What Was Black is Now White: Pope "Changes Catechism" to Declare Death Penalty "Inadmissible in All Cases".

I love the intro! 'Is the Pope a kind of "Prophet", as the "First President" of the Mormons, receiving new teachings that contradict completely teachings that the Magisterium had taught since Apostolic Times?'

And check out the utterly ridiculous claim at the end, from the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! Rorate says of it, '(T)he Catechism is not a lobbying tool to modify laws: it is supposed to be a collection of the everlasting teachings of the Church.'

I'm not sure what 'faith' the Prefect is talking about, but it sure as hell isn't the Catholic Faith of the Church of Christ!

From Rorate Cæli

The Church was wrong in a major issue literally of life and death.

Is the Pope a kind of "Prophet", as the "First President" of the Mormons, receiving new teachings that contradict completely teachings that the Magisterium had taught since Apostolic Times?

That is what seems to come from the "alteration" of the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1992 promoted by the current Pope and published today:

The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in an audience granted on May 11, 2018, to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new text of the n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ordering its translation in the various languages and inserted in all editions of the mentioned Catechism:

The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

_______________________

[1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.

The anachronistic boldness in this decision is astounding: what is merely a modern view of a secularized Europe becomes a completely new teaching, without even the consideration that the current situation of the world will not remain the same for all time -- as if the secular European present of stable peace would remain forever the same, as if what was common in the past and since the dawn of time would never be possible anymore. The boldness of a personal opinion becoming a completely new and unprecedented "teaching" of the Church.

If such a certain doctrine of the Church (of the possibility of the death penalty at least in some situations), affirmed by Christ Himself in Scripture -- when, confronted by Pilate who affirmed his right to inflict capital punishment, Christ told him, "You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above", affirming that it is a power granted to the State in its authority, even if, as all governmental powers, it can be exercised illegitimately and unjustly -- can be changed, then anything can be changed. A "development" of doctrine that is in fact a lopsided inversion of doctrine may bring about anything: from the end of the "intrinsic disordered" nature of homosexuality to the priestly ordination of women, from the possibility of contraception in "some" cases to the acceptance of the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a possible interpretation of what the Church has always believed -- and so on. 

The current Pope has far exceeded his authority: his authority is to guard and protect the doctrine that was received from Christ and the Apostles, not to alter it according to his personal views. We are reaping the rewards of an unchecked hyper-clericalism: the same hyper-clericalism that allowed for abuses of people like Theodore McCarrick to go ignored and unpunished and now allows for the recklessness of the alteration of established doctrine received from Christ and the Apostles. Francis has violated radically the Doctrine of Papal Authority as defined by Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus: "The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"). He is in open violation of the authority recognized to him by Christ and His Church throughout the ages: he has abused his authority by pretending to have an authority that he has not.

***

Update: If it were possible to have an even more ridiculous excuse for this change, it comes from the "Letter to Bishops" by Cardinal Ladaria, the CDF prefect:

10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.

That is absolutely ridiculous, and a shameful and pathetic excuse: the Catechism is not a lobbying tool to modify laws: it is supposed to be a collection of the everlasting teachings of the Church.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 3 AUGUST – THE INVENTION OF SAINT STEPHEN (First M...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 3 AUGUST – THE INVENTION OF SAINT STEPHEN (First M...: During the reign of the emperor Honorius, the bodies of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, Gamaliel, Nicodemus and Abibas were found near Je...

3 August, A Chesterton Calendar

AUGUST 3rd

Even among liars there are two classes, one immeasurably better than another. The honest liar is the man who tells the truth about his old lies; who says on Wednesday, ‘I told a magnificent lie on Monday.’ He keeps the truth in circulation; no one version of things stagnates in him and becomes an evil secret. He does not have to live with old lies; a horrible domesticity.

Introduction to ‘The Old Curiosity Shop.’

Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44695-44699). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

4 August, The Roman Martyrology

Prídie Nonas Augústi Luna vicesima secunda Anno 2018 Domini

August 4th anno Domini 2018 The 22nd Day of the Moon is commemorated the holy Confessor Dominic [of Guzman,] Founder of the Order of Friars Preachers, very famous for his holiness and teaching. He has always been a virgin, and thanks for his life. By his preaching he crushed heresies, and grounded many in a religious and godly life. He fell asleep in peace, [in the year 1221,] on the sixth day of this present month of August. But his feast is kept under control by Pope Paul IV. 
On the same 4th day of August, were born into the better life: 

