Fair Is Foul, and Foul is Fair: How The Distortion Of Gender Roles Leads To Chaos

How Shakespeare's Lady Macbeth essentially destroys her world when she takes on a masculine role.

From Clarifying Catholicism

By Abigail Thomas, Christendom College

In the time period that Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, there existed many cultural constraints against women and a concept of the ideal woman that pervaded the Renaissance era. The evil and chaotic deeds committed during the play upset this idea of a woman with qualities like beauty, obedience, and silence. Also, there is a great corruption of motherhood displayed in the play, the perceived greatest of the feminine virtues. Shakespeare completely distorts the preferred image of femininity by using ugly female characters, specifically Lady Macbeth and the prophetic witches, who directly reject the so-called feminine virtues by attempting to take on opposite identities, so much so that the world around them descends into violence and chaos. Shakespeare uses Lady Macbeth and the witches to corrupt the concept of the perfect woman, and he portrays the pandemonium that ensues when the laws of nature are disturbed. 

When Shakespeare wrote and performed his plays, women were expected to possess certain qualities. The perfect woman was beautiful, quiet, and demure, deferring to her husband or father to make any and all decisions for her. According to Phyllis Rakin in her study of women’s roles in Shakespeare, “Renaissance gender role definitions prescribed silence as a feminine virtue, and Renaissance sexual mythology associated the feminine with body and matter as opposed to masculine intellect and spirit.” The Renaissance period placed a great deal of emphasis on the body, and viewed women as a sexual object. Shakespeare disrupts the image of feminine beauty with hag-like witches who do not look even remotely female in their ugliness as they dance around their cauldron.

The witches serve as narrators throughout the play, providing predictions and foreshadowing what will occur. When Macbeth comes across them in the woods as he travels with Banquo, the two men are struck by their ugliness and deformities. Banquo is indeed so disturbed that he makes note of them to Macbeth: “What are these/so withered, and so wild in their attire/That look not like th’ inhabitants o’ th’ Earth/And yet are on’t?…You should be women,/And yet your beards forbid me to interpret/That you are so.” The witches provide the first hint that something is going awry in nature. Their mere appearance is enough to show that no woman should ever look the way the witches naturally do according to Renaissance standards. From their very first appearance, the witches provide a setting for the play and foreshadow that something in nature will be upset by ending the scene with the famous quote, “fair is foul, and foul is fair/hover through the fog and filthy air” (1.12-13). This disturbance continues as Lady Macbeth is later introduced and her actions reveal her to be a force of evil and chaos within the laws of nature. 

Lady Macbeth, as the wife of noble Macbeth, should be the complete personification of the Renaissance ideals, but when she attempts to take on a masculine identity, her actions prove her to be otherwise. She proposes the plan to kill King Duncan to further her husband’s quest for power, and she assumes a masculine identity to assist her in denying femininity so she may become cold-blooded enough to commit murder. She calls on evil spirits to help in this task by saying “Come, you spirits/that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,/and fill from the crown to the toe top-full/ of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood./Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse” (1.5). This speech reveals her willingness to banish femininity and become like a man who kills mercilessly and without remorse. This masculine behavior contradicts the standards of Renaissance feminine behavior. As she argues with Macbeth, insulting him because he is hesitant to murder, she reveals a greater distortion of femininity: that of motherhood. She says, “I have given suck, and know/how tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me./I would, while it was smiling in my face,/have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums/and dashed the brains out” (1.7). Lady Macbeth reveals that as a mother she knows the deep love one can have for her child, yet she states she would be willing to deny all these tender feelings and kill her child. Steve Davies, in his analysis of women in Shakespeare, writes “Here is the dark side of the female image, the moon beneath the horizon, originating in the remembered helplessness of babyhood dependent on the all-powerful, hunger-filling love of a mother who may offer or abstain from offering the means of life.”As she is completely willing to distort motherhood, Lady Macbeth shows herself to be an anti-Renaissance woman, which is later more revealed in her dealings with Macbeth. 

Lady Macbeth becomes the driving force behind Macbeth, providing the motivation for him to kill Duncan by insulting his manhood. She says to him, “Wouldst thou have that/Which thou esteems the ornament of life/and live a coward in thine own esteem/Letting “I dare not” wait upon “I would,”/Like the poor cat i’ th’ adage?” (1.7). This action alone is a complete denial of Renaissance ideals in which the wife is obedient and silent as she yields to her husband’s decisions. Here, the wife not only goads him but attacks his masculinity with harsh words and accusations of cowardice. As Stephanie Chamberlain analyzes of Lady Macbeth’s character, “Lady Macbeth ultimately refuses masculine authority. What she craves instead is an alternative gender identity, one which will allow her to slip free of the emotional as well as cultural constraints governing women.” Lady Macbeth does indeed break free of these cultural constraints, taking charge and orchestrating the murder, not pausing for remorse or mercy, but simply plowing on to achieve her goals. However, this complete reversal of the stereotypical gender roles lends itself to a disturbance in nature, one that will expose an atmosphere of violence and chaos. 

From the very beginning of the play, as the witches declare that “fair is foul and foul is fair” (1.1), Shakespeare hints of the disturbance of nature that is about to occur. What is fair will become foul, normalcy will be replaced with chaos. As the doctor called in to treat Lady Macbeth puts it, “a great perturbation in nature” has occurred (5.1), and the chaos that ensues is revealed. Lady Macbeth wanders the castle, lost deep within her mind. This madness is caused by her  inability to possess a masculine identity to compensate for her husband’s feminine-like cowardice. According to Chamberlain, “To overcome her husband’s feminized reticence, Lady Macbeth assumes a masculinity she will prove unable to support.” She proves that a woman cannot become a man without serious consequences, in this case the loss of sanity and the violence of suicide. This violence and death are the direct result of a disturbance in nature, and depicts what happens when man ignores the law of nature and assumes he can simply bypass them.   

