Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty
by Thomas A. Droleskey
One of the most egregious little men to dot the darkened corners of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the now retired conciliar "archbishop" of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, Godfried Danneels, from December
19, 1979, to January 18, 2010, who continues to be in retirement a complete whirlwind of apostasy, blasphemy and sacrilege.
To refresh your memories about this horrible little pest of a human being who, though a true priest, is not a true bishop, it is good to remember that Godfried Danneels has been on the cutting edge of the ultra-progressive wing of the counterfeit church of conciliarism for well over fifty years now, especially in the aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council.
Godfried Danneels, who was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in December of 1994 as agreeing with another "cardinal" that he
could not refuse what purported to be Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo service to those he knew to be divorced and remarried without a
[worthless] conciliar decree of nullity, has left behind quite a legacy
of conciliar revolutionary activity. Oh, by the way, the other
"cardinal" with whom Danneels agreed about offering what he believed to
be Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics was a fellow named
Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin. This prompted me, in all of my
"conservative"/indulterer enthusiasm at the age of forty-three, to write
an article for The Wanderer, "Make That Two Red Hats to Go."
Moral corruption is a way of life in the conciliar
structures. This moral corruption has been suborned by the conciliar
"popes" and their "bishops" because they have lost the sense of the
horror of personal sin, thinking, despite all of their public words of
protest to the contrary when they are forced to make statements as a
result of "petty gossip" in the secular news media (note that they do
not respond to the earnest pleading of the sheep to help them but
respond only to the secular media!), that whatever policies and programs
they adopt, no matter how much God is offended or how many souls are
wounded and scandalized to the point of losing the Faith entirely in
some instances, are almost beyond criticism or review. This loss of the
sense of the horror of personal sin is just a manifestation of
conciliarism's incessant warfare upon the Faith that demands the total
assent of the faithful yet attached to the structures of their false
Godfried Danneels has been in the forefront of conciliar "bishops" calling for the use of a certain type of prophylactic to prevent the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus. This is a report written by Dr. Marian Therese Horvat in 2004:
BRUSSELS - Belgium's leading Catholic clergyman has declared that he is not opposed to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS, in a declaration which was likely to anger Pope John Paul II.
During an interview on Dutch television, Cardinal Godfried Daneels, who is Primate of the Catholic Church in Belgium, said he believed wearing a condom was acceptable in certain circumstances.
"When an HIV positive man says to his partner, 'I want to have sexual relations', then he should wear a condom," the Cardinal said.
The Cardinal qualified his comments by saying that ideally such sexual relations should not take place and that HIV positive people should try to remain celibate.
"But if relations do take place," he insisted "a person must respect the commandment that condemns murder in preference to the one that forbids adultery," he added.
The Cardinal argued that using a condom to prevent illness or death could not be judged morally in the same way as using one as a method of birth control.
His comments are likely to bring him into direct confrontation with the Roman Catholic hierarchy however.
Pope John Paul II has made it clear on numerous occasions that he is opposed to contraception in any circumstances, a stance that has earned him widespread criticism among those campaigning against the spread of AIDS.
But the current Pope is seriously ill and some analysts say Daneels' comments may suggest that more progressive Catholics are already starting to consider what direction the Church will take when a new pontiff is appointed. (Top Catholic backs prophylactics.)
It is never permissible to commit one sin deliberately in order to avoid suffering from the consequences of that sin. There are no "protective" measures authorized by God to prevent one from contracting certain infectious diseases other than a chaste life, and that is made possible by the graces He won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is that simple.
"Cardinal" Danneels was not reprimanded by the largely incapacitated Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. "Cardinal" Danneels was left to retire cum magna gloria by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on January 18, 2010, a full nineteen months, fourteen days after he had reached the mandatory retirement age in the conciliar structures of seventy-five.
Why should he have been?
Consider the fact that His Apostateness, Antipope Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, himself caused great confusion in 2010 when his book length interview with German journalist Peter Seewald, The Light of the World: the Pope, The Church and Signs of The Times. The now retired universal public face of apostasy became in controversy as his Hegelian thought process, full of so many contradictions and paradoxes, led him to speak in such a way as to endorse the use of a certain type of
prophylactic, used to prevent the conception of children, by those
engaged in the selling of their bodies for immoral purposes in order to
prevent the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus. Officials in the conciliar Vatican had to issue all manner of
clarifications of the "pope's" views as eager defenders of all things
"papal" in the "conservative" circles of the counterfeit church of
conciliarism rushed to rationalize his views as perfectly compatible
with Catholic moral theology. Finally, the conciliar Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith had to issue a Note to attempt to make his "unofficial" comments made in an "unofficial" book seem "officially" Catholic. ( If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun, Talk About Clothing the Emperor!, Words and Actions Without Consequences, Making a Mockery of Catholicism). How could Ratzinger/Benedict have corrected Danneels even if he had wanted to do so, which he did not, as he held more or less the same position on this matter?
