RORATE CÆLI: Prophetic Speech of Pope Ven. Pius XII Warns of “a Church which Weakens the Law of God”

Source: RORATE CÆLI: Prophetic Speech of Pope Ven. Pius XII Warns of “a Church which Weakens the Law of God”

 

In this time of new persecutions against Christians by Islamicists, secularists, and sexual anarchists, and of a pope who so openly emboldens and gives comfort to these and other enemies of Holy Mother Church, while shirking his duty to confirm his brethren in the faith, we publish in English translation (below) the prophetic words of the Venerable Pope Pius XII, given on February 20, 1949 to the people of Rome, condemning the persecution of Christians in Eastern Europe by the socialist and communist dictatorships.

Pius XII warns of “a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it” and which would give herself over to “the shifting sands of the opinions of the day.”  He asks: “Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?” Can anyone now deny that we live in just such a time as this?

 

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS PIUS XII TO THE FAITHFUL

Sunday, February 20, 1949
Romans! Beloved sons and daughters!
Once again, in a grave and dolorous hour, the faithful people of the Eternal City has rushed to its Bishop and Father.
Once again, this superb colonnade seems barely able to embrace with its gigantic arms the crowds, which like waves driven by an irresistible force, have flowed to the threshold of the Vatican Basilica, in order to attend the Mass of Atonement in the central point of the whole Catholic world and to pour out the sentiments with which their souls are overflowing.
Among the unanimous condemnations of the civilized world, the sentence imposed upon an eminent Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church on the banks of the Danube has raised on the banks of the Tiber a cry of indignation worthy of the City.
But the fact that a regime opposed to religion has this time attacked a Prince of the Church, revered by the vast majority of his people, is not an isolated case; it is one of the links in the long chain of persecutions which some dictatorial States have waged against Christian doctrine and life.
A well-known characteristic common to persecutors of all times is that, not content with physically crushing their victims, they want also to make them appear despicable and hateful to their country and to society.
Who does not remember the Roman martyrs, of whom Tacitus speaks (Annals 15:44), immolated under Nero and made to appear as arsonists, abominable criminals, enemies of mankind?
Modern persecutors show themselves to be the docile disciples of that inglorious school. They copy, so to speak, their masters and models, if, indeed, they do not surpass them in cruelty, clever as they are in the art of employing the most recent progress in the technical sciences for the purpose of a domination and enslavement of the people which in the past would not have been conceivable.
Romans! The Church of Christ is following the road traced out for her by the divine Redeemer. She feels herself eternal; she knows that she cannot perish, that the most violent storms will not succeed in submerging her. She begs no favours; the threats and disfavor of earthly authorities do not intimidate her. She does not interfere in problems purely economic or political, nor does she occupy herself with debates on the usefulness or banefulness of one form of government or another. Always eager, in so far as she is able, to be at peace with all (cf. Rom 12:8), she renders unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but she cannot betray or abandon that which belongs to God.
Now, it is well known what the totalitarian and anti-religious State requires and expects from her [the Church] as the price for her tolerance and her problematic recognition. That is, it would desire:
a Church which remains silent, when she should speak out;
a Church which weakens the law of God, adapting it to the taste of human desires, when she should loudly proclaim and defend it;
a Church which detaches herself from the unwavering foundation upon which Christ built her, in order to repose comfortably on the shifting sands of the opinions of the day or to give herself up to the passing current;
a Church which does not withstand the oppression of conscience and does not protect the legitimate rights and the just liberties of the people;
a Church which, with indecorous servility, remains enclosed within the four walls of the temple, which forgets the divine mandate received from Christ: Go forth to the street corners (Matt 22:9), teach all peoples (Matt 28:19).
Beloved sons and daughters! Spiritual heirs of an innumerable legion of confessors and martyrs!
Is this the Church whom you venerate and love? Would you recognize in such a Church the features of your Mother’s face? Can you imagine a Successor of the first Peter, who would bow to similar demands?
The Pope has the divine promises; even in his human weaknesses, he is invincible and unshakable; he is the messenger of truth and justice, the principle of the unity of the Church; his voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions; he condemns iniquities; he makes charity and virtue loved.
Can he [the Pope] then remain silent when in a nation the churches which are united to the center of Christendom, to Rome, are snatched away through violence or cunning; when all the Greek-Catholic bishops are imprisoned because they refuse to apostatize from their faith; when priests and the faithful are persecuted and arrested because they refuse to leave their true Mother Church?
Can the Pope remain silent, when the right to educate their own children is taken away from parents by a minority regime which wants to alienate them from Christ?
Can the Pope remain silent when a State, surpassing the limits of its authority, arrogates to itself the power to abolish dioceses, to depose Bishops, to overturn the ecclesiastical organization, and to reduce it below the minimum requirements for the effectual care of souls?
Can the Pope remain silent when the point is reached of punishing a priest with imprisonment, guilty of refusing to violate the most sacred and inviolable of secrets, the secret of sacramental confession?
Is all this perhaps illegitimate interference in the political powers of the State? Who could honestly affirm anything of the kind? Your exclamations have already given the answer to these and many other similar questions.
May the Lord God reward your fidelity, beloved sons and daughters. May He give you strength in the present and future struggles. May He make you vigilant against the attacks of His and your enemies. May He illumine with His light the minds of those whose eyes are still closed to the truth. May he grant to those hearts, which today are far from him, the grace to sincerely return to that faith and to those fraternal sentiments whose denial threatens the peace of humanity.
And now may Our lavish, paternal, and affectionate Apostolic Blessing descend upon you, the City and the World.