Written in the Renaissance when there existed many cultural constraints against women and many ideals of the perfect woman, Shakespeare’s Macbeth exists to shock and disturb and to warn against fighting the laws of nature. The prediction of a disturbance is made a reality when Lady Macbeth becomes the personification of foulness in a fair being, and when the witches who are supposed to be fair women are foul creatures, not at all the picture of femininity that the Renaissance era idealized. Lady Macbeth is the opposite of a Renaissance woman, as she insults her husband, and fights against his wishes. She takes on a masculine identity to accomplish her goals, not at all considered the proper behavior of a Renaissance-era woman. However, this attempt to become masculine ends in chaos, madness, and a violent suicide. The disturbing qualities of Lady Macbeth’s end lends itself to the lesson that Shakespeare attempted to depict throughout the play, that one should not alter nature to suit one’s needs and desires because otherwise pandemonium will occur. 

Edited by Mary Boneno

Bernie Can’t Save Your Soul

Mr Meyrat points out that not only is socialism an evil political ideology, it is also an anti-Christian secular religion.

From Crisis

By Auguste Meyrat

After winning the most the votes in the first three Democratic primaries, Senator Bernie Sanders will more than likely become the party’s next presidential nominee. Unlike the other candidates, Mr. Sanders has never revised his worldview, and this has helped his appeal. He was, and remains, an unapologetic (if “democratic”) socialist.

As this reality is finally dawning on those who doubted Mr. Sanders’s chance of securing the nomination, one can already observe the many think-pieces and arguments directed against his socialism. After the United States spent the better part of the 20th century contended with a socialist empire and its many proxies, and after witnessing socialism’s devastating legacy, could we ever really turn to socialism ourselves?

While some commentators like Paul Krugman see Sanders’s socialism as innocuous (not “real” socialism), most understand the implications of a socialist president and have responded accordingly. These critics will usually make one of three arguments. First, socialism has always failed wherever it’s been tried. Second, socialism is incompatible with the American economy and government. And, third, as a millionaire who owns three homes, the Senator is simply a hypocrite for espousing far-left ideology.

All three of these arguments hit their mark. Nevertheless, they don’t address the core of socialism’s appeal. Although many fans of Mr. Sanders’s socialism do look forward to free stuff, they also draw a kind of spiritual satisfaction in taking the billionaires down a peg. They see it as a cure to the decadence that produces inequality, overconsumption, and general despair.


In short, They yearn for a sense of purpose in life.

Of course, this purpose used to be provided by Christianity. But as our society grows increasingly secular, they turn to godless ideologies. And socialism has always been a favorite stand-in for traditional religion in the post-Christian West. It borrows freely from familiar tenets of Christian morality (care for the poor, the need for social justice, etc.) but removes all arcane dogmas and superstitious rites. Instead of a Savior to lead us, we have the Party. Instead of a Church to do His work, we have the technocratic State. Instead of striving for Heaven in the next life, we may build a utopia in this one.

This fact explains why so many devoted socialists also happen to be the most privileged, Mr. Sanders not least among them. Though far removed from the struggles of exploited labor, they yearn for the sense of moral purpose that would come from sharing in those struggles. And we may all share in the transcendence that will attend its victory: perfect equality under, not God, but the State.

Best of all, unlike the Christian, who actually has to make sacrifices of himself for the Good of others, the socialist can take pride in his generosity for simply adopting this ideology. His atonement comes, not through mortification, but by simply assenting to higher taxes and government seizures of property. And his pseudo-religion will make him richer, not poorer, by returning to him the wealth that was “stolen” from him by the elite. Or so he thinks.

❧

We must, then, fight socialism, not as a political philosophy, but as a kind of secular religion.

We may begin by pointing out that the socialist foolishly ignores the leviathan in the room: the overweening State. Socialist morality would have the State stand in for personal charity. It’s a way of giving without actually giving. Money is taken, and the moral high ground is assumed even before that happens. This results in two problems: the State becomes greedy and impoverishes its people, and people resent one another as mutual burdens. Instead of the closeness and generosity that socialism promises, it more frequently distances neighbors and makes them more selfish.

This is one reason why Our Lord calls for charity, not higher taxes. He tells His disciples to give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s—not to give Caesar all we have and trust him to dole out God’s portion. More importantly, Jesus does not forcefully take money from His disciples: they give of their own free will. The early Christian communes worked on this voluntary basis as well.

Besides fronting a plausible semblance of morality, socialism also guarantees a kind of community for its adherents, similar to the Christian ekklēsía. Like Christianity, socialism happily links all classes, races, and “genders” in a common struggle—only, whereas Satan is our enemy, theirs is the super-rich. Nevertheless, the universal socialist community proves to be a mirage. Socialists are united, not by a common life, but by a common struggle. Many of them simply go to rallies or post in online forums and leave it at that. Ironically, their false notion of community only reinforces their sense of purposelessness, of isolation.

Finally, the biggest draw of socialism is its promise of transcendence: the creation of a heaven on Earth. Socialists believe they can transform society—and all of mankind—without changing themselves in any serious way. Rather, in order to bring about their utopia, they must force others to change. Little wonder that, once in power, socialists nearly always resort to silencing opposition and concealing the truth in propaganda. To them, Heaven is a mindset; those who break the illusion must be held accountable. By the time reality asserts itself, society will have created a hell on earth from which there is no escape.

What socialists forget is that active ingredients in actual transcendence: prayer, introspection, and conversion to God. We can’t change society without transforming ourselves first. And we can’t free another man from sin: we can only point him to One who can.

When socialism’s spiritual appeals are fully known, it becomes clearer how people should respond—and which people should respond. Ultimately, it will be up to us Christians to defeat socialism. Economists and political pundits may help, but they can’t cure what is fundamentally a spiritual disease.

How do we win this war? It’s simple: out the socialists at their own game. As Pope Francis once said, “the communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the center of the Gospel.” So is justice. So is community. So is freedom. Give more, serve more, connect more, and pray more.

Socialism has filled a vacuum created by so many decades of Christian decline. As it turns out, Lent provides an excellent opportunity for Christians to rise once more and save the culture from debilitating ideology that ruins both rich and poor countries alike. Through real Christian virtue, they can expose the lie of socialism and provide a true home for those restless souls more in need of God than a godlike state.

4 Ways to Gain a Plenary Indulgence Daily During Lent

On the subject of praying for the Pope's Intentions (necessary for a Plenary Indulgence), see Praying for the Pope's Intentions and for Him, as well as here and here.