For his part, Danneels made news of his own in 2010 when Belgian police conducted a raid, recently termed illegal by a Belgian judge, upon the headquarters of the conciliar "bishops" in Brussels. A great deal of his sordid past was dredged out for public view once again, including the following unpleasant facts that columnist Rod Dreher, who converted to Russian Orthodoxy from Catholicism several years ago now, published nearly three years ago:
That is the shocking allegation by Alexandra Colen,
an orthodox Belgian Catholic, who details her long fight with Cardinal
Danneels and the Belgian Catholic hierarchy (including the pedophile
recently retired bishop Vangheluwe) over a pedophilic sex-ed book
approved for Belgium's Catholic schools. Excerpt:
His predecessor, the liberal Cardinal Danneels,
who was very popular with the press in Belgium and abroad, was
Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and Primate of Belgium from 1979 until
2010. The sympathy for pedophile attitudes and arguments among the
Belgian bishops during this period was no secret, especially since 1997
when the fierce controversy about the catechism textbook Roeach made the
headlines. The editors of Roeach were Prof. Jef Bulckens of the
Catholic University of Leuven and Prof. Frans Lefevre of the Seminary of
Bruges. The textbook contained a drawing which showed a naked baby girl
saying: "[Unspeakable act} makes me feel groovy," "I like to take my
knickers off with friends," "I want to be in the room when mum and dad
have sex." The drawing also shows a naked little boy and girl that are
"playing doctor". . . .
The drawing also showed three pairs of parents.
Those with the "correct" attitude reply: "Yes, feeling and stroking
those little places is good fun." This "catechism textbook" was used in
the catechism lessons in the catholic schools, until one day I
discovered it among the schoolbooks of my eldest daughter, then 13 years
old. On 3 September 1997 I wrote a letter to Cardinal Danneels, saying:
"When I see this drawing and its message, I get
the distinct impression that this catechism textbook is designed
intentionally to make 13 and 14 year olds believe that toddlers enjoy
[forbidden acts]. In this way one breeds pedophiles that sincerely
believe that children actually think that what they are doing to them is
'groovy', while the opposite is the case."
I told Cardinal Danneels that, although I was a
member of Parliament for the Flemish-secessionist party Vlaams Blok, I
was addressing him as a Catholic parent "who wishes to remain faithful
to the papal authority and also wishes to educate her children this
way." I insisted that he forbid the use of this book in the catechism
lessons: "This is why I insist - yes, the days of meekly asking are over
- that you forbid the use of this 'catechism book' in our children's
Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago,
assumes a new and ominous significance. Especially now that I know that
Mgr Roger Vangheluwe, the pedophile child molesting Bishop of Bruges,
was the supervising bishop of both institutions - the Catholic
University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges - whence came the
editors in chief of this perverted "catechism" textbook.
After I started my campaign against the Roeach
textbook, many parents contacted me to voice their concerns. Stories of
other practices in the Catholic education system poured in. There were
schools where children were taught to put [certain contraceptive
devices]. . . .and where they had to watch videos showing techniques of
Because Cardinal Danneels refused to
respond to requests to put an end to these practices, I and hundreds of
concerned parents gathered in front of his palace on 15 October 1997. We
carried placards with the text "Respect for parents and children," and
we said the rosary.
Cardinal Danneels refused to receive a delegation of the demonstrators. "I
shall not be pressured," he said in the libertine magazine Humo on 21
October 1997. The Archbishop's door remained closed when we demonstrated
again on 10 December 1997.
... On 18 February 1998 we were at Cardinal
Danneels's door again, myself and a group of parents. Again the door
remained closed. So on 18 March 1998 a group of two hundred parents went
to the Papal Nuncio, the ambassador of the Vatican, in Brussels. But
the Nuncio, who was a friend of Danneels, also refused to meet us. He
had, however, alerted the police, who had several water cannons at the
ready just around the corner.