At Thessalonica, [in the first century,] the blessed Aristarchus, the disciple and companion of the holy Apostle Paul, concerning whom the same Apostle writeth unto the Colossians, (iv. 10,) "Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, hieth you. " He was by the same Apostle ordained Bishop of the Thessalonians, and after long contendings under Nero he was crowned by Christ, and fell asleep. 
At Rome, on the Latin Way, [in the year 275,] the blessed martyr Tertullinus. He was a Priest who, under the Emperor Valerian, was horridly beaten with clubs, had his sides burnt and his mouth was crushed, was stretched upon a rack and had his muscles cut, and then sentenced to death, and so he finished his testimony. 
At Constantinople, [in the fourth century,] the holy martyr Eleutherius, of the Senatorial Order, who was slain with the sword for Christ's sake, in the persecution under Maximian. 
In Persia, [in the year 346,] the holy martyrs and her Companions, who were variously afflicted and underwent martyrdom along with nine thousand Christian prisoners under King Sapor. 
At t Cologne, the holy martyr Protasius. 
At Verona, the holy Confessor Agabius, Bishop of that see. 
At Tours, Holy Euphronius, [Arch-] Bishop of that see. 
At Rome, holy Perpetua, who was baptized by the injured Apostle Peter. She turned her son's name to the African martyrs, and passed away to the Lord, full of good works. 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins. 
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

Who is England's Next Saint?

Whilst I'm sure these are all worthy candidates for Sainthood, and I'm fascinated by John Bradburne, knowing my interests, my readers can surely guess who my favourite candidate is.

You go, Gilbert!!!

From the Catholic Herald

Nuns, priests, a journalist and a certain cardinal are all in the running for canonisation

Recent media coverage of GK Chesterton’s possible canonisation morphed into speculation as to when he would be made a saint. Misunderstanding the canonical process, many secular media sources saw a possible beginning as a confirmed ending.

Far from declaring anything, the Church is merely exploring the possibility of the writer’s holiness. GK Chesterton was a public figure, which, in part, explains the curiosity from secular sources at the prospect of his canonisation. One suspects that driving that curiosity is an interest in novelty rather than the science of sanctity.

But if not Chesterton, who is to become England’s next saint?

The last canonisation for England and Wales was in 1970 when Pope Paul VI canonised 40 English and Welsh martyrs executed between 1535 and 1679. John Ogilvie, the only post-Reformation Scottish saint, was canonised in 1976.

In 2010, John Henry Newman was the last Englishman to be named Blessed. Newman would appear best placed to become Britain’s next official saint – not least given the backing and resources of a religious congregation, the Oratorians, to facilitate this.

Since his beatification in 2010, there has been a notable increase in the display of images of Blessed John Henry in English churches. It’s less clear whether there has been an increase in large-scale popular devotion to the man. Perhaps this is because much of Newman’s public life and witness is about the intellect. There were no stigmata, no public miracles, no levitations; instead there were builders’ bills, court writs and endless misunderstandings. As a result Newman’s holiness is understated, a quiet but steadfast devotion to God’s will.

There are three stages in the Vatican’s recogition of a saint. First, the Pope declares them Venerable, meaning that they have lived a life of “heroic virtue”. To be beatified, a miracle is usually needed; canonisation requires two. It was thanks to Newman’s prayers that an American deacon, Jack Sullivan, was healed of a crippling spinal condition. In 2016, the Vatican began investigating a possible second miracle: a mother, also in the United States, who was healed during a life-threatening pregnancy.

Popular devotion remains crucial to any potential Cause for canonisation. Canon John Udris, the priest tasked by the Bishop of Northampton with investigating Chesterton’s sanctity, noted that for any Cause to be initiated there must, of course, be evidence of holiness, but also, and just as importantly, there must be signs of a local cult to the prospective saint. If GK Chesterton has a local cult, it is dwarfed by his international following. Canon Udris recalls how, when he was parish priest at Beaconsfield, the great majority of visitors to his presbytery asking for information on Chesterton hailed from North America, in lands where many view the writer as a Catholic apologist par excellence. In today’s Britain, Chesterton is chiefly remembered as the creator of the Father Brown detective stories.

Tellingly, Newman’s miraculous cure was reported not in his homeland but in the United States. Modern secular Britain seems decidedly uninterested in Catholic saints, or potential ones. Although there has always been popular devotion to saints among British Catholics, such devotion appears less prominent in regard to indigenous men and women who are on their way to being canonised.