From the National Catholic Register

By Joseph Pronechen

Four ways to potentially gain a plenary indulgence every day can make this Lent a spiritual standout

Lent is a time for fasting from any number of things — favorite desserts, hypnotic television, and pervasive texting. On the other hand, this is naturally not time to fast from the spiritual goods.

In fact, we can increase the spiritual goods in Lenten fashion and at the same time gain several plenary indulgences — an indulgence which removes all the temporal punishment due to sin — not just to apply to ourselves but to especially to those in purgatory. That is a spiritual work of mercy that’s a great partner with any fasting. In fact, gaining the indulgence might require some sacrifice, especially of time. That would bring in some fasting from non-essentials like social media.

First, let’s look at four indulgenced works ideal for Lent. Then we’ll have a short refresher on the basic three conditions necessary to gain a plenary indulgence.

Four Indulgences Perfect for Lent

The first indulgenced work is the Stations of the Cross. Needless to say, it’s a centuries-old way to remember and meditate on Our Lord’s Passion and Death. Making the Stations of the Cross along with the three conditions can lead to a plenary indulgence. Every day. Here’s what the official Holy See’s Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, or Manual of Indulgences, Fourth Edition, has to say about making the Stations of the Cross:

The basic way is that the faithful “personally make the pious Way of the Cross.” If anyone is a shut-in, don’t stop reading and don’t worry. We’ll see how the manual helps you toward the same indulgence.

The manual prescribes that this “pious exercise must be made before stations of the Way of the Cross legitimately erected.”

Every church should have the Stations of the Cross in some form. Some are simple, some quite elaborate. All are legitimate. Some churches and shrines also have the Stations of the Cross erected outdoors. One that comes immediately to mind is the National Shrine of Divine Mercy in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, which a few years ago had a new, over-life sized Way of the Cross erected. These are legitimate.

The manual also reminds that for the Way of the Cross, there have to be 14 stations “representing the 14 stations of Jerusalem.”

Then, this reminder. “Progression from one station to the next is required. If the pious exercise is made publicly, and moving from station to station by all participants is not possible without inconvenience, it is sufficient that at least the one conducting the Way of the Cross progress from station to station, while the others remain in their place.”

If we’re in a church during the weekday and making the Way of the Cross alone, naturally, we have to move from station to station. If we’re in church with many parishioners and visitors, we remain in our place while only the priest, maybe accompanied by servers bearing candles, moves from station to station. Some people like to make a slight reverential turn toward each station, which is fine, of course.

And if alone you physically can’t make the Way of the Cross by walking to each one either in a church or outdoors, not to worry. The manual gives this answer: “Those legitimately impeded can acquire the same indulgence, if they spend some time, e.g., at least a quarter of an hour, in reading and meditating on the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” That brings in Scripture. And remember there are various kinds of booklets with the Way of the Cross to help you do this also, with pictures to help. One of the most popular was composed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

We’re also told this: “According to common custom, the pious exercise consists of 14 devotional readings, to which some vocal prayers are added. To make the Way of the Cross, however, it is sufficient to meditate devoutly on the Lord's Passion and Death, and therefore reflection on the particular mysteries of the individual stations is not necessary.” This broadens the possibilities.

Added to this, the manual also states, “Equivalent to the pious exercise of the Way of the Cross, even with regard to obtaining the indulgence, are other pious exercises, approved by competent authority, which call to mind the memory of the Passion and Death of our Lord, likewise with the prescribed 14 stations.” Maybe your bishop has approved a certain pious exercise in this regard. For example, what if the faithful in the Eastern Rite churches where the Way of the Cross might not exist? The manual states the indulgence can be gotten “by means of some other pious exercise in memory of the Passion and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ, accordingly as each patriarch has established for his own faithful.”

Such a gift of this plenary indulgence from the Church can be gained once a day. It promotes heading to church more than on Sunday. Maybe daily for those who can. Or at least during some extra times during the week. This is a Lenten sacrifice that’s tiny compared to the inestimable spiritual benefits you can gain for yourself and for souls in purgatory.

The second prescribed work is the Rosary. “Devoutly recite the Marian Rosary in a church or oratory, or in a family, a religious community, or an association of the faithful, and in general when several of the faithful gather for some honest purpose,” states the manual of the basic ways. The first three are most applicable for everyone for Lent: in a church, or an oratory, or in a family. Families saying the Rosary together are a wonderful Lenten practice. The manual does remind the five-decade rosary is sufficient but all five decades have to be done without interruption.

The third work is Eucharistic Adoration. “Visit the Blessed Sacrament for adoration lasting at least a half hour.”

The fourth work is reading or listening to Sacred Scriptures. “Read the Sacred Scriptures as spiritual reading, from a text approved by a competent authority, and with the reverence due to the divine word, for at least a half an hour; if the time is less, the indulgence will be partial.” Or if you’re unable to read it, you can listen to it being read.

The Three Necessary Conditions

There are three necessary conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence for doing any of the prescribed works we just learned. Each one is this trinity of conditions also adds has the bonus of adding to our Lenten journey. They are:

• Sacramentally confess your sins
• Receive Holy Communion. (“It is certainly better to receive it while participating in Holy Mass, but for the indulgence only Holy Communion is required”)
• Pray for the intentions of the Holy Father. One Our Father and one Hail Mary fully satisfies this.

There is actually one more: You must “have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin.”

One sacramental confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences, but a separate Holy Communion and separate prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father are required for each plenary indulgence. According to the most recent Church guidelines on the subject, “it is sufficient that these sacred rites and prayers be carried out within several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act.” Yet “it is, however, fitting that Communion be received and the prayer for the intention of the Holy Father be said on the same day the work is performed.”

Of course, it should go without saying but the manual also reminds, you must be baptized and in the state of grace at the time. And have that “interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin.” Otherwise, the indulgence becomes partial, not plenary. And have at least a general intention to gain the indulgence. You can’t receive an indulgence unintentionally or by accident.

If any part of the requirements is missing, the indulgence becomes partial. How partial? Heaven makes the determination of the degree of the partial indulgence. We try for the best.

Again, the Church does not leave out those who legitimately can’t fulfill all the conditions, like shut-ins. The manual has answers and aids. Later the Holy See office also reminded, “For the sake of those legitimately impeded, confessors can commute both the work prescribed and the conditions required (except, obviously, detachment from even venial sin).”