RORATE CÆLI: Fr. Rutler: In this presidential election, we cannot be indifferent – one side is flawed, but the other is EVIL

 

October 30, 2016

by Fr. George W. Rutler

On the Election
Exactly eight years ago I wrote a column titled “The One We Were Waiting For” in which I referred to a book by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, The Lord of the World. That dystopian novel has been cited by Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis said he has read it several times. The protagonist, if one can apply that term to an Anti-Christ, imposed a new world religion with Man himself as god. His one foe was Christianity, which he thwarted in part by using “compromised Catholics and compliant priests to persuade timid Catholics.
Since then, that program has been realized in our time, to an extent beyond the warnings of the most dire pessimists. Our federal government has intimidated religious orders and churches, challenging religious freedom. The institution of the family has been re-defined, and sexual identity has been Gnosticized to the point of mocking biology. Assisted suicide is spreading, abortions since 1973 have reached a total equal to the population of Italy, and sexually transmitted diseases are at a record high. Objective journalism has died, justice has been corrupted, racial bitterness ruins cities, entertainment is degraded, knowledge of the liberal arts spirals downwards, and authentically Catholic universities have all but vanished. A weak and confused foreign policy has encouraged aggressor nations and terrorism, while metastasized immigration is destroying remnant western cultures, and genocide is slaughtering Christian populations. The cynical promise of economic prosperity is mocked by the lowest rate of labor participation in forty years, an unprecedented number of people on food stamps and welfare assistance, and the largest disparity in wealth in over a century.
In his own grim days, Saint Augustine warned against nostalgia: “The past times that you think were good, are good because they are not yours here and now.” The present time, however, might try even his confidence. Sands blow over the ruins of churches he knew in North Africa where the Cross is virtually forbidden. By a blessed irony, a new church is opened every day in formerly Communist Russia, while churches in our own formerly Christian nation are being closed daily. For those who bought into the seductions of politicians’ false hopes, there is the counsel of Walt Kelly’s character Pogo: “It’s always darkest before it goes pitch black.”
It is incorrect to say that the coming election poses a choice between two evils. For ethical and aesthetic reasons, there may be some bad in certain candidates, but badness consists in doing bad things. Evil is different: it is the deliberate destruction of truth, virtue and holiness.
While one may pragmatically vote for a flawed candidate, one may not vote for anyone who advocates and enables unmitigatedly evil acts, and that includes abortion. “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it’” (Evangelium Vitae, 73).
At one party’s convention, the name of God was excluded from its platform and a woman who boasted of having aborted her child was applauded. It is a grave sin, requiring sacramental confession and penance, to become an accomplice in objective evil by voting for anyone who encourages it, for that imperils the nation and destroys the soul.
It is also the duty of the clergy to make this clear and not to shrink, under the pretense of charity, from explaining the Church’s censures. Wolves in sheep’s clothing are dangerous, but worse are wolves in shepherd’s clothing. While the evils foreseen eight years ago were realized, worse would come if those affronts to human dignity were endorsed again. In the most adverse prospect, God forbid, there might not be another free election, and soon Catholics would arrive at shuttered churches and vacant altars. The illusion of indifference cannot long be perpetuated by lame jokes and synthetic laughter at banquets, for there is handwriting on the wall.