In recent years, if one thinks of popular devotion to those who subsequently became saints, Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and John Paul II come to mind. Long before he was declared a saint, Padre Pio had a London bookshop named in his honour. On entering, one saw a larger than life statue of the Italian friar with the shop stuffed full of books and pamphlets about Padre Pio’s life. In addition, there were, and doubtless still are, countless self-styed “Padre Pio prayer groups”.
Likewise, after her death, Mother Teresa soon inspired intercessory prayers and devotion throughout Britain. In her case, it was not so much a call for her canonisation as a desire to know when it would happen. Similarly, upon Pope John Paul II’s death, British popular opinion quickly proclaimed him a saint, again with any canonisation not a matter of “if” but “when”.

At that time, the British media appeared to play a part in this. I remember a non- Catholic complaining to me that his television set had been “hijacked by the Vatican”, such was the steady stream of updates on the late pontiff’s , or Britishdeath and subsequent funeral.

If you were to enter Southwark Catholic Cathedral and look to your left you would see a picture of a nun. It is the Venerable Mary Potter. A Londoner, she made her First Holy Communion and was Confirmed in that cathedral. Later, she founded a religious congregation. The adjective “Venerable” gives a clue to the fact that, unlike Chesterton, her Cause for canonisation is ongoing, and officially has been since 1940s. This Sunday, I would wager, few attending Holy Mass at Southwark Cathedral have heard of Mary Potter, let alone have any devotion to her.

As with Mary Potter, there are a number of other British Causes for canonisation that increasingly are known only to the religious congregations founded by those individuals. And yet, these Causes stand a better chance than most. Merely to complete the preliminary inquiry into a person’s alleged sanctity can take years of effort. Canon Udris began his investigation of Chesterton some five years ago.

The process also takes money. Many English Causes, especially those involving lay people, just do not have the funds available to move matters forward. In recent months, a crowd-funding campaign began to raise the necessary monies in the hope of funding such an investigation into the life of Englishman John Bradburne, a wandering poet and Third Order Franciscan. Despite books and films that, in recent years, have helped spread devotion to Bradburne, it will be an uphill struggle.

Not many attending Sunday Mass at Westminster Cathedral will be aware that before his adventures in Zimbabwe, Bradburne worked as a sacristan at that cathedral; and fewer still will know of his holy death, or ask for his intercession.

Nevertheless, Bradburne’s fans are an impressively determined group. At the leper colony where he cared for the sick with extraordinary devotion, before his murder by guerrillas in 1980, thousands attend the annual memorial Mass.

Once the preliminary investigation is completed and the process opened, patience is needed by all concerned. Margaret Sinclair was declared Venerable in 1978. Her Cause has attracted a popular following in her native Scotland – it helps that there are vivid contemporary photographs – but the progress feels painfully slow.

A noteworthy English Venerable (declared in 2012) is Frances Taylor, a nineteenth-century nun who briefly worked alongside Florence Nightingale in the Crimean War before converting to Catholicism. She founded the Congregation of the Poor Servants of the Mother of God to care for the homeless, the sick and the poor. Though suffering from debilitating illness, she found time to write books and run a magazine while working tirelessly for the vulnerable.

Another colourful nineteenth-century convert is Fr Ignatius Spencer, a distant relative of Princes William and Harry. He launched a prayer “crusade” for the conversion of England, and tried to interest Newman, who was still an Anglican at the tine; Newman later regretted “being very rude to that zealous and most charitable man, Mr Spencer”.

His order, the Passionists, hope that Spencer will soon be acknowledged as Venerable. By contrast, many of the 19th-century Causes, those from Reformation times and even earlier, without image or popular memory, are now lost in the mists of time.

Whoever the next English, or indeed British saint is, he or she will be announced after a slow and expensive process of canonisation, having had a great deal of natural and supernatural help.

Recently, Pope Francis has reminded the Church of the call to sanctity for each Christian. The Pope also pointed to where many of these saints are to be found: “Think of the many elderly people who are alone, who pray and give. Think of the many mothers and fathers who work hard for their families, for their children’s education, in their job, tackling problems, never losing hope in Jesus and never showing off but getting on with life as best they can.”

It could be said, then, the next British saint is here already: in a London hospital’s cancer ward, at a night shelter for Glasgow’s homeless, or kneeling as the Consecration takes place in a sparsely attended, out-of-the-way Welsh church – in truth, there are saints all around us.

Ain't It the Truth?

Heresy in the Catechism. Wolf in the Vatican. No Shepherds in Sight.

Steve Skojec's essay on Francis' newest heresy, with a disquisition by a qualified theologian. There is no doubt now that Francis is a material heretic. How long until he refuses correction and becomes a formal heretic?