Meanwhile Danneels's friends in the press started a campaign against me. "Colen
continues to pester the bishops," was the headline in Gazet van
Antwerpen. One evening Toon Osaer, Danneels's spokesman at the time,
phoned me to tell me that as a Catholic I had to "be obedient" to the
I am reminded of a Dutch Catholic mother I met
eight years ago after mass in suburban Amsterdam. She told me about
having volunteered to teach catechism to Catholic schoolchildren, and
being sent to a diocesan training seminar for lay teachers. What she and
the others got was just bizarrely heretical. She protested to the
bishop, and got absolutely nowhere. In some parts of this world, lay
Catholics who wish to be faithful to the Church's teachings really are
on their own. (Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/danneels-approved-pedophilic-catechism.html#ixzz0sMls5dLR)
Godfried Danneels led the effort on the part of the theologically, liturgically, morally and pastorally corrupt conciliar "bishops" of Belgium to protect clergy abusers, including a man he had "consecrated," Roger Vangheluwe:
PARIS — The former leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium urged a victim of serial sexual abuse by a bishop to keep silent for a year, until the bishop — the victim’s own uncle — could retire, according to tapes made by the victim last April and published over the weekend in two Belgian newspapers.
The tapes, which church authorities have verified as accurate, are among the more revealing documents in the continuing scandal of sexual abuse by clerics and subsequent cover-ups by the church. And having a record of a cardinal entreating an abuse victim to keep his silence is another embarrassment for the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Godfried Danneels, 77, who retired as the archbishop of Brussels in January after 30 years, met with the victim, now 42, and his uncle, Bishop Roger Vangheluwe, 73, on April 8 to press the victim either to accept a private apology or to wait until the bishop retired, according to the tapes.
“The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait,” the cardinal told the victim. “I don’t think you’d do yourself or him a favor by shouting this from the rooftops.” The cardinal warned the victim against trying to blackmail the church and suggested that he accept a private apology from the bishop and not drag “his name through the mud.”
The victim responded, “He has dragged my whole life through the mud, from 5 until 18 years old,” and asked, “Why do you feel sorry for him and not for me?”
The fact of the April meeting was reported by The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times in July after an interview with the victim, who said he had sought for many years to alert the church about the molesting by his uncle. He did not mention then that he had made a tape of that meeting and another one of another meeting.
The tapes, which were published Saturday in the Flemish daily newspapers De Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad, display the tactics the church used to try to hush up the scandal and placate the victim by appealing to his feelings for his family and the larger church.
De Standaard said in an editorial that the cardinal’s “only aim is to avoid having the case made public so many years after the facts,” adding, “It is containment, nothing more.”
The Belgian cases are special in part because of an extensive police inquiry, not just an investigation by the church, into allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy and subsequent cover-ups.
Cardinal Danneels has been subject to at least 10 hours of police questioning in the matter, and the police raided church headquarters to seize documents, a raid criticized by the Vatican.
In the end, Bishop Vangheluwe retired within two weeks of the April meeting, on April 23, admitting he sexually abused “a boy in my entourage” 20 years earlier. He quit after a friend of the nephew e-mailed Belgian bishops threatening to expose the bishop and demanding his resignation.
In a second tape, of the other meeting, the bishop apologizes to his nephew and says he has tried for years to make up for his sin. “This is unsolvable,” the victim said. “You’ve torn our family completely apart.”
The victim told the newspapers he released the tapes, apparently made secretly, to prove that he had not demanded hush money.
A spokesman for the cardinal, Toon Osaer, said no attempt had been made to cover up the meeting itself. Tribune reporters were told in July that the family was angry because Cardinal Danneels accompanied the bishop to the April meeting, and not the new head of the Belgian church, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard.
A retired priest, the Rev. Rik Devillé, said he tried to warn Cardinal Danneels about the bishop’s abuse of his nephew 14 years ago, but was berated by the cardinal for doing so.
It is not known whether Cardinal Danneels or others informed the Vatican when they learned of the abuse by Bishop Vangheluwe. The Vatican accepted the bishop’s resignation in June, but said nothing about the case until the Belgian police raided church properties on June 24, seizing evidence and files that the church had assembled in its own belated investigation of sexual abuse. Pope Benedict XVI at the time called the police actions “deplorable.”
Bishop Vangheluwe has retreated to a Trappist monastery where he has kept his silence. The Belgian police are investigating him in this case and others, as well as looking into charges that he concealed similar complaints of abuse made against other clerics. (Belgian Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent.)
Leaving aside any knowledge that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had about Godfried Danneels' moral criminality, it is the purpose of this present commentary to note that Godfried Danneels as completely unbent by the disgrace he has suffered as is Roger Michael Mahony, who is about as arrogant a slimeball as can be found anywhere in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (see The Six Hundred Million Dollar Man and His Friends, Yes, Sir, Master Scribe, Apostasy Is His Field, Corrupt Chickens Come Home To Roost In Roger's Nest Of Apostates and Conciliar Mud Wrestling.) Danneels has seen fit to make his belief that "gay marriage" laws represent a "positive development" about which what he thinks is the Catholic Church has nothing to say:
BRUSSELS, June 5, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the former archbishop of Brussels and known as a leading “liberal” figure in the Catholic Church, has told media that “gay marriage” laws are a “positive development.”