Think about it. What a wonderful Lenten practice to try to gain as many plenary indulgence as possible for those in need in purgatory (the only living person you can apply a plenary indulgence to is only yourself). Start with your closest relatives and friends. Relatives of those you know. The most abandoned soul there. The most abandoned priest, nun, husband, wife, teenager. Someone from your parish who you did not know personally. Not sure who to apply it to? Then let Our Blessed Mother make the choice, letting her pick out the soul. The possibilities are countless.

And the rewards for yourself — growing spiritually from these practices, and determining and praying to stay detached from even venial sin — will make this Lent something you and heaven will cheer.

This article originally appeared March 4, 2019, at the Register.

Religious Sisters Back Pro-Abortion Primary Challenger to Lipinski

CINOs! They're everywhere, but where are these women's superiors or their Bishops?

From Catholic World Report

From CNA Daily News

Chicago, Ill., Feb 27, 2020 / 12:15 pm (CNA).- Two Catholic religious sisters on Wednesday expressed their support for a pro-abortion primary challenger to one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in Congress.

The campaign of Marie Newman, a Democratic candidate running in a primary against Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois’ third congressional district, posted a video on Twitter Wednesday featuring two religious sisters—Sisters Patricia Murphy and JoAnn Persch of the Sisters of Mercy—endorsing Newman’s bid for Congress.

In the video, Sister Patricia Murphy cited Newman’s “incredible power to listen to people” as a reason for her support.

Marie Newman

✔@Marie4Congress

JoAnn Persch and Pat Murphy are Sisters of Mercy, and have fought for social justice and human rights for decades. They are two more voices for Marie, a real Democrat with real solutions for #IL03. #NewDayInIL03

90

8:31 AM - Feb 26, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

35 people are talking about this

In the video, Sister JoAnn Persch said that she first met Newman “in front of Congressman Lipinski’s office” and saw her again at a local “march against hate,” but had “never met Congressman Dan Lipinski personally” in her time working in the district.

“I will respond by voting for Marie Newman,” Persch said. Murphy said in the video that Newman “will make a great congresswoman and she has my vote.”

Newman is mounting her second consecutive primary challenge to Rep. Lipinski, opposing his views on life and marriage issues while boasting of her support from pro-abortion groups.

Lipinski, a Catholic is an eight-term member of Congress and widely known as one of the few remaining pro-life Democrats in a federal office. He is supported by pro-life groups such as the Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life.

Lipinski has worked across the aisle to support pro-life measures, including signing a petition to force a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which would require medical care for infants who survive a botched abortion attempt. He cosponsored a “pain-capable” 20-week abortion ban in 2017, has voted to defund Planned Parenthood, and has voted against taxpayer funding of abortion.

Newman, his challenger, has the support of several pro-abortion groups, including EMILYs List, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and Planned Parenthood. She supports taxpayer-funded abortion.

In a video during her 2018 campaign, Newman said she was “so proud, and pleased” to accept NARAL’s endorsement and thanked the group “for all the amazing work you do at the local level and at the national level.”

“For too long, my opponent, Mr. Lipinski, has thrown reproductive freedom and women’s rights under the bus,” Newman said, adding that she would work to promote “women’s rights, worker’s rights, working family’s rights, health care for all, immigrants and LGBTQ folks, and Americans.”

Newman narrowly lost to Lipinski in the 2018 Democratic primary for the third congressional district, which is a safely-Democratic district.

In May 2019, NARAL announced that it was once again endorsing Newman, along with Planned Parenthood Action Fund and EMILY’s List. Lipinski, the group said, was known for “siding with anti-choice activists and supporting a bigoted agenda.” Newman said in a statement that she was “honored” to receive their support.

On Monday, a coalition of pro-abortion groups including NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and EMILY’s List, announced they would devote $1.4 million to advertising to target Lipinski’s pro-life record.

The coalition’s “independent expenditures” project would involve direct mail, television ad buys and digital ads, and would “highlight” Lipinski’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act and its contraceptive mandate, support for defunding Planned Parenthood, and support for overturning Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court, among other matters.

The sisters endorsing Newman are members of the Sisters of Mercy, which has a West/Midwest community with a “central administrative center” based in Omaha, Nebraska, and a satellite location in Chicago. According to the order’s website, Sister Patricia Murphy entered the order in 1947 and is a 70-year jubilarian. She has worked in education in Illinois and Wisconsin, and in Peru.

Persch and Murphy have been advocates for immigrants’ rights, starting the Su Casa Catholic Worker house for survivors of torture from Central America and holding regular prayer vigils outside the Chicago office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since 2007.

Their immigration advocacy took them to Washington, D.C. in 2019 when Sister Pat Murphy was among a group of demonstrators arrested at the Russell Senate Office Building. The group was protesting the treatment of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border and the practice of child immigrant detention.

In a statement to CNA on Thursday, the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas said it “does not endorse any political candidates.”

“Political endorsements made by any individual sisters represent their own personal views,” the statement read.

The religious sisters’ endorsement of Newman is not the first prominent 2020 political endorsement by a priest or religious. Fr. Frank Pavone, a priest of the Diocese of Amarillo, Texas, is the co-chair of President Trump’s 2020 pro-life campaign outreach.

Newman has drawn distinctions between herself and Lipinski on other issues apart from abortion.

She has supported Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, and opposed a 2017 tax law which Lipinski also voted against. She had attacked Lipinski for not supporting the Equality Act in 2019, a bill that would create protected classes in federal law for sexual orientation and gender identity and which forbade sex discrimination—a prohibition that pro-life groups warned would be interpreted by the courts to overturn abortion regulations.

Lipinski initially opposed the Equality Act but ultimately voted for it, saying that “all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law and should have these rights protected, including individuals in the LGBT community.”

The congressman has also said he still has religious freedom concerns about the bill, and that it could override the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Lipinski has said that “before [the Equality Act] becomes law, we must do more to ensure religious liberty.”

Can Catholics Eat Plant-Based 'Meat' During Lent?

