecclesiogenesis" of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath.

What's the bottom line?

Well the bottom line, other than that I am very exhausted, is this: there is no moral justification for the use of the prophylactic in question as it is in se an instrument to facilitate evil acts that opposed to the law of God and contrary to the good of souls and the right ordering of men and their nations.

That's about as short as I can make an article of this type.

As noted last month, we need to make many acts of reparation for the crimes against Faith and Morals that have been and continue to be committed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as we continue to make reparation for our own many sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

Look at it this way: the mess has gotten so bad and has spread so very fast, particularly in recent years, that the restoration of the Church Militant on earth can be done only by the direct intervention of God as a result of the Triumph of His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. There is not a conciliar "bishop" alive who is going to "challenge" his "pope" publicly on this any more than they have raised a peep about "papal" violations of the First and Second Commandments. There is no putative "successor" in the conciliar structures to set things right. Only Our Lord will do so when this period of Chastisement has run its course and Our Lady's Fatima Message is fulfilled at the most unlikely time imaginable.

Take heart! This is the time that God has willed for eternity for us to be alive and to save our souls. Christmas joy is neigh!

Let us our repose with Our Lady and Saint Joseph as we pray our Joyful Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary, awaiting the annual celebration of the Nativity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the cradle in the stable in the cave in Bethlehem.

It is Our Lord and His Holy Church that the devil has mocked these past nearly two millennia now. We can have nothing to do with those who are participants in this mockery.

Take heart! We are Catholics. This will pass. May we bear the cross of the present moment with joy and gratitude that we have access to true bishops and true priests who recognize conciliarism to be from the devil and the conciliar "popes" to be nothing other than precursors of Antichrist himself.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, 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 John of the Cross, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints.

© Copyright 2010, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.