From One Peter Five

Just as the latest round of homosexual network and sex abuse allegations in the Church are reaching a fever pitch, Pope Francis – who has been eerily quiet of late – dropped a nuclear theological bomb into our midst.

From Crux:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the death penalty now is no longer admissible under any circumstances.

The Vatican announced on Thursday Pope Francis approved changes to the compendium of Catholic teaching published under Pope John Paul II.

“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church now says on the death penalty, adding that the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

As I have previously attempted to demonstrate, this is simply theologically wrong. There’s no way around that. But I wanted the opinion of an expert – which I am not – so I reached out this morning to a trustworthy theologian who is well versed in the finer distinctions of Magisterial authority and its limits. This was the response I received:

The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the intrinsic morality of the death penalty is irreformable dogma. To deny this or assert the contrary is formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this doctrine regardless of any changes to the Catechism.

What does it mean to say that this is “formally heretical”?

1. Formal versus material heresy. This is a distinction pertaining to the objective status of doctrinal propositions. A heresy is any proposition opposed to any dogma. Two things are required for a doctrine to be dogma: (1) it must be contained in divine revelation and (2) it must be proposed as such by the Church (either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium). If both of these requirements are met, then the doctrine is a formal dogma, and the denial of such a dogma is a formal heresy. If a doctrine is contained in divine revelation but has not yet been proposed as such by the Church, then it can be called a “material dogma”. Such was the case with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the patristic and medieval periods. Material heresy is the denial of a material dogma.

2. Formal versus material heretic. This is a distinction pertaining to the subjective culpability of persons. A heretic is a person who believes or teaches heresy. A material heretic is a person who believes or teaches something which is objectively a heresy; a formal heretic is one who continues to do so obstinately after having been duly corrected.

So in the case of the dogma of the intrinsic morality of the death penalty, the denial of this dogma is formally heretical, since it contradicts a doctrine which is contained in divine revelation and which has been proposed as such by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The person who denies this dogma is a material heretic simply in virtue of his denial; but he is not formally a heretic unless he persists in his denial after having been duly corrected.

What is so absurd about this moment in the Church is that to simply reiterate Church teaching in the face of it being contradicted from the highest office is so dangerous for a theologian in full communion that I am compelled to protect this person’s identity.

I don’t know what to add to the above. We are way off the map at this point in rough and uncharted waters. I began arguing that the Galatians 2 moment had arrived back when Francis had given the green light for eugenic contraception in 2016. Things have only gotten worse since.

Bishops of the world, if you are orthodox and you care at all about the faith or the souls being lost due to the relentless barrage of scandal and error coming from Rome, you have a moral duty to correct this pope. 

Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Brandmüller, Cardinal Müller, Bishop Schneider – your names come first to mind, but there are others. Hiding out and making oblique references to what is happening and condemning errors without discussing their source is not sufficient in the eyes of the faithful. The scandal of this pope is only compounded by the absolute lack of confrontation on the part of our bishops who will not rebuke this disaster by name, to the face, as St. Paul did to St. Peter in Galatians 2:11.

Dom Prosper Guéranger wrote that “[w]hen the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.”

Are you really going to force us to do this alone?

Am I the only one...

...who thinks it extremely convenient that Francis' latest heresy has only been made public in the midst of the firestorm surrounding Francis' coven of perverts and thieves?

Or could it be this?

Killing Capital Punishment: Francis vs. the Catholic Church

In response to Francis' latest egregious spouting the stinking swill of heresy, Chris Ferrara has written an excellent, reasoned response based on Holy Scripture and the Magisterium. Francis on the other hand seems firmly wedded to the Spirit of the Age, and to simply grab his heretical, false 'magisterium' out of thin air from whatever  nonsense is floating around.  

From The Remnant

For the past five years the Church has suffered under a Pope who actually believes that the Magisterium is literally whatever he thinks. To quote his own admission in this regard, made during one of his infamous interviews: “I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think. Check it out; it’s very clear.” 

It occurs to me that a “magisterium” one is urged to “check out” might have a rather ephemeral quality quite inconsistent with the concept of the Magisterium rightly understood. And now the ephemeral, which is to say fake, magisterium of Jorge Mario Bergoglio—the name he insisted must still appear on his passport—has expanded again. This time Bergoglio tells us what he thinks about capital punishment. And what he thinks is that the death penalty is per se immoral.

So, as the press happily reported, Bergoglio decided he would “change Church teaching” to suit his view—just as he pronounced “authentic Magisterium” his view that certain public adulterers should be granted absolution and admitted to Holy Communion while continuing to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage.