No! I agree with the SSPX: “Arguably, a Catholic who intentionally seeks these artificial meat products out in the name of adhering to the letter of the law are violating its spirit. It would therefore behoove Catholics to reflect on why they are purchasing an $8 box of soy chicken nuggets on Fridays when a can of tuna fish is available for a dollar. Further, with respect to the ascetic dimension of abstinence, that is all but obliterated when meat is replaced by near-identical substitutes.” 

From Religion Unplugged

By Clemente Lisi

NEW YORK — Ash Wednesday ushers the start of Lent, a six-week period where Christians prepare for Easter through prayer and reflection. For Catholics, the season also involves fasting on certain days and abstaining from meat on Fridays. The tradition, which started in the early church, is something that Catholics, and many Christians in general, have prescribed to for centuries.

Catholics avoid meat during Lent to show respect for the death of Jesus. There have been exceptions, like dispensations when St. Patrick’s Day falls on a Friday during the Lenten season. Fish, on the other hand, is permitted. It’s the reason why fast food chains like McDonald’s have for decades aggressively advertised the Filet-O-Fish, a sandwich invented in 1962 to cater to Catholics looking to avoid meat on Fridays and make up for sagging burger sales.

Thanks to products like the Impossible Burger or Beyond Meat, the dietary restrictions that come with Lent have been turned on their head. Plant-based imitation meat alternatives look and taste like meat — but isn’t. That has unleashed a meaty debate in pews and on message boards over whether plant-based patties can or cannot be eaten during Lent and whether doing so is a sin.

“As someone who eats and craves meat, I see not eating meat as a sacrifice,” wrote one Reddit user. “Though it may be OK to eat, it is a small sacrifice compared to Jesus dying for our sins. I will try the burger, but not on a Friday or Ash Wednesday in Lent.”

Others disagree, saying if it isn’t meat then it’s fair game.

“I would think that it is against the spirit of the requirement, but it wouldn’t be a sin because it is not a violation of the church law,” wrote another user.

The debate isn’t limited to Roman Catholics. Orthodox Christians who belong to Eastern Rite churches also fast and abstain from meat during Lent and at other times of the year. Jews who keep kosher have also had to face the religious predicaments that these foods now present.

Products like Beyond Burger have seen increased interest over the last year amid growing concerns about health risks associated with eating meat or the potential hazards tied to climate change involving animal farming. Religious doctrine, however, is often slow in trying to catch up with what new foods scientists are coming up with in the lab. As a result, everyone from theologians to priests are debating whether chowing down on an Impossible Burger during Lent is a good idea.

Impossible Foods, which invented the plant-based burgers that has spurred many imitators over the last year, was founded a decade ago by Patrick Brown, a former Stanford University professor. Brown, a vegan, formed the company with the aim of ending the planet’s reliance on breeding animals for human consumption.

For many this season, the issue is cut and dry: plant-based foods are not meat and therefore not in violation of the church’s rules. Others, however, argue that if it tastes like meat and looks like meat, then one should avoid them to enhance the penance.

The Vatican has had no public position on the issue. Pope Francis, who hails from Argentina where beef is a major part of the national diet, has never addressed it publicly or through any writings or statements.

A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did not respond to an email seeking comment.

USCCB has issued guidelines, but they offer little clarity on this debate. In 1966, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops produced what’s known as the Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence. In it, the bishops, who are appointed by the pope, declared that “the age of fasting is from the completion of the 18th year to the beginning of the 60th.” The document reiterates Canon Law, which states that every person 14 years or older “must abstain from meat (and items made with meat) on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and all the Fridays of Lent.”

In a statement posted to its website, the Society of Saint Pius X, which promotes vocations to the priesthood and the Latin Mass, said: “Arguably, a Catholic who intentionally seeks these artificial meat products out in the name of adhering to the letter of the law are violating its spirit. It would therefore behoove Catholics to reflect on why they are purchasing an $8 box of soy chicken nuggets on Fridays when a can of tuna fish is available for a dollar. Further, with respect to the ascetic dimension of abstinence, that is all but obliterated when meat is replaced by near-identical substitutes.”

But soy has been replaced with food that tastes like meat but isn’t. It was last April that Burger King began to test Impossible Whoppers in St. Louis. Within a few weeks, the burger chain was selling them nationally. This is the first Lent where Catholics across the United States will have beefless burgers as an option.

“A generation ago, abstaining from meat was pretty cut and dried. Then the vegetarian burgers arrived, the first generation of which were never confused with the real thing,” wrote Dave Fusaro, editor in chief of Food Processing, a trade publication. “I recall an earlier discussion about the propriety of eating a vegetarian burger during Lent: One of the debaters simply concluded that “eating a veggie burger is itself penance. That’s no longer the case. The patties from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are very good, not quite up there with a juicy burger in my book, but fast approaching parity and in a dead heat in other people’s minds.”

That hasn’t stopped fast-food chains from marketing such products to Catholics during this time of year. Wayback Burgers, a national chain, will be selling the Impossible Melt starting on Ash Wednesday through April 10, which is Good Friday.

“With the addition of this new product, Wayback Burgers is answering the call of guests who are increasingly adding plant-based alternatives to their diet and there is no better time than Lent to try a new meatless option,” Wayback Burgers President Patrick Conlin said.

For many this Lent, the Filet-O-Fish won’t be on the Friday menu. Catholics who want to remain in compliance with church laws have found the Impossible Burger and products like it to be one tasty loophole.

Clemente Lisi is a senior editor and regular contributor to Religion Unplugged. He is the former deputy head of news at the New York Daily News and teaches journalism at The King’s College in New York City.

Bohemond I of Antioch

Real Crusades History #103. And don't forget the Real Crusades History website!

This video deals with the life of the Southern Italian Norman Crusader Bohemond of Taranto, Prince of Antioch. Books cited: Gesta Francorum (in Edward Peters) Anna Comnena's Alexiad
The Building of Christendom by Warren Carroll

Baltimore Catechism #3 - LESSON 21 - On Indulgences

On Indulgences

Q. 839. What is an Indulgence?

A. An Indulgence is the remission in whole or in part of the temporal punishment due to sin.

Q. 840. What does the word "indulgence" mean?

A. The word indulgence means a favor or concession. An indulgence obtains by a very slight penance the remission of penalties that would otherwise be severe.

Q. 841. Is an Indulgence a pardon of sin, or a license to commit sin?

A. An Indulgence is not a pardon of sin, nor a license to commit sin, and one who is in a state of mortal sin cannot gain an Indulgence.