“I think it’s a positive development that states are free to open up civil marriage for gays if they want,” the cardinal told the Dutch language newspaper De Tijd, even as he said he thinks such unions should be given a different name than marriage.
In the eyes of the Church, he said, this is not “real marriage,” which is only that between a husband and wife. “But it’s legal," he added, saying that "the church has nothing to say” about such laws.
According to Danneels the Church today has developed a more “nuanced,” position without being “fixated” on moral principles. “How can a man not identify with his orientation? I think there is a clear evolution in the thinking of the Church."
He compared the situation to the treatment of suicides, who at one time were denied burial in a Catholic cemetery, saying the Church now looks at the "totality" of the person.
The French language paper L’Echo, also quoted the cardinal saying that the French people should “obey the law” and not oppose “gay marriage.” France just recently passed a gay "marriage" law after a heated debate that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the street in protest.
“We need to understand: The Church has never objected to the fact that there is a sort of 'marriage' between homosexuals – however we're talking about a sort of marriage,” the cardinal said. “This is not the same as the true marriage between a man and a woman, so we need to find another word for the dictionary.
However, insofar as it is legal - that it has been rendered legitimate by law - the Church has nothing to say about it."
Also quoted in the De Tijd piece was Brussels archdiocesan media spokesman Jeroen Moens, who said that the current archbishop, Andre Joseph Leonard, known widely as a “conservative” supporter of orthodox Catholic teaching, agreed with his predecessor’s statements. De Tijd quoted Moens saying, “Monsignor Leonard has no problem with a legal commitment between gay men. But he would not call it marriage. Let us say that a gay commitment Monsignor Leonard endorses.”
However, Moens told LifeSiteNews.com this week that his comments had been “misrepresented” by De Tijd. Leonard, he said, had only meant that any two persons should be able to create a legally binding agreement on the disposition of their property.
“Neither the cardinal nor the archbishop are in favour of homosexual civil unions,” Moens told LSN.
With Cardinals Carlo Maria Martini of Milan and Basil Hume of Westminster, Danneels was long known as one of the three European principals of the “liberal” bloc of the Catholic Church leadership. During his tenure as archbishop of Brussels and as chairman of the Belgian episcopal conference from 1979 to 2010, he many times publicly opposed Catholic teaching on sexuality and the use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS. He approved and protected from criticism a sexually explicit school curriculum that taught children how to [engage in sins against Holy Purity] and try out [perverse acts against nature]. His alleged role in covering up hundreds of cases of homosexual abuse of young people by his “progressive” clergy has come under investigation by Belgian police. ('Marriage' a 'positive development': retired Belgian Apostate Danneels.)
Nothing to say, Godfried?
Actually, Holy Mother Church has had plenty to say about the depraved nature of perverse acts committed in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as she is faithful to the true God of Divine Revelation who rained down fire and brimstone on the cities of Sodom and Gommorha as a result of this detestable sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance:
And when the men rose up from thence, they turned
their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on
the way. And the Lord said: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to
do: Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the
nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I know that he will command
his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord,
and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring
to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him. And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.
I will go down and see whether they have done
according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I
may know. And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to
Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. And drawing nigh he
said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? If there be fifty just
men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that
place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it
from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and
for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming
thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.
And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty
just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. And
Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my
Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. What if there be five less than
fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city?
And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty. And again
he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He
said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty. Lord, saith he, be
not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found
there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak
to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy
it for the sake of twenty. I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord,
if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he
said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. And the Lord departed,
after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his
place. (Genesis 16: 16-33)
And he said to him: Behold also in this, I have
heard thy prayers, not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken.
Make haste and be saved there, because I cannot do any thing till thou
go in thither. Therefore the name of that city was called Segor. The sun
was risen upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. And the
Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out
of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about,
all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the
And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a
statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the
place where he had stood before with the Lord, He looked towards Sodom
and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes
rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 19: 21-28.)
Godfried Danneels might seek to dismiss this passage from Holy Writ, composed as it was under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, as merely allegorical, a contention that would be heretical. To do this, however, Father Danneels would have to dismiss the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when he referred to the fate that had been visited on the cities of Sodom and Gommorha for their detestable sins against nature:
 And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence.  And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house.  And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you.  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth
out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.  Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. [Matthew 11:15]
It is sin that caused the
God-Man to suffer and die on the wood of the Cross to redeem us sinful
men, to make it it possible for us to cooperate with the graces He won
for us as He shed every single drop of His Most Blessed Mother to quit
our sins and to reform our lives once and for all. Accepting sin, the
very thing that rupture man's relationship with God in the Garden of
Eden and introduced disorder even into the elements of the natural
world, as the foundation of human self-identity and protecting its
exercise under cover of the civil law is itself sinful and thus
injurious to the common temporal good, which must be pursued in light of
man's Last End, the possession of the glory of God the Father, God the
Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.