The Remnant Newspaper – World Youth Day: Vatican Venue for Sex Education

Written by  Michael Matt | Editor

So the Vatican has ramped up its preoccupation with sex. As has been widely reported here and elsewhere, they’ve now got their very own sex-education program up and running. Published by the Pontifical Council for the Family, “The Meeting Point: The Adventure of Love,” purports to bring young people up to speed on the question of sex and chastity. And who better to do that than those paragons of virtue over at that Vatican.

Unveiled at World Youth Day (WYD) by Bishop Carlos Simon Vazquez, Undersecretary to the Pontifical Council for the Family, one wonders if parents fully realized when they sent their kids off to Krakow that they’d also signed them up to have this guy teach them a little something about sex:

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, Head of the Pontifical Council for the Family
chris phot 1.tifAmerican Life League condemns “The Meeting Point” here on their radio broadcast, Liftesitenews has an ALL-sponsored petition calling for the Vatican to recall it, and here’s what the Cardinal Newman Society has to say about this latest scandal out of the Vatican:

“We find that The Meeting Pointmakes frequent use of sexually explicit and morally objectionable images, fails to clearly identify and explain Catholic doctrine from elemental sources including the Ten Commandments and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compromises the innocence and integrity of young people under the rightful care of their parents.”

Once again, the gutted Catholic Church of Vatican II—responsible for so much spiritual and moral carnage—is coming to the rescue, fresh off the largest clerical sex scandal and subsequent cover-up in history. (You’ve gotta hand it to these guys when it comes to chutzpah.)

And by the way, why is this even necessary after Theology of the Body (TOB) in Catholic schools was supposed to have brought our kids all up to speed on sex and chastity years ago?  In my neighborhood, Catholic kids are force-fed TOB for two full years before they can even receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. Do you suppose TOB isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? Impossible! St. John Paul gave TOB to us, and he’s a saint!

So with a straight face, Vatican representatives assured the folks at WYD that their new sex-ed program was developed to “help answer the problem of the deterioration of marriage and the family” as laid out at the 2015 World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia and the Vatican Synod on the Family.  (And if you believe that’s what’s really going on here I’ve got a building to sell you on the Via della Conciliazione.)

In his March 21, 2016 letter, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, tells us that “this vocation to love is the fundamental task of parents in the family. In accomplishing their work, they can count on the help of different moral and educational communities: schools and men and women teachers, as well as on the cooperation of the other members of the church community: the parish priests, the catechists and other Christian faithful.”

That’s right! We really can count on the “church community and the parish priests” to teach our kids all about sex. That’s one thing they’re very good at.  But who do these men think they’re kidding with this embarrassing (for them) and transparent attempt to absolve classroom sex education of its intrinsic evil? In his essay, “Classroom Sex Education,” Vernon J. Schaefer makes the point that “classroom sex education initiates children into the sensual. It is the gateway to all forms of sexual immorality.”