Q. 842. How do good works done in mortal sin profit us?

A. Good works done in mortal sin profit us by obtaining for us the grace to repent and sometimes temporal blessings. Mortal sin deprives us of all our merit, nevertheless God will bestow gifts for every good deed as He will punish every evil deed.

Q. 843. How many kinds of Indulgences are there?

A. There are two kinds of Indulgences -- Plenary and Partial.

Q. 844. What is Plenary Indulgence?

A. A Plenary Indulgence is the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.

Q. 845. Is it easy to gain a Plenary Indulgence?

A. It is not easy to gain a Plenary Indulgence, as we may understand from its great privilege. To gain a Plenary Indulgence, we must hate sin, be heartily sorry for even our venial sins, and have no desire for even the slightest sin. Though we may not gain entirely each Plenary Indulgence we seek, we always gain a part of each; that is, a partial indulgence, greater or less in proportion to our good dispositions.

Q. 846. Which are the most important Plenary Indulgences granted by the Church?

A. The most important Plenary Indulgences granted by the Church are:
1. The Indulgences of a jubilee which the Pope grants every twenty-five years or on great occasions by which he gives special faculties to confessors for the absolution of reserved sins;
2. The Indulgence granted to the dying in their last agony.

Q. 847. What is a Partial Indulgence?

A. A Partial Indulgence is the remission of part of the temporal punishment due to sin.

Q. 848. How long has the practice of granting Indulgences been in use in the Church, and what was its origin?

A. The practice of granting Indulgences has been in use in the Church since the time of the apostles. It had its origin in the earnest prayers of holy persons, and especially of the martyrs begging the Church for their sake to shorten the severe penances of sinners, or to change them into lighter penances. The request was frequently granted and the penance remitted, shortened or changed, and with the penance remitted the temporal punishment corresponding to it was blotted out.

Q. 849. How do we show that the Church has the power to grant Indulgences?

A. We show that the Church has the power to grant Indulgences, because Christ has given it power to remit all guilt without restriction, and if the Church has power, in the Sacrament of penance, to remit the eternal punishment -- which is the greatest -- it must have power to remit the temporal or lesser punishment, even outside the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 850. How do we know that these Indulgences have their effect?

A. We know that these Indulgences have their effect, because the Church, through her councils, declares Indulgences useful, and if they have no effect they would be useless, and the Church would teach error in spite of Christ's promise to guide it.

Q. 851. Have there ever existed abuses among the faithful in the manner of using Indulgences?

A. There have existed, in past ages, some abuses among the faithful in the manner of using Indulgences, and the Church has always labored to correct such abuses as soon as possible. In the use of pious practices we must be always guided by our lawful superiors.

Q. 852. How have the enemies of the Church made use of the abuse of Indulgences?

A. The enemies of the Church have made use of the abuse of Indulgences to deny the doctrine of Indulgences, and to break down the teaching and limit the power of the Church. Not to be deceived in matters of faith, we must always distinguish very carefully between the abuses to which a devotion may lead and the truths upon which the devotion rests.

Q. 853. How does the Church by means of Indulgences remit the temporal punishment due to sin?

A. The Church, by means of Indulgences, remits the temporal punishment due to sin by applying to us the merits of Jesus Christ, and the superabundant satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints; which merits and satisfactions are its spiritual treasury.

Q. 854. What do we mean by the "superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints"?

A. By the superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, we mean all the satisfaction over and above what was necessary to satisfy for their own sins. As their good works were many and their sins few -- the Blessed Virgin being sinless -- the satisfaction not needed for themselves is kept by the Church in a spiritual treasury to be used for our benefit.

Q. 855. Does the Church, by granting Indulgences, free us from doing Penance?

A. The Church, by granting Indulgences, does not free us from doing penance, but simply makes our penance lighter that we may more easily satisfy for our sins and escape the punishments they deserve.

Q. 856. Who has the power to grant Indulgences?

A. The Pope alone has the power to grant Indulgences for the whole Church; but the bishops have power to grant partial Indulgences in their own diocese. Cardinals and some others, by the special permission of the Pope, have the right to grant certain Indulgences.

Q. 857. Where shall we find the Indulgences granted by the Church?

A. We shall find the Indulgences granted by the Church in the declarations of the Pope and of the Sacred Congregation of Cardinals. These declarations are usually put into prayer books and books of devotion or instruction.

Q. 858. What must we do to gain an Indulgence?

A. To gain an Indulgence we must be in the state of grace and perform the works enjoined.

Q. 859. Besides being in a state of grace and performing the works enjoined, what else is necessary for the gaining of an Indulgence?

A. Besides being in a state of grace and performing the works enjoined, it is necessary for the gaining of an Indulgence to have at least the general intention of gaining it.

Q. 860. How and why should we make a general intention to gain all possible Indulgences each day?

A. We should make a general intention at our morning prayers to gain all possible Indulgences each day, because several of the prayers we say and good works we perform may have Indulgences attached to them, though we are not aware of it.

Q. 861. What works are generally enjoined for the gaining of Indulgences?

A. The works generally enjoined for the gaining of Indulgences are: The saying of certain prayers, fasting, and the use of certain articles of devotion; visits to Churches or altars, and the giving of alms. For the gaining of Plenary Indulgences it is generally required to go to confession and Holy Communion and pray for the intention of the Pope.

Q. 862. What does praying for a person's intention mean?

A. Praying for a person's intention means praying for whatever he prays for or desires to obtain through prayer -- some spiritual or temporal favors.

Q. 863. What does an Indulgence of forty days mean?

A. An Indulgence of forty days means that for the prayer or work to which an Indulgence of forty days is attached, God remits as much of our temporal punishment as He remitted for forty days' canonical penance. We do not know just how much temporal punishment God remitted for forty days' public penance, but whatever it was, He remits the same now when we gain an Indulgence of forty days. The same rule applies to Indulgences of a year or any length of time.

Q. 864. Why did the Church moderate its severe penances?

A. The Church moderated its severe penances, because when Christians -- terrified by persecution -- grew weaker in their faith, there was danger of some abandoning their religion rather than submit to the penances imposed. The Church, therefore, wishing to save as many as possible, made the sinner's penance as light as possible.