Accordingly, today the Vatican published an announcement that Francis has approved a “new text” for § 2267 of the Catechism of John Paul II. It reads as follows:

The Death Penalty:

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

Notice how the constant teaching of Magisterium on the moral legitimacy of the death penalty is deliberately concealed behind the vague phrase “long considered an appropriate response” to capital crimes, as if a Catholic teaching rooted in Revelation were some sort of passing popular sentiment.

In order to dress up his personal opinion, by which he purports to declare immoral what the Church has always defended as morally licit, Bergoglio’s text offers the feeblest of rationales amounting to little more than a few empty phrases: “an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes… a new understanding… of the significance of penal sanctions…more effective systems of detention…”

First of all, the Church did not lack an awareness of the relation between human dignity and crime before Bergoglio’s arrival from Buenos Aires. In fact, God Almighty seems to have been under the impression that human dignity actually requires capital punishment for the crime of murder: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man (Gen 9:6).” And God evidently had human dignity in mind when, in the 20th chapter of Leviticus, He dictated to Moses the death penalty for human sacrifice and other grave offenses against the divine and natural law.

Then too there is Christ’s own affirmation to Pilate that he had authority from above to impose capital punishment, as well as the Good Thief’s recognition that his punishment was just—precisely a sign of the humility and repentance that saved his soul.

But then, what God has revealed seems to have little impact on the thinking of Jorge Bergoglio. Check it out!

Unlike Bergoglio, the Magisterium adheres to the will of God in defending capital punishment. Thus, for example, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, echoing Genesis 9, declared: “The use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder.” Four centuries later, Ven. Pope Pius XII reaffirmed this invariant teaching: “Even when it is a question of someone condemned to death, the state does not dispose of an individual’s right to life. It is then the task of public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life,in expiation of his fault, after he has already deprived himself of the right to life by his crime.” (AAS, 1952, pp. 779 et. seq).

As to the supposed “new understanding… of the significance of penal sanctions,” what is gratuitously asserted without the least explanation may be just as gratuitously rejected. We have no idea what this means, nor should we care.

The contention that “more effective systems of detention” somehow render capital punishment immoral is about as firm a foundation for a purported “new” moral teaching as a slab of wet pound cake, and just as easily demolished. The mere civil capacity for detention of convicted killers does not eliminate just retribution and expiation as legitimate aims of penal law, as Pius XII makes clear in the teaching cited above.

Moreover, what of the many places where “systems of detention” are inadequate to ensure public safety? Is the death penalty inadmissible even in such places, where murderers­— by paying bribes, for example—can rather easily escape and claim more victims? And what would Bergoglio have to say about prisoners who kill guards or inmates even in the most modern “systems of detention”? How has the State “ensured the due protection of citizens” when killers are able to kill again? What nonsense.

The notion that modern “systems of detention” provide means of “redemption” more consistent with human dignity is laughable. The maximum-security prisons in which murderers, including serial killers, must be confined are generally sinkholes of violence and sexual depravity—literally hell on earth.

Finally, based on nothing but a single address by Bergoglio to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy for the New Evangelization, constituting the one and only footnote, the new text concludes: “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

“The Church” teaches nothing of the kind. Only Bergoglio does. According to his novel opinion, for nearly 2,000 years the Magisterium, in fidelity to the word of God, has defended as morally licit what he now denounces as “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” This absurd claim cannot be treated as if it were really Church teaching. If it were, there would be no Magisterium as such but only the views of whoever happens to occupy the Chair of Peter at a given moment in history. As Rorate Caeli observes: “If such a certain doctrine of the Church (of the possibility of the death penalty at least in some situations), affirmed by Christ Himself… can be changed, then anything can be changed.”

Meanwhile, the same Pope who calls for the worldwide abolition of capital punishment for the guilty has never called for the worldwide abolition of capital punishment for innocents in the womb, who are not afforded even the most minimal due process before their lives are snuffed out by the millions. Bergoglio remained silent even when mass murder of the unborn was about to be legalized in Ireland. That tells us all we need to know about Bergoglio and his fake magisterium.

May God soon deliver the Church from the clutches of this man and send us the holy and courageous Pope who will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and make a beginning to the end of this insanity.

Italy's Pro-Crucifix Bill Has an Unlikely Opponent: the Pope's Close Advisor

Not unlikely at all. Spadaro is just one of the heretic anti-Catholics with which Francis surrounds himself. And Cardinal Marx(ist) is another one!