How do Catholics speak to sinners? How did Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ speak to sinners whilst He walk the face of the earth?
Our Lord did not reaffirm Saint Mary
Magdalene in her sin of adultery. He did not applaud her. He did not
excuse the gravity of violating the Sixth Commandment. He did not
explain away her sin by saying that she was genetically-predisposed to
commit it or that it was "impossible" for her to keep from committing
it. Our Lord, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man 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, said the
following to her:
Go, and now sin no more. (John 8: 11.)
Our Lord told His friend from
Bethany to reform her life, to quit her sins once and for all. He tells us,
each of whom is a sinner (and I am one of the worst and most miserable,
truth be told) the same thing in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance as we
amend our lives as we pray the Act of Contrition as a true priest
administers Absolution upon our immortal souls, thereby applying the
merits His own Most Precious Blood upon them.
Godfried Danneels believes none of this. He is an egregious little apostate and blasphemer.
Godfried Danneels is also an ignoramus when he says that the Catholic Church, from whose maternal bosom he expelled himself long, long ago, has "nothing to say" of the matter of "civil marriage," which she has condemned repeatedly, especially after the events wrought by the French Revolution spread throughout Europe and the world in the Nineteenth Century.
The concept of "civil marriage" was condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a
real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between
Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament
be excluded. -- Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852;
Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil
tribunals. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices
inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum,"
Sept. 27, 1852.
Pope Leo XIII amplified these truths, Godfried Danneels, in Arcanum, February 10, 1880:
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.)
Not familiar with this, Godfried? It binds your conscience whether or you not you realize or accept it.
These words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, are just as equally binding:
How grievously 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.)
Do you still want to contend so stupidly, Godfried Danneels, that Holy Mother Church has nothing to say about the civil law sanctioning "marriage" based upon what Pope Saint Pius X referred to as a "new species of unions"?
Holy Mother Church has had plenty to say, Godfried Danneels. Plenty.
Saint Paul the Apostle and Pope Saint Pius V both wrote of the truly detestable nature of the sin of Sodom that you, who have promoted the lavender agenda throughout the course of your sordid Modernist career, seek to minimize by distorting the history of the Holy Mother Church's teaching:
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against 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: 26-32.)
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene
cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us
most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a
crime with the greatest possible zeal.
Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this
decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature
. . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a
monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a
grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage
of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more
severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and
who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that
they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority,
which enforces civil law.
Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which
we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish
that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who
commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived
of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical
benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be
immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as
mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into
this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)
Some would contend that there is "hope" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as the conciliar "bishop" of Springfield, Illinois, Thomas Paprocki, was outspoken in his condemnation of perverse acts against nature and against "gay marriage" before a hostile audience a United Methodist Church in Arizona recently. Ah, the problem is this: "Bishop" Paprocki, is trying to oppose moral evils with the weapons of conciliarism that have made it more possible for such evils to spread.
Here is a brief excerpt from his address:
In short, the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic. This is expressed in the words of the bishop, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church is called Catholic or universal because . . . it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth.” In other words, the conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial. If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say in our pluralistic context, “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a“dictatorship of relativism.” In his homily at the Mass on the day of the opening of the conclave that elected him Pope, the Holy Father identified this “dictatorship of relativism” as “the gravest problem of our time.” (Thomas Paprocki's Speech at United Methodist Church.)
Yes, the truth about the morally illicit nature of "marriage" between two persons of the same gender is contained in the nature things created by God and knowable by the use of natural reason as such "marriage" is opposed to nature itself.
Alas, it is impossible to retard moral evils in a pluralistic society absent a call for people to convert to the Catholic Faith, which has nothing to do with the theological relativism of the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose philosophically absurd views of dogmatic truth were condemned by the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950 (see the compare and contrast in the appendix below in the event you are either unfamiliar with or have forgotten about this contrast).
Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order, something that "Bishop" Paprocki does not seem to understand. Pope Saint Pius X, however, was simple one of many true popes to make this abundantly clear in the plainest language possible:
Here we have, founded by Catholics, an
inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of
civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no
true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth,
a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Although "Bishop" Paprocki no doubt meant well when he challenged the practitioners of perversity in Arizona a few days ago, his speech also praised Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's hideous "theology of the body."
What's wrong with the "theology of the body"?