Q. 865. To what things may Indulgences be attached?

A. Plenary or Partial Indulgences may be attached to prayers and solid articles of devotion; to places such as churches, altars, shrines, etc., to be visited; and by a special privilege they are sometimes attached to the good works of certain persons.

Q. 866. When do things lose the Indulgences attached to them?

A. Things lose the Indulgences attached to them:
1. When they are so changed at once as to be no longer what they were;
2. When they are sold. Rosaries and other indulgenced articles do not lose their indulgences, when they are loaned or given away, for the indulgence is not personal but attached to the article itself.

Q. 867. Will a weekly Confession suffice to gain during the week all Indulgences to which Confession is enjoined as one of the works?

A Weekly confession will suffice to gain during the week all Indulgences to which confession is enjoined as one of the works, provided we continue in a state of grace, perform the other works enjoined and have the intention of gaining these Indulgences.

Q. 868. How and when may we apply Indulgences for the benefit of the souls in Purgatory?

A. We may apply Indulgences for the benefit of the souls in Purgatory by way of intercession; whenever this application is mentioned and permitted by the Church in granting the Indulgence; that is, when the Church declares that the Indulgence granted is applicable to the souls of the living or the souls in Purgatory; so that we may gain it for the benefit of either.

Next - Baltimore Catechism #3 - LESSON 22 - On the Holy Eucharist

Word of the Day: Avarice

AVARICE. An excessive or insatiable desire for money or material things. In its strict sense, avarice is the inordinate holding on to possessions or riches instead of using these material things for some worthwhile purpose. Reluctance to let go of what a person owns is also avarice. Of itself, avarice is venially sinful. But it may become mortal when a person is ready to use gravely unlawful means to acquire or hold on to his possessions, or when because of his cupidity he seriously violates his duty of justice or charity. (Etym. Latin avaritia, greediness, covetousness, avarice.)

Bishop Schneider Releases Essay ‘On the Question of the True Pope’

His Excellency weighs in on the question of the true Pope.

From LifeSiteNews

By His Excellency Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of St Mary in Astana

Editor’s note: LifeSite is here publishing an important text issued today by Bishop Athanasius Schneider commenting on some key questions that have been vexing many faithful Catholics in the midst of the current crisis in the Church under Pope Francis.

On the question of the true pope
in the light of the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy
and the speculations about the resignation of Benedict XVI

The hypothesis of the possibility of a heretical pope derives from the Decree of Gratian (dist. XL, cap. 6, col. 146) from the 12th century. According to the opinion expressed in this decree, the pope cannot be judged by any human authority, except if he has fallen into heresy (a nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius). Basing themselves on this spurious decree erroneously attributed to St. Boniface (+754) and accepted by Gratian, the Medieval theologians and theologians of the subsequent centuries maintained as possible the hypothesis - but not the certitude - of a heretical pope. The eventual condemnation of a pope in the case of heresy by a so-called imperfect Council of bishops corresponds to the thesis of mitigated Conciliarism. The heretical thesis of Conciliarism holds that a Council is superior to the pope.

Even if — according to the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy —  the judgment of the loss of the papal office is pronounced by the heretical pope upon himself, and he automatically falls from office without any judgment by the Church, such an opinion contains a contradiction and reveals a hint of crypto-conciliarism. For according to this opinion, the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops would have to issue an official declaration about the fact of the automatic loss of the papal office. According to another opinion, the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy would be tantamount to a renunciation of the papal office. However, one has to bear in mind the inevitable possibility of disagreement among members of the College of Cardinals or the episcopacy regarding whether or not a pope is guilty of heresy. Hence, there will always be doubts regarding the automatic loss of the papal office.

The pope as pope cannot fall into formal heresy in the sense that he would pronounce a heresy ex cathedra. But according to renowned traditional theologians he can favor heresy or fall into heresy as a private doctor or also as pope, but only in his non-defining and non-definitive Magisterium, which is not infallible.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion is that “a pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30). The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine and other similar opinions on the loss of the papal office for heresy are based on the spurious decree of Gratian in the Corpus Iuris Canonici. Such an opinion has never been approved explicitly by the Magisterium or supported by an explicit teaching about its doctrinal validity by the Roman Pontiffs during a considerable period of time. In fact, this matter has not been decided by the Church’s Magisterium and does not constitute a definitive doctrine pertaining to the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. This opinion is supported only by theologians, and not even by all the Fathers of the Church from antiquity. This opinion was not taught unanimously and universally by the bishops and the popes in their constant Magisterium. Neither Gratian nor St. Robert Bellarmine, nor St. Alphonsus, nor other renowned theologians asserted with their opinions a doctrine of the Magisterium of the Church. Even some interventions of individual Fathers of the First Vatican Council, which seem to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papacy for heresy, remain their personal opinion, but not a formal teaching of the First Vatican Council. And even if some few popes seemed to support such an opinion (as e.g. Innocent III or Paul IV), this does not constitute a proof for the constant teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. One also cannot cite Pope Gregory XVI to support the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy. For he supported this thesis in his book The Triumph of the Holy See and the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators before he became pope, hence not in his papal Magisterium.

The automatic loss of the papal office by a heretical pope touches not only on the practical or juridical aspects of the life of the Church, but also on the Church’s doctrine — in this case, on ecclesiology. In such a delicate matter, one cannot follow an opinion, even if it has been supported by renowned theologians (such as St. Robert Bellarmine or St. Alphonsus) for a considerable period of time. Instead, one must wait for an explicit and formal decision by the Magisterium of the Church — a decision which the Magisterium has not yet issued.

On the contrary, the Magisterium of the Church, since Popes Pius X and Benedict XV, has seemed to reject such an opinion, as the formulation of the spurious decree of Gratian was eliminated in the Code of Canon Law 1917. The canons that address the automatic loss of an ecclesiastical office for heresy in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 188 §4) and in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (canon 194 §2) are not applicable to the pope, because the Church deliberately eliminated from the Code of Canon Law the following formulation taken from the previous Corpus Iuris Canonici: “unless the pope is caught deviating from the faith (nisi deprehendatur a fide devius).” By this act, the Church manifested her understanding, the mens ecclesiae, regarding this crucial issue. Even if one does not agree with this conclusion, the matter remains at least doubtful. In doubtful matters, however, one cannot proceed to concrete acts with fundamental implications for the life of the Church, such as, e.g., not to name an allegedly heretical or an allegedly invalidly elected pope in the Canon of the Mas or preparing for a new papal election.