But, surely, the Pontifical Council for the Family isn’t attempting to “initiate children into the sensual”, much less build a “gateway to all forms of sexual immorality.”   The accompanying graphic for the Fifth Unit of their new sex-ed program, for example, is clearly promoting chastity. Right?
a goodIt was probably just an oversight that the young lady preparing to camp out with her boyfriend has her hand on his thigh, while her friend is having her buttocks groped by her respective boyfriend. They’re not getting any younger inside the Vatican…so, maybe they just didn’t notice.

What’s the magisterium have to say about all this — the actual magisterium, that is, as opposed to the imaginary one inside the current Pope’s head. The real magisterium consistently prohibited classroom sex-ed from the very beginning.  In his encyclical On Christian Education of Youth, for example, Pope Pius XI teaches that:

Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youth against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all, indiscriminately, even in public.

On March 21, 1931 the Holy Office exhorted the Catholic world to reject all classroom sex education:

Question: May the method called “sex education” or even “sex initiation” be approved?

Answer: No. In the education of youth, the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian education of youth, promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion … Hence, no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.

In 1951 Pope Pius XII reiterated the constant teaching of the Church against classroom sex education when in his allocution to the Fathers of Families he said:

All Catholic educators, worthy of the name and their mission, are fully aware of the overwhelming importance of supernatural forces in man’s sanctification—youth or adult, married or single. But in the writings mentioned, hardly a word is said about these things, even when the whole matter is not passed over in complete silence. Even the principles so wisely explained by Our Predecessor, Pius XI, in the Encyclical <Divini illius Magistri>, regarding sexual education and the related problems, are pushed aside with a smile of compassion: Pius XI, it is said, wrote these things twenty years ago for his own times! The world has gone a long way since then!

But that was then. Today’s Vatican is very much into classroom sex-ed, with their brand-new course now available in five different languages with a promise to make it available in many more in the years to come and a curriculum that consists of six units, with four or five sections each. And of course Pope Pius XII was absolutely correct–the previous magisterial teachings against classroom sex-ed are “pushed aside with a smile of compassion” since the Vatican of Pope Francis has “gone a long way since then.”

Read more here: The Remnant Newspaper – World Youth Day: Vatican Venue for Sex Education

Catholics Protest Outside Tim Kaine’s Church: You Can’t be Catholic and Pro-Abortion | LifeNews.com

MICAIAH BILGER   AUG 29, 2016   |   5:48PM    RICHMOND, VA

A small group of Catholics protested peacefully on Sunday outside the Catholic Church where Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate attends.

Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice presidential pick and a U.S. Senator for Virginia, often says he is a Catholic and “personally pro-life,” but his actions show otherwise. Kaine has a 100-percent pro-abortion voting record from Planned Parenthood so far in 2016.

WTVR 6 reports about a dozen people held signs on the sidewalk outside St. Elizabeth’s Catholic Church in Richmond, Virginia, where Kaine has attended for about 30 years. Among other things, the protesters said they were there to expose Kaine’s pro-abortion position, which is contrary to Catholic Church teachings.

“He is not America’s dad at all,” protest organizer Frances Bouton told the local news station. “If people just scratched the surface, he’s really, all I can say, is evil.”

SIGN THE PLEDGE: I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President

One protester’s sign read “You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion,” while another described him as a “CINO,” or Catholic in name only.

Kaine’s church reportedly gave him a standing ovation after Clinton officially nominated him as her vice presidential running mate. Despite evidence to the contrary, Kaine’s priest, the Rev. Jim Arsenault, told NPR that Kaine is “personally pro-life.”

However, the Virginia politician is on record as trying to have it both ways — saying he is both a “traditional Catholic” and a strong supporter of abortion. As LifeNews previously reported, Kaine said he is a “strong supporter of Roe v. Wade.”

He also has refused to say whether he would vote to force taxpayers to fund abortions – a goal both for his running mate and the whole Democratic Party.

As a U.S. Senator, Kaine voted to allow government funding of abortion providers, and he voted against legislation to require an abortionist to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.