Well, please read the
following IF you desire the information that is not really necessary to
have. All you need to know is that the some of the old "pioneers" in
moral theology in the 1950s and the 1960s would have been pleased to see
the "frontiers" of the ends of marriage pushed out more and more: The Phenomenology of Dietrich von Hildebrand and His Novel Teaching on Marriage and Theology of the Body, a book on the subject that was written by Mrs. Randy Engel and is available for purchase on her website. The "theology of the body" is from the devil and leads souls into corrupt practices that can send them to Hell for all eternity while deforming the true nature and stability of marriage and the family as intended by God in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature).
No, the very evil that "Bishop" Paprocki seeks to oppose while "Cardinal" Daneels excuses is the direct result of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been institutionalized by the Judeo-Masonic forces of naturalism which served as the very foundation of the modern civil state. No appeal to the heresy that is "religious freedom" can ever succeed in opposing moral evils as it is this false "freedom" that has let loose the very forces of Hell against Holy Mother Church and her children, something that true pope after true pope has made abundantly clear (see Appendix B below).
Moreover, no one in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including Thomas Paprocki, speaks in the terms as the late Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, who was quoted as follows by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930:
The more closely the temporal
power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it
fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to
the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the
ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good
Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in
doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares
them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This
follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic
Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the
same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who
separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce
good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the
formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes
and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal
peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and
happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)
How sad it is that the month of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the month of June, continues to be perverted not only by the unrepentant practitioners of perversity by the likes of the conciliar officials, whether in support of perversity directly or by seeking to oppose with tools provided them by the devil himself, including a completely worthless rite of exorcism.
What more can be said?
Let me turn again to the words
of spoken by Our Lady to the Venerable Mary of Agreda as recounted in
the latter's The Mystical City of God:
243. And to the greater
confusion of the negligent
ministers of the Church in our days, I desire thee to understand,
that in his eternal decrees the Most High dispenses his infinite
treasures of the souls through the
ministry of the prelates, priests, preachers, and teachers
of his divine word. As far as his will is concerned, they
might all be angelic rather than human in their holiness
and perfection; they might enjoy many privileges and
exemptions of nature and grace, and thus become fit
ministers of the Most High, if only they would not pervert the order of his infinite wisdom and if they lived up
to the dignity to which they are called and chosen before
all others. This infinite kindness of God is just as great
now, as in the first ages of the Church; the inclination of
the highest Goodness to enrich souls is not changed, nor
can it be; his condescending liberality has not diminished;
the love of his Church is always at its height; his mercy
is just as much concerned at the miseries of men, which
in our times are become innumerable; the clamor of the
sheep of Christ is louder than ever; the prelates, priests
and ministers are more numerous than heretofore. If
this is so, to what is to be attributed the loss of so many
souls and the ruin of the Christian people? Why is it,
that the infidels not only do not enter the Church, but
subject it to so much affliction and sorrow? that the prelates and
ministers do not shine before the world, exhibiting the splendors of
Christ, as in the ages gone
by and in the primitive Church?
244. O my daughter, I invite thee to let thy tears flow
over this loss and ruin. Consider how the stones of the
sanctuary are scattered about in streets of the city (Thren. 4, 1). See how the priests of the Lord have
assimilated themselves to the people (Is. 24, 2), when,
on the contrary, they should raise the people to the holiness, which is due to priesthood. The
and the precious vestments of virtue are soiled by contagion with
the worldly ; the anointed of the Lord, consecrated solely to his
worship and intercourse, have lapsed
from their noble and godlike station; they have lost their
beauty in debasing themselves to vile actions, unworthy
of their exalted position among men. They affect vanity;
they indulge greed and avarice; they serve their own
interest; they love money, they place their hopes in treasures of silver
and gold; they submit to the flatteries and
to the slavery of the worldly and powerful; and, to their
still lower degradation, they subject themselves to the petty
whims of women, and sometimes make themselves participants in their
counsels of malice and wickedness.
There is hardly a sheep in the fold of Christ, which recognizes in
them the voice of its Pastor, or finds from
them the nourishment of that redeeming virtue and holiness, which
they should show forth. The little ones ask
for bread, and there is none to distribute (Thren. 4, 4).
And if it is dealt out in self-interest or as a compliment, how
can it afford wholesome nourishment to the necessitous and infirm from
such leprous hands? How shall
the heavenly Physician confide to such administrators the
medicine of life? Or how can the guilty ones intercede
and mediate mercy for those who are less, or even equally, guilty?
245. These are the reasons why the prelates and priests
of our times do not perform the miracles of the Apostles
and disciples, and of those who in the primitive Church
imitated their lives by an ardent zeal for the honor of the
Lord and the conversion of souls. On this account
treasures of the blood and death of Christ in the Church
do not bear the same fruits, either in his priests and
ministers, nor in the other mortals; for if they neglect
and forget to make them fruitful in themselves, how
can they expect them to flow over on the rest of the human family?