From CTV News

Francis poses with  Antonio Spadaro,
at the Vatican
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017.
(L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

ROME -- A close adviser to Pope Francis criticized legislation proposed by Italy's anti-migrant League party to require ports and other public institutions to display a crucifix, saying Wednesday that the religious symbol isn't "a team emblem" to be shown for political ends.

"If you remove the (religious) symbolism from the crucifix ... it becomes a parody," the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor of the Jesuit magazine Civilta Cattolica, said during a Rome conference on the Pope.

A tweet Spardaro posted earlier in the day with a blunt "Hands off!" went viral. The crucifix, he wrote, "screams love to the enemy and unconditional welcome."

The pending bill would require a crucifix to be displayed in all public spaces and institutions, including ports and universities. As now written, it allows violators to be fined up to 1,000 euros ($1,170.)It was an apparent critique of the hard line Italy's current populist government has taken on immigration. The interior minister in the coalition government leads the right-wing League and has kept migrant rescue ships from docking in Italy.

Although some Italian decrees technically require displaying the cross in public schools, not all schools abide by them. The issue has come before the European Court of Justice, which ruled in 2011 in favour of Italy's display policy.

The crucifix debate marked the latest dust-up over migration that has riled up the Catholic Church in Italy.

Weekly magazine Famiglia Cristiana published an issue Wednesday with a photo of Interior Minister Matteo Salvini on the cover and the warning "Retreat, Salvini" in Latin.

Italy's Catholic leaders have largely taken to heart Francis' appeal for governments to accept as many migrants as possible. The magazine cover as well as Spadaro's comment reflected their growing unease with the government's position.

Salvini said the magazine cover was in bad taste.

"I'm the last among good Christians, but I don't think I deserve this," the ANSA news agency quoted him as saying.

Italy isn't alone in dealing with the crucifix issue, which has flared anew as large numbers of refugees and migrants from countries that are not predominantly Christian seek asylum in Europe.

A similar debate broke out in May, when the German state of Bavaria passed a law ordering the display of the cross at the entrance of state buildings.

Munich Cardinal Reinhard Marx, head of the German bishops' conference, voiced opposition to the law, saying that considering the cross to be a cultural symbol reflected a misunderstanding of its meaning.

Cardinal Coccopalmerio Has Excluded Himself From Catholic Church

Another of Francis' toadies spouting the stinking swill of heresy!

From Gloria.tv

Pro-gay Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, 80, whose secretary was caught 2017 in a gay and drug-party, supports intercommunion.

Talking to Francis’ court journalist Andrea Tornielli on Vatican Insider (August 1), Coccopalmerio called a heretical document of the German bishops’ "allowing" Protestant Communion “important”, “very interesting” and “written with great care”.

According to Cocopalmerio Protestants married to Catholics should receive Communion “every time” they attend Holy Mass in order not to “divide” the couple [although the couple does not mind not to share the same faith].

For him it is “not a necessary condition” to believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in order to receive Holy Communion but it is "sufficient" to "believe" that the bread and wine consecrated in Holy Mass are the body and the blood of Jesus Christ.

This heresy has been condemned by the Council of Trent, "lf anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist; let him be anathema." - Session XIII, Canon XI.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider Warns Of Dangerous Gay Marches

When God gives us a Catholic Pope again can the new Pontiff please give Bishop Schneider a high position in the Vatican?

From Gloria.tv

Gay marches in Western cities, supported by the local oligarchs, “unmistakably resemble the propaganda marches of various totalitarian political regimes of the past” Kazakhstan Bishop Athanasius Schneider wrote in a statement (July 28).

Schneider grew up in the Soviet Union.

He points out that the Catholic Church “has not yet officially” joined the unanimous chorus of support and therefore calls it euphemistically “the last bastion of resistance”.

At the same time, Schneider admits that an increasing number of priests, bishops and cardinals publicly express their support for gay totalitarianism.

Schneider elaborates that the intolerance of gender ideology requires totalitarian adherence which could put the Church in a situation of persecution like in the first centuries.

Francis Changes Catechism - Believes That The Church Was Wrong Until He Came

This heretical change to the Catechism, according to news reports, was made in May. Is it a coincidence that it's first being publicised in the midst of the firestorm caused by 'Uncle Ted' and the other evil, corrupt perverts and financial fraudsters that inhabit the fœtid swamp around Francis? I think not!

From Gloria.tv

Pope Francis has attempted to "change" the Catechism to definitively oppose the death penalty.

Vatican.va (August 2) published a new text declaring that “the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel” that the death penalty is “inadmissible” in all cases. There is no evidence that the Gospel deems the death penalty to be inadmissible as such.