Kaine took his most extreme pro-abortion action yet with his recent co-sponsorship of the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” (S.217), known to pro-lifers as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act.” This bill would nullify nearly all existing state and federal limitations on regulation of abortion, and prohibit states from enacting meaningful pro-life laws in the future. This revamped version of the long-stalled “Freedom of Choice Act” is a priority of the pro-abortion forces in Washington, D.C.

Recently, Washington, DC-based Fr. Thomas Petri sent out a series of tweets addressing the Catholic candidate’s pro-abortion views — with one saying Kaine should not present himself for communion in his church. That was after a Catholic bishop admonished Kaine, saying that he can’t reconcile his Catholic faith with abortion.

His running mate Hillary Clinton’s position is even more extreme. Clinton has said in various interviews that an unborn child just hours before birth has no Constitutional rightsIn February, Clinton defended the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. She also said she wants to overturn the Hyde Amendment and force taxpayers to pay for abortions, including late-term abortions.

Read more here: Catholics Protest Outside Tim Kaine’s Church: You Can’t be Catholic and Pro-Abortion | LifeNews.com

The Remnant Newspaper – Don Mario’s Moral Mafia

Written by  Christopher A. Ferrara

More than three years into the Bergoglian pontificate there is no mistaking its principal line of development, which is Francis’s grand obsession: the admission of unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” to Holy Communion, the “Kasper proposal” he has been promoting almost from the moment of his election. To that end, Francis has relentlessly put in place a kind of moral mafia to carry out his design. Let us meet some of its soldiers.

First, meet Archbishop Vincenzo (“the Enforcer”) Paglia, head of the (now) ludicrously misnamed Pontifical Council “for the Family”:

chris phot 1.tif

It was Paglia who oversaw the pontifical council’s production of the first Vatican-approved “sex-ed” program in Church history—a document so disgustingly immoral that it has already provoked a petition from the faithful pleading with Francis to order its withdrawal (they might as well be petitioning a pile of cinderblocks). Note Paglia’s rainbow-colored glasses, which are quite in keeping with his sympathy for sodomy: “In the world there are 20 or 25 countries where homosexuality is a crime. I would like the church to fight against all this.”Paglia is just the man for Francis to place in charge of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the John Paul II Institute of Studies on Marriage and Family (as grand chancellor). Paglia replaces the relatively conservative heads of those dicasteries, who, having defended the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to the contrary, were blocking the road to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”

Paglia openly advocates the “Kasper proposal”—that is, the Francis Proposal— for Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” During the Phony Synod on the Family, Paglia also oversaw publication of a book presenting arguments in a favor of the overthrow of all prior teaching to the contrary, especially that of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in favor of Kasper’s bogus “penitential path” that would allow some unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” to receive Holy Communion while they consider whether they will obey Church teaching regarding their continuing adulterous sexual relations.

Paglia declares that the new titles Francis has bestowed upon him mean that the Pope wishes him to “continue the new course which emanates from the Synod of Bishops and his encyclical [sic] Amoris Laetitia.” And what is this new course? What else: Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”

Next, meet Monsignor Pierangelo (“the Violinist”) Sequeri:
chris phot 2

Msgr. Sequieri, a liberal academic and musician who is often seen in clerical garb, replaces Monsignor Livio Melina as President of the John Paul II Institute (to serve under Paglia as grand chancellor). Melina had “defended the Church’s perennial teachingthat remarried divorcees who are not living as ‘brother and sister’ are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Melina had also bravely insisted  that Amoris Laetitia “does not change the Church’s discipline” and that “it continues to be the case that admitting to communion the divorced and ‘remarried,’ (apart from the situations foreseen by Familiaris Consortio 84 and Sacramentum Caritatis 29) goes against the Church’s discipline.” Naturally, Melina had to sleep with the fishes.