On this account the infidels are not converted on learning of the true
faith, although they live
within sight of the princes of the Church, the ministers
and preachers of the Gospel. The Church in our times
is richer in temporal goods, rents and possessions; it
abounds with learned men, great prelacies, and multiplied
dignities. As all these advantages are due to the blood
of Christ, they ought all to be used in his honor and service, promoting the conversion of souls, supporting his
poor and enhancing the worship and veneration of his
246. Is this the use made of the temporal riches of
the Church? Let the captives answer, whether they are
ransomed by the rents of the Church; let the infidels testify,
whether they are converted, whether heresies are extirpated at the
expense of the ecclesiastical
treasures. But the public voice will loudly proclaim, that
from these same treasures palaces were built, primogenitures
established, the airy nothingness of noble titles
bought; and, what is most deplorable, it is known to
what profane and vile uses those that succeed in the
ecclesiastical office put the treasures of the Church, how
they dishonor the High-priest Christ and in their lives
depart just as far from the imitation of Christ and the
Apostles, as the most profane men of the world. If the
preaching of the divine word by these ministers is so dead
and without power of vivifying the hearers, it is not the
fault of truth or of the holy Scriptures; but it is because
of the abuse and of the distorted intentions of those that
preach it. They seek to compromise the glory of Christ
with their own selfish honor and vain esteem, the spiritual goods, with base acquisition of stipends; and if those two selfish ends are reached, they care not for other results of their preaching. Therefore they wander away
from the pure and sincere doctrine, and sometimes even
from the truth, which the sacred authors have recorded
in the Scriptures and according to which the holy teachers have explained them; they slime it over with their
own ingenious subtleties, seeking to cause rather the
pleasure and admiration of their hearers than their advancement. As the divine truths reach the ears of the
sinners so adulterated, they impress upon the mind rather the ingenious sophistry of the preacher, than the
charity of Christ; they bring with it no force or efficacy
for penetrating the hearts, although full of ingenious artifice to delight the ears.
247. Let not the chastisement of these vanities and
abuses, and of others unknown to the world, astonish
thee, my dearest, and be not surprised, that divine justice
has so much forsaken the prelates, ministers and preachers of his word, or that the Catholic Church, having
such an exalted position in its beginnings, should now be
brought to such low estate. And if there are some priests
and ministers, who are not infected with these lamentable
vices, the Church owes so much the more to my divine
Son in these times, when He is so deeply offended and
outraged. With those that are zealous, He is most liberal; but they are few in number, as is evident from the
ruin of the Christian people and from the contempt into
which the priests and preachers of the Gospel have fallen.
For if the number of the perfect and the zealous workers
were great, without a doubt sinners would reform and
amend their lives ; many infidels would be converted; all
would look upon and hear with reverence and fear such
preachers, priests and prelates, they would respect them
for their dignity and holiness, and not for their usurped authority and outward show, which induces a reverence
too much like worldly applause and altogether without
fruit. Do not be afraid or abashed for having written all
this for they themselves know that it is the truth and thou dost not write of thy own choice, but at my command.
Hence bewail such a sad state, and invite heaven and
earth to help thee in thy weeping ; for there are few who
sorrow on account of it, and this is the greatest of all the
injuries committed against the Lord by the children of
the Church. (The Venerable Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God: Book IV: The Coronation, pp. 232-236.)
Let those who have the
supernatural eyes of the soul to see that these words of Our Lady apply
now just as much as they did in the time they were spoken accept that
fact. Others will just have move along to some other portal on the
internet to find comforting words of false reassurance that "Pope"
Francis, who supports civil union status for those engaged in perversity (see Francis And Other Judases Abound In Holy Week), is going to "work from within" to "save" Holy Mother Church when he is doing everything imaginable to tear down the bastions of the Holy Faith, thus making even what appears to be the papacy itself unrecognizable, to say nothing of Sacred Dogma or the Sacred Liturgy, and when one considers the fact that Vatican Radio recently praised a film extolling perverse acts between women as something that showed people trying to be "true to themselves" (see Vatican Radio Applauds Bold Lesbian Film; warning: the article itself is very graphic and not recommended for general reading as it is being provided merely for purposes of documenting the statement in this paragraph).
The counterfeit church of conciliarism is simply not the Catholic Church?
How clear does it have to get?
We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our
states-in-life permit, conscious of the fact that must make reparation
for our sins, which are so responsible for the worsening of the state of
the Church Militant and of the world-at-large, accept with joy and with
gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that
come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are
willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives.
considering it our privilege to hear the Immemorial Mass of Tradition
offered at the hands of true bishops and priests who reject
conciliarism, seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready
at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the
Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without
which there can be no true social order.