Rom 13,1-7 definitely recognises the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate.

Francis contradicts the teaching of the Bible and the Church that the death penalty is in itself morally legitimate, independently from the question of whether, in a concrete situation, it is practically opportune to perform it.

In an explanatory letter, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, calls the wrong teaching an “authentic development" of doctrine that is allegedly "not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.”

This is another example of why Francis pontificate cannot be taken seriously.

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on The Gods of the Gentiles

A fascinating discussion on whether or not the 'Gods of the Gentiles' might have been Angels of God.

Word of the Day: Terce

SEXT. The part of the Divine Office that is said at the sixth hour, that is, about midday. Depending on the time of day, the one reciting the office has a choice of saying Terce, Sext, or None. +++++ All three Day Hours are still required of Religious chanting or saying the Office in common, even under the lax rubrics of McOffice. Again, the 'Midday Hour' sadly totally destroys the ancient structure of the Sevenfold Office based on the Psalmist.

The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property

Belloc on the Church's view of private property.

From the ChesterBelloc Mandate

The Catholic Church, then, is the protagonist on the one side, and a body of thought, vaguely grouped under the term “Socialist” is the protagonist on the other-and this division rules throughout Europe.

Let us now examine the exact doctrine of the Catholic Church in this matter.

I think it may be fairly stated as follows :-

1. The right to property in material things is a moral right, attaching not only to the community, but also to private corporations, .i.e., corporations other than the community, to families, and to individuals.
2. This right extends not only over objects consumed in use, but also over objects consumed in production, and over land. It does not attach to particular categories of things. Its boundaries may vary with varying customs and traditions. But its presence as a normal institution of human society is essential to the health of that society.
3. Like every other right, this right stands in a certain scale of proportion to the rest. It may be suspended for the service of a greater right; it must not be suspended for the service of a lesser.
4. Finally, this function of property, like all other human attributes, is distorted when it is defined in isolation. It must be taken in with the mass of all other human functions, and is subject, as is every one of them, to the general modifications imposed by the generalities of human existence.

This definition is a long one, and contains several terms necessarily vague. It is none the less, I think, inclusive and exclusive, and if we put it to the test of a few concrete instances, we shall find it will stand the test.

(a) During a siege, or in a boat of shipwrecked men, when one individual or portion of the community owns the sole store of food, has he a right in property over it? Can he use it or withhold it at pleasure?

No. His right in property yields to a higher right, which is the right of human beings to subsistence. What was his property in normal circumstances can be claimed for the use of all and distributed to all.

(b) A portion of the community owns all the stores of clothing, housing, and food. In the exercise of this right, many of the community suffer wretchedness; they have not a normal human subsistence. Is the government bound to respect the right of Private Property to such a degree as to allow the wretchedness to continue?

No. The general needs of human existence here modify the strict isolated definition of Private Property. Human subsistence must be found and the wretchedness must be relieved. It is better that this be done by the owner of his own will. Such an action is of profit to him as well as to his neighbour. But if he fail in this, the executive power of the community has a moral right to interfere.

(c) I suffer some discomfort and annoyance, not to the degree of wretchedness or misery. I am disturbed, but not lowered in my human dignity nor seriously interfered with in my main human functions, by the unequal distribution of goods. Have I the right to compel a more equal distribution under these circumstances, or has the executive of the State, the “Prince” as it may technically be called, the moral right to interfere with the institution of Private Property for my relief?

No. I have not the right to do so-it would be theft. Nor has the government the right to do it for me. It would be injustice. It is, of course, a question of degree and of circumstances. But the distinction between wretchedness and annoyance or discomfort is a very important one, for in it lies one great part of the modern quarrel. If Property be not a moral institution with moral rights attaching to it, then even a small measure of discomfort due to unequal distribution has a right to relief at the expense of the better off. But if it is a moral institution, then only acute necessity has an imperative right to relief at the expense of existing property.

(d) If by the vote of a conscious, active, and sincere majority-the real expression of strong majority opinion-it be determined that Private Property shall cease to exist in the State, and that the control of material objects shall be vested solely in the officials of the State, is the execution of that decision, with the consequences it involves, moral or not?

It is immoral. No mere majority vote can justly suppress a normal human right. The right of a majority to govern is less than the right of a man to normal living. Thus a majority would not have the right to forbid marriage to the minority merely because it was a majority, and because those thus unjustly treated were a minority.

(e) If the whole of a political* community comes to such a decision that property shall cease among its members, would that decision be moral, and might it stand without offence to justice?