Even if one supports the opinion of the automatic loss of the papal office for heresy, in the case of Pope Francis, the College of Cardinals or of a representative group of bishops has not issued a declaration regarding the automatic loss of papal office, specifying the concrete heretical pronouncements and the date when they happened.

According to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, a single bishop, priest, or lay faithful cannot state the fact of the loss of papal office for heresy. Consequently, even if a single bishop or priest is convinced that Pope Francis has committed the crime of heresy, he has no authority to eliminate his name from the Canon of the Mass.

Even if one subscribed to the opinion of St Robert Bellarmine, in the case of Pope Francis doubt still remains, and there is still no statement by the College of Cardinals or a group of bishops, affirming  the automatic loss of the papal office and informing the entire Church about this fact.

Faithful Catholics can morally (but not canonically) distance themselves from erroneous or evil teachings and acts of a pope. This has occurred several times in the course of the Church’s history. However, given the principle that one ought to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the position of one’s superior (in dubio pro superiore semper sit præsumendum), Catholics should also consider the correct teachings of the pope as part of the Magisterium of the Church, his correct decisions as part of the Church’s legislation, and his appointments of bishops and cardinals as valid. For even if one subscribes to the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, the necessary declaration of the automatic loss of the papal office has still not be issued.

A moral and intellectual “distancing” of oneself from erroneous teachings of a pope also includes resisting his errors. However, this should always be done with due respect for the papal office and the person of the Pope. St. Bridged of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena, both of whom admonished the popes of their times, are fine examples of such respect. St. Robert Bellarmine wrote: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 29).

Warning people about the danger of a pope’s wrong teachings and actions does not require convincing people that he is not the true pope. This is required by the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible society, in contrast to the Protestant understanding and to the theory of conciliarism or semi-conciliarism, where the convictions of an individual or of a particular group inside the Church are considered as having an effect upon the fact of who is the true and valid shepherd in the Church.

The Church is strong enough and possesses sufficient means to protect the faithful from the spiritual damage of a heretical pope. In the first place, there is the sensus fidelium, the supernatural sense of the faith (sensus fidei). It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which the members of the Church possess the true sense of the faith. This is a kind of spiritual and supernatural instinct that makes the faithful sentire cum Ecclesia (think with the mind of the Church) and discern what is in conformity with the Catholic and Apostolic faith handed on by all bishops and popes, through the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

One should also remember the wise words that Cardinal Consalvi spoke to a furious Emperor Napoleon, when the latter threatened to destroy the Church: “What we, i.e. the clergy, tried to do and we did not succeed, you for sure, will not succeed.” Paraphrasing these words one could say: “Even a heretical pope cannot destroy the Church.” The Pope and the Church are indeed not totally identical. The Pope is the visible head of the Militant Church on earth, but at the same time he is also a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

The sentire cum Ecclesia requires from a true son or daughter of the Church that he or she also praise the pope when he does right things, while asking him to do still more and praying that God enlightens him so that he may become a valiant herald and defender of the Catholic Faith.

The former Pope Benedict XVI is no longer the pope. It suffices to re-read the core of Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration of renunciation to realize what it meant. The following affirmations of the former Pope Benedict XVI eliminate any reasonable doubts about the validity of his abdication, and his recognition of Pope Francis as the only true pope: “Among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience” (Farewell address to the Cardinals, 28 February 2013). “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity” (Last General Audience, February 27, 2013). “There is not the slightest doubt about the validity of my renunciation of the Petrine ministry. The only condition of validity is the full freedom of the decision. Speculation about the invalidity of renunciation is simply absurd” (Letter from February 18, 2014, to Andrea Tornielli, published in La Stampa, February 27, 2014). During a conversation with a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the former Pope Benedict XVI said: “The Pope is one, he is Francis.” These words of Benedict XVI were reported in the written edition of Corriere della Sera, June 28, 2019 and anticipated in the Italian version of Vatican News on June 27, 2019.

The Church is a visible society. Therefore, what was essential for the fulfillment of Benedict XVI’s resignation was not his possible internal thought but what he externally declared, for the Church does not judge about internal intentions (de internis non iudicat Ecclesia). Pope Benedict XVI’s ambiguous acts, like wearing a white cassock, keeping his name, imparting the apostolic blessing, etc., do not affect the unequivocal meaning of his act of renunciation. Many of his demonstrable and unequivocal words and actions after his resignation also confirm that he considers Pope Francis, and not himself, to be the pope.

Declaring Pope Francis to be an invalid pope, either because of his heresies or because of an invalid election (for reasons of alleged violations of the Conclave norms or for the reason that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope because of his invalid renunciation) are desperate and subjectively taken actions aimed at remedying the current unprecedented crisis of the papacy. They are purely human and betray a spiritual myopia. All such endeavors are ultimately a dead end, a cul-de-sac. Such solutions reveal an implicit Pelagian approach to resolving a problem with human means; a problem, indeed, which cannot be resolved by human efforts, but which requires a divine intervention.

One need only examine similar cases of the deposition of a pope or declaration of the invalidity of his election in Church history to see that they provoked rivaling and combatting claimants to the papal office.

Such situations caused more confusion for the Church than did tolerating a heretical or doubtfully elected pope with the supernatural vision of the Church and trust in Divine Providence.

The Church is ultimately not a human but a divine-human reality. She is the Mystical Body of Christ. Attempts to resolve the current crisis of the papacy which favor the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine with its concrete solution, or take refuge in the unproven theory of Benedict XVI still being the only true pope, are doomed to fail from the start. The Church is in the hands of God, even in this most dark time.

We must not be lax in proclaiming Catholic truth and warning and admonishing when papal words and actions clearly harm the faith. But what all true sons and daughters of the Church ought to do now is launch a serious world-wide crusade of prayer and penance to implore a divine intervention. Let us trust in the Lord’s words: “Will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?” (Luke 18:7).

February 28, 2020

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Mary in Astana