Next is the only American member of the moral mafia, a kind of equivalent to the Irish consigliere Tom Hagan in The Godfather. Meet Bishop Kevin (“the Jokester”) Farrell of Dallas:
chris phot gangser

Francis has just made Farrell head of his newly created super-dicastery: the Pontifical Council for the Laity, Family and Life which will absorb and thus remove any remaining roadblocks to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” still to be found in the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Pontifical Council for the Laity, both of which will cease to exist on September 1. (While the Pontifical Academy for Life will continue to exist, Paglia’s appointment as its head will remove any roadblock there, including the German philosopher Josef Siefert, who published a devastating critique  of Amoris Laetitia, calling upon Francis to correct its errors against the Faith.)

The squishy semi-conservative Farrell, equipped with the appropriate “keen sense of humor” is a suitably “pro-gay” prelate. Farrell installed as pastor of a Texas parish a homosexual priest  caught participating in a sexually explicit “gay” website. (This pervert was removed as pastor only after a public outcry.) Farrell clearly accepts as a given that there will be homosexual priests, formed and ordained as such with full knowledge of their “orientation.”  Citing remarks by Francis concerning “respect” for “homosexual persons,” Farrell declared: “The Church still has the expectation that priests must commit to a life of celibate chastity whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.”

Yes, if you are a homosexual priest, the Church still “expects” you to be celibate! Otherwise, no problem! So much for the Church’s constant teaching that “gay” men are unfit for ordination and must not be admitted to the seminary. But then as Francis so famously declared in the context of questions about the flagrantly homosexual priest he made head of his very household (Msgr. Battista Ricca, who was found trapped in an elevator with a young male object of his attentions): “Who am I to judge?”

One cannot overlook a minor but nonetheless significant player in the moral mafia: meet Thomas (“the Mug”) Rosica:
chris phot 7

The virulently pro-“gay” Rosica is the vicious and vindictive English language attaché of the Vatican Press Office whose lawyers bluffed a lawsuit suit against the publisher of the Vox Cantoris blog for telling the truth about him. Rosica is delighted with Farrell’s appointment, hailing it as “one of the most significant restructuring moves and appointments of his [Francis’s] Petrine Ministry” because “Bishop Farrell will have a very special concern for the implementation of Pope Francis’ landmark Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.” That is, Farrell will have a “very special concern” for finding a way to permit Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”

It was Rosica who huffily declared during Synod 2016: “The jubilee of mercy requires a language of mercy, in particular in speaking about homosexuals or gay persons. We do not pity gay persons but we recognize them for who they are. They are our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters.” Farrell apparently agrees, which is why he staunchly defended Rosica when the latter “denounced a ‘cesspool of hatred’ in the Catholic blogosphere”—meaning lay bloggers who recognize that Rosica is a hissing snake-in-the-grass who needs to be exposed as an enemy of the Faith and driven out of any position of authority in the Church.

Farrell—as if there were any doubt—is fully on board with Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” As he said of Amoris Laetitia shortly after its publication: “Some feel Pope Francis does not go far enough in addressing the hopes of those in irregular marriages, others who feel it compromises traditional teaching. In my opinion, it reflects the call of Jesus to his church to continue his healing and saving mission.” Farrell “also warmly praised comments on Amoris made by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, who was among the proponents of opening Communion to the divorced and remarried at the pope’s two Synods of Bishops on the family.”

That brings us to the next member of the mafia. Meet Cardinal Christoph (“the Clown”) Schönborn:

chris phot 4

Schönborn is Francis’s designated interpreter of Amoris Laetitia , meaning the one appointed to declare that the doctrine defended by John Paul II has “evolved” to contradict itself, so that the way is now open “in some cases” (meaning all cases eventually) to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.”

Then there is that famous but lower-ranked oracle of Francis. Meet Antonio (“the Mouthpiece”) Spadaro:
chris phot 5

As editor of Civiltà Catholica , Spadaro, Francis’s fellow liberal Jesuit and close confidant, was assigned the task of announcingthat the Phony Synod on the Family had already “‘laid the foundations’ for civilly remarried divorcees to be admitted to the sacraments” and that respecting Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” Amoris Latetia“affirms essentially that all cases cannot be enclosed within a valid general norm for all, always and in every case.”