It's the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without
any compromises, now and for all eternity. And we cannot be concerned about what anyone thinks or says about us for our efforts,
despite our own sins and failings, to stand fast in behalf of the full
integrity of the Holy Faith as we pray for the conversion of the
conciliar revolutionaries back to that true Faith before they die.
Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially on this Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, which falls this month of the Sacred Heart on First Friday?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.
Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.
Cor Jesus Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.
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.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Joseph Ratzinger's Lifelong Warfare Against the Nature of Dogmatic Truth
In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian
'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in
its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it
unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the
content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
The text [of the document Instruction on the
Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of
bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It
affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are
decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter
as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all
an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition.
The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances
of the times influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes
in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as
the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above
all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on
evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial
adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as
Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist
decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into
the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the
determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled
their pastoral mission at their proper time.
(Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's
Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra
Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete.)
"It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this
process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more
practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent
matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free
interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent
themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is
changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in
these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent
aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from
"On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
The above as condemned by the Catholic Church:
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the
sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by
holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this
sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the
dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the
mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that
at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be
assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from
that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral
office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the
authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful
Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of
teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off
and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of
the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the
contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which
approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to
observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions,
though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and
forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and
Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they
are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense
in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of
truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his
relation to the religious sense. But the object of the
religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an
infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present
itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying
conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must
be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.
Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have
an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
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.)
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; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)
These new opinions, whether they originate from a
reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not
always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same
terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories
that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions
and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed
by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the
young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though
they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express
themselves more openly in their writings intended for private
circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions
are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries
and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially
among those who are engaged in teaching youth.
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and
from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a
return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking
used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish
the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to
be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with
the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the
Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual
assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
Moreover they assert that when Catholic
doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to
satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by
the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or
existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that
this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith
are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate
and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent
expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that
theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in
keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it
uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to
divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still
equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms
that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different
teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the
It is evident from what We have already said, that
such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism,
but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly
taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it.
Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even
that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of
being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself
has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest
that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has
existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have
been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course
of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are
certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based
on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created
things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave
enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not
astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the
Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong
to depart from them.
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so
many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and
perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common
talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy
magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order
to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so
that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some
formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the
flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is
supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed
shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used
by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they
call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid
of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily
pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even
contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives
such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching
Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an
obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an
unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from
reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in
matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal
criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted
by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and
divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the
duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which
more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the
constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and
forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it
did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman
Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is
deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving
force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the
ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not
wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians,
so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent
constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from
the writings of the ancients.
Although these things seem well said, still they
are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave
theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by
men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many
matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in
Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing
such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their
Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary
teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you,
heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in
Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic
doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents
purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is
obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same
Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion
among theologians. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
Ratzinger Contra the Catholic Church on Religious Liberty
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Religious freedom expresses what is unique about the
human person, for it allows us to direct our personal and social life to
God, in whose light the identity, meaning and purpose of the person are
fully understood. To deny or arbitrarily restrict this freedom is to
foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public
role of religion is to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it
fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.
For this reason, I implore all men and women of
good will to renew their commitment to building a world where all are
free to profess their religion or faith, and to express their love of
God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind
(cf. Mt 22:37). This is the sentiment which inspires and directs this Message for the XLIV World Day of Peace, devoted to the theme: Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace. (World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)
The Catholic Church:
"The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by
the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the
obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a
right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the
right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full
license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes
on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a
monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from
equality and the natural liberties of all men.
"But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality
and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most
precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from
"After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God
threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and
evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish
limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby
incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses?
And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and
evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could
save him “if he would observe them”? …
"Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the
Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is
this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to
whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact
that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his
"Man should use his reason first of all to
recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and
submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should
be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be
governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to
their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated
equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is
born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words." (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right")
The Catholic Church: For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the
Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the
Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many
most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race
professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the
most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and
which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs
both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic,
this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be
the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws
and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very
restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more
grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow
by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two -
from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not
only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words
found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution,
but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this
liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of
"religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you,
to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion
in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of
all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is
confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the
Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par
with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics
and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very
errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is
contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which,
as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all
heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that
it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at
least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and
false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and
of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that
is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized,
as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its
effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of
conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be
legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which
should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,
whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any
of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in
any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this,
they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of
perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room
for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist
truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we
know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully
Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."
And, since where religion has been
removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine
revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human
right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate
right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that
some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see
and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds
of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)