Yes; supposing such a purely hypothetical state of affairs to be possible it would create no injustice. Supposing a political body of men to adopt this inhuman conclusion, then, while they were in that mood, obviously they could so act without doing wrong to any member; being all agreed.

In both these cases, you have again what comes in everywhere in human affairs-the question of degree. The former of the two propositions just mentioned is quite clear in the case of fifty-one men with an income of £200 a year establishing Communism by a majority vote, because the other forty-nine had £250 a year each. But it is less obvious, and indeed less true, as the proportion changes. An overwhelming majority of a community in which a very few controlled all land and machinery would have the right to effect a better distribution but not on that account to deny the fundamental principle of Property.

Again, a community wholly Communist with one or two small proprietors in its midst might justly insist on the disappearance of such anomalies.

But none of these cases can, in the real world, arise. Men do not desire to dispossess themselves of property, nor by a free vote would they ever destroy its existence where it was generally established. But in pure theory an overwhelming majority, and still more unanimity of opinion, is the master of its own temporal arrangements. It would be ridiculous to deny, for instance, that a few score emigrant families, filled with a Communist enthusiasm and starting out to found their Utopia, had no moral right to pool their private properties and make the experiment. Of course they have that right.

And here I must note a principle which will have to be repeated more than once even in these few pages.

Though Catholic principle does not deny the right of an isolated community to act thus, and it certainly does not call it sinful to act thus, yet it does most emphatically deny the normality of the action. Catholic principle does most certainly affirm that men in their right senses and with any hope of establishing a permanent organization, must base this upon the co-existence of Private Property side by side with Public. Catholic common sense perceives that, in a very short time, Communist experiment would lead in practice to the contravention of certain other Catholic principles which are absolute.

Among other things, it would lead to the super-session of the authority of the Family by that of the State, and to the negation of individual freedom in things where such a freedom is essential to the salvation of the soul.

* Religious orders are not a case in point. They abandon property precisely because property is normal to ordinary human life in this world, from which they withdraw themselves for a peculiar unpolitical, unworldly end. Their community of goods is no more an argument against property than is their celibacy against marriage.

Homosexual Culture in the National Seminary? Honduran Bishops Deny...

So these corrupt false shepherds deny there's a problem? One of the (at least) financially corrupt Rodríguez Maradiaga's auxiliaries just had his resignation accepted by the chief enabler Francis. The stench of evil is overpowering in the Church in Honduras. Its financially corrupt Ordinary is a close advisor to Francis, chairing his C9 Council of Cardinal Advisors, so Francis 'delayed' accepting Pineda's resignation til the Uncle Ted scandal broke, I assume hoping that accepting it might take some of the heat off. Heat that is justly applied, since Francis and his toadies are protecting a nest of vipers, a den of thieves, and a coven of false shepherds! 

From Gloria.tv

The Honduran bishops' conference denied on July 29 that there is a homosexual culture in their national seminary, as Edward Pentin reported.

Nevertheless, Pentin stands by his article which is based on a letter signed by 48 [sic!] out of 180 seminarians. It was submitted to the June Plenary Assembly of the Honduran bishops.

The bishops' statement regrets that Pentin's report [and not the deplorable state of affairs] “causes pain and scandal”.

The statement ignores the facts listed in the letter of the seminarians and all the other substantiated facts presented by Pentin, like homosexual pornography shared by the seminarians.

Satan’s Church: Catholic Group «Best Formation» During Gay March

Remember that the anti-Catholic heretic, Kasper the Friendly Ghost, was Ordinary of Stuttgart for ten years. He obviously laid good groundwork for his master, Satan.

From Gloria.tv

A gay jury chose the «Katholische Junge Gemeinde» (Young Catholic Community) as the best formation among the 90 organisations which participated at this year’s Stuttgart Christopher Street Day, an event promoting homosexual propaganda.

The "Katholische junge Gemeinde" (KjG) is a Catholic youth organization in Germany, officially recognised and promoted by the local heterodox bishops.

During the march, the KjG displayed the slogan «Jesus also had two fathers!» and the lie, Pope Francis told a homosexual in May, "God created you that way, God loves you that way, and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say about it."

The German bishops’ official webpage published a commentary about the scandal entitled, «Catholics, celebrate with the homosexuals!».

One member of the gay jury awarding the KjG was the German supreme judge Jürgen Schmidt-Räntsch who since 2014 wears a wig and calls himself «Johanna».

Pro-gay Cardinal Walter Kasper, was from 1989 until 1999 diocesan bishop of Stuttgart-Rottenburg. He owes his career to John Paul II.