That is, some unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” can be admitted to Holy Communion. But which cases are to be exempted from the “general norm”—that is, from the natural law?

That question brings us, finally, to the capo di tutti capi. Meet Jorge Mario (“the Merciful”) Bergoglio, alias “Father Bergoglio” as he called himself when giving telephonic permission to receive Holy Communion to a woman living in adultery:
chris phot 6

Francis insists that he is still Jorge Mario Bergoglio, having renewed his passport under that name. But, under the additional alias “Pope Francis,” Don Mario has dictated every move of his moral mafia according to the policy he reaffirmed in his remarks to a group of Polish Jesuits during his trip to Poland: sexual morality is not black and white, but gray. It all depends on the situation! To quote thetranscript of those remarks, which Don Mario authorized Father Spadaro to publish in Civiltà Catholica:

I want to add something now. I ask you to work with the seminarians. Above all give them that which they have not received from the Exercises [of St. Ignatius]. The Church today has need of growth in the capacity of spiritual discernment. Some plans of priestly formation run the risk of educating in the light of ideas that are too clear and distinct, and therefore of acting within rigidly a priori limits and criteria, and which prescind from concrete situations: “This must be done, this must not be done”….

It is necessary to form future priests not with general and abstract ideas, but with this aim of discerning spirits, so that they can help people in their concrete life. It is really necessary to understand this: in life not everything is black and white. No! In life shades of gray prevail. It is necessary then to teach how to discern in this gray area.

So, Don Mario has given his foot soldiers their orders: We must not have any clear and distinct ideas about sexual morality, but only unclear and indistinct ones, requiring “discernment of spirits” rather than telling people simply that they ought to amend their lives and cease committing sins of the flesh. It’s all a gray area. And where sexual behavior is concerned, there must be a least fifty shades of gray.

Regarding other matters, however, such as “inequality” and the death penalty, Don Mario still demands the sharpest of black and white distinctions: “This must be done, this must not be done” indeed!

Therefore—herewith the fulfillment of Don Mario’s grand obsession—there must be an opening to Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages.” But for cohabiters as well! As Don Mario announces in Amoris Laetitia, for the first time in 2,000 years of Church history:

Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

No longer! Since when? Since Francis! He has decreed that it can no longer “simply” be said that Holy Communion must be denied to unrepentant public adulterers in “second marriages” (like his sister) or cohabiters (like his nephew) because some of them might be in the state of grace even if they know that the Church teaches that what they are doing is immoral. Who knew? Francis knew!

But which lucky few are to be exempted from “the rules” prohibiting adultery and fornication and rendering Holy Communion impossible for those living in adultery or simply “shacked up” without even a marriage certificate? That is for the newly trained masters of “discerning spirits” to find out as they navigate the vast new “gray area” of sexual morality Don Mario discerns where once there was just as much clarity as there is with any other moral teaching of the Church.

To his credit, Phil Lawler notes that Francis has written to Paglia giving him a “list of concerns” he wishes Paglia to address, but that “Conspicuously missing from the Holy Father’s list of concerns were the sort of clear-cut statements on abortion and euthanasia, divorce and contraception, that Catholics came to expect during the pontificate of St. John Paul II.” Given the overwhelming evidence, Lawler wonders whether “Pope Francis is deliberately moving away from the teachings of St. John Paul II on marriage, family, and life.” That is, he wonders whether Francis is deliberately departing from sound orthodoxy. That’s quite a concern for a “mainstream” commentator to express publicly regarding a Roman Pontiff.

Yes, this entire piece is an exercise in mockery. But mockery seems to be demanded in respect to this ongoing and ever-worsening mockery of a pontificate, which will surely go down in Church history as a grotesque anomaly in comparison to which even the pontificate of the anathematized Pope Honorius appears utterly benign.

Source: The Remnant Newspaper – Don Mario’s Moral